The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAliano, Nicholas IJ 1 John Kalas Jerry Kalas 255 Huntington Bay Road 185 Whistler Road Huntington NY 11743 Manhasset, NY 11030 631.223.2721 January 16,2012 By Fax 631-765-6641 and Mail Board of Trustees,Town of Southold Town Hall Annex Building 54375 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold NY 11971 In re: Petition of Nicholas Aliano SCTM#1000-83-01-11 &12 Dear Board of Trustees,Town of Southold We are writing in response to a notice received from Cramer Consulting on or about 1/8/2012, which was postmarked on 1/6,%2012 and dated on 1/4 2012 regarding the referenced petition. The notice was sent to Jerry Kailas only. We are sending this objection in advance of the hearing as I may not be able to attend. Jerry Kalas and I own the adjoining parcel (995 Glen Court)to the west of the affected parcel,on Glen Court. We object to the granting of a permit or variance for the construction of a single family dwelling. We do not think any,setbacks would conform with the area and object to construction as it is well within 100 feet of thelong island sound bluff line. Moreover,we object to a non-conforiming driveway and access from Glen Court,as all but one house has at least 100 feet of street frontage. The one exception is one home that has 50 feet street frontage. The proposed construction would have less than 30 feet of frontage on Glen Court and would affect the harmony of the cul de sac homes on Glen Court. All of these issues were previously addressed by the Town Zoning Board of Appeals,which denied the variances in 2006. Both the bluff set back and the driveway variance issues were addressed at the hearings. Their decision was upheld by the NY Supreme Court in 2010. A copy of the decision is attached. Without good cause;this Board should not upset the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Please contact me if you have any questions. e ly, =; s f � John alas Enclosures 45upreme Tourt of t4je —*tate of New fork Appellate lgiuision: -�§etoab Jubirial Beparttntnt D26656 W/prt AD3d Argued - December 17, 2009 A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J. WILLIAM F. MASTRO ANITA R. FLORIO LEONARD B. AUSTIN, JJ. 2009-02136 DECISION & ORDER In the Matter of Nicholas Aliano, appellant, v Ruth D. Oliva, etc., et al., respondents. (Index No. 23694/06) Scheyer& Jellenik,Nesconset,N.Y. (Richard I. Scheyer of counsel), for appellant. Smith, Finkelstein, Lundberg, Isler &Yakaboski, LLP, Riverhead,N.Y. (Frank A. Isler of counsel), for respondents. In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review a determination of the Director of Code Enforcement of the Town of Southold dated January 6,2006,confirming a stop work order issued in connection with construction on the petitioner's property, and a determination ofZoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold dated August 31,2006,denying the petitioner's application for an area variance, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County. (Whelan, J.), entered February 10, 2009, which, upon an order of the same court dated June 10, 2007, granting those branches of the respondents' motion which were pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)and 7804(0 to dismiss, for failure to state a cause of action and because the petitioner failed to exhaust available administrative remedies, those branches of the amended petition which were to annul the determination dated January 6, 2006,to annul the determination dated August 31, 2006, on the grounds that it deprived the petitioner of vested rights, deprived him of property in the absence of due process, and constituted an unconstitutional taking of private property for a public purpose without just compensation, to compel the reinstatement of a building permit, and to enjoin the respondents from interfering with the construction work arid, in effect,denying that branch of the petition which was to annul the determination dated August 31, 2006, on the ground that it was arbitrary and capricious, and upon an order of the same court dated December 16, 2008, denying those branches of the petition alleging violations of Town Law § 267 and the Open Meetings Law (Public Officers Law art 7), is in favor of the respondents and against him dismissing the proceeding. ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs. April 20, 2010 Page 1. MATTER OF ALIANO v OLIVA On November 4, 2005, the petitioner obtained a building permit from the Town of Southold to construct a one-story house with a 42-foot setback on a bluff overlooking the Long Island Sound(hereinafter the permit). The Town's Director of Code Enforcement issued an oral stop work order on January 5,2006,and confirmed that determination in writing on January 6,2006,after finding that the permit was mistakenly issued in violation of the local zoning ordinance, which requires a 100-foot setback from the edge of the bluff. The petitioner applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold (hereinafter the ZBA) in February 2006 for an area variance permitting him to resume construction with a reduced setback. After:a series of hearings which commenced in March 2006, and upon the ZBA's receipt of additional written submissions,the ZBA denied the application for the area variance in a determination dated August 31, 2006. The .petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 .proceeding against the ZBA, its members, and the Town (hereinafter collectively the respondents) on September 5, 2006. In an amended petition,the petitioner sought, inter alia,to annul the determination dated January 6,2006, confirming the stop work order,to compel the ZBA to grant the application for an area variance,to annul the ZBA's determination denying the area variance on the grounds that the determination was arbitrary and capricious,that the ZBA and the Town violated the procedural requirements of Town Law § 267 and the Open Meetings Law (Public Officers Law art 7) in denying the variance application, and that the ZBA and other Town officers officially adopted and promulgated a policy effecting the deprivation of his constitutional rights. The respondents moved to dismiss the amended petition on the grounds,inter alia,that the petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and that the amended petition failed to state a cause of action. In an order dated June 10, 2007, the Supreme Court granted those branches of the respondents' motion which were pursuant to CPLR 32 l 1(a)and 7804(f)to dismiss,for failure to state a cause of action and because the petitioner failed to exhaust available administrative remedies, those branches of the amended petition which were to annul the determination dated January 6, 2006, to annul the determination dated August 31, 2006, on the grounds that it deprived the petitioner of vested rights, deprived him of property in the absence of due process, and constituted an unconstitutional taking of private property for a public purpose without just compensation, to compel the reinstatement of a building permit, and to enjoin the respondents from interfering with the construction work. The Supreme Court, in effect, denied that branch of the amended petition which was to annul the determination dated August 31, 2006, on the ground that it was arbitrary and capricious. The Supreme Court denied those branches of the respondents' motion which were to dismiss those branches of the amended petition alleging violations of Town Law § 267 and the Open Meetings Law. After the respondents answered the remaining branches of the amended petition,the Supreme Court,in an order dated December 16,2008,denied those branches of the amended petition which alleged violations of Town Law § 267 and the Open Meetings Law. On February 10,2009,the Supreme Court entered a judgment which, upon the orders dated June 10, 2007, and December 16, 2008, was in favor of the respondents and against the petitioner dismissing the proceeding. We affirm the judgment. April 20, 2010 Page 2. MATTER OF ALIANO v OLIVA "It is hornbook law that one who objects to the act of an administrative agency must exhaust available administrative remedies before being permitted to litigate in a court of law" (Watergate HApts. v Buffalo SewerAuth., 46 NY2d 52, 57;see Matter of Goldberg v Incorporated Vil. of Roslyn Estates, 61 AD3d 756;Matter of Lucas v Village of Mamaroneck, 57 AD3d 786). In the case at bar,the petitioner was required to appeal the issuance of the stop work order to the ZBA within 60 days after the filing of the stop work order on January 6,2006(see Town Law§267-a[4], [5][b]; Code of Town of Southold § 280-146.A; § 280-153). However, although the petitioner applied for a variance in February 2006 (see Code of Town of Southold § 280-146.13), the record is devoid of any evidence that he appealed the stop work order at any time after it was issued. Consequently, the Supreme Court properly determined that the petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to his challenge to the stop work order, which extinguished his right to judicial review ofthat determination(see CPLR 7801;see Matter of Goldbergv Incorporated Vil. of Roslyn Estates, 61 AD3d 756; Matter of Lucas v Village of Mamaroneck, 57 AD3d 786). Accordingly,the Supreme Court correctly granted that branch of the respondents' motion which was to dismiss, for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, that branch of the petition as sought to annul the stop work order. The Supreme Court properly granted those branches ofthe respondents'motion which were to dismiss those branches of the amended petition alleging a deprivation of vested and constitutional rights, and seeking related injunctive relief, since the allegations contained in those branches of the amended petition, even if true, do not state a cause of action (see generally Bower Assocs. v Town of Pleasant Valley, 2 NY3d 617;cf. Town of Orangetown v Magee, 88 NY2d 41). The petitioner's failure to exhaust administrative remedies in connection with his judicial challenge to the stop work order does not foreclose judicial review of his separate challenge to the ZBA's denial of his application for an area variance since those challenges involve different, and possibly inconsistent, remedies (see generally Matter of Level 3 Communications, LLC v DeBellis, AD3d , 2010 NY Slip Op 00517, *7 [2d Dept 2010]; Town of Orangetown v Magee, 88 NY2d 41; compare Code of Town of Southold § 280-146.A with Code of Town of Southold § 280-146.13) . Specifically,the petitioner's application for an area variance constitutes an implicit concession that his construction activities were not in compliance with the applicable provisions of the zoning code, and that there was a rational basis for the issuance of the stop work order on the ground of noncompliance with the zoning code. With respect to the merits of the petitioner's challenge to the ZBA's denial of his application for an area variance, local-zoning boards have broad discretion in considering applications for variances, and judicial review is limited to determining whether the action taken by the board was illegal, arbitrary, or an abuse of discretion (see Matter of Pecoraro v Board of Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 2 NY3d 608, 613; Matter of Ifrah v Utschig, 98 NY2d 304, 308; Matter of Gallo v Rosell, 52 AD3d 514, 515). Thus, the determination of a zoning board should be sustained upon judicial review if it is not illegal, has a rational basis,and is not arbitrary and capricious(see Matter of Sasso v Osgood, 86 NY2d 374,384; Matter of Roberts v Wright, 70 AD3d 1041; Matter of Gallo v Rosell, 52 AD3d at 515). In determining whether to grant an application for an area variance, a town's zoning board is required to engage in a balancing test weighing the benefit to the applicant against the detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood or community if the variance is granted (see Town Law§267=b[3];see also Matter of Roberts v Wright, 70 AD3d 1041;cf. Matter April 20, 2010 Page 3. MATTER OF ALIANO v OLIVA of Tsunis v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Inc. Vil. of Poquott, 59 AD3d 726, 727; Matter of Gallo v Rosell, 52 AD3d at 515). The'zoning board must also consider whether: (1) an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood, or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance, (2)the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other method, other,than an area variance, feasible for the applicant to pursue, (3) the required area variance is substantial, (4)the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district, and (5) the alleged difficulty was self-created (seei Town Law § 267-b[3][b]; see also Matter of Roberts v Wright, 70 AD3d 1041;Matter of Gallo v Rosell, 52 AD3d at 515). Here,the ZBA's determination to deny the petitioner's application for an area variance ' was not illegal, had a rational basis, and was not arbitrary and capricious, since the ZBA properly considered the relevant statutory factors, and rationally concluded, based on the evidence in the record, that the variance sought was substantial and self-created, and that the granting of the requested area variance would have an undue adverse impact on the physical and environmental conditions of the relevant neighborhood and produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood(see generally Matter of Pecoraro v Board ofAppeals of Town of Hempstead,2 NY3d 608). Accordingly,the Supreme Court properly, in effect,denied that branch ofthe amended petition which was to annul the ZBA's determination on the ground that it was arbitrary and capricious(see CPLR 7803[3]). Furthermore, even if the ZBA violated the Open Meetings Law when it denied the petitioner's variance application on August 31, 2006, that determination was made after a series of public meetings, and also after;June 8,2006,the agreed-upon date by which the petitioner and other interested persons were-permitted to submit additional information for the ZBA's consideration. Accordingly, the circumstances are not sufficient to warrant the annulment of the ZBA's determination on the ground that the ZBA's determination was made in violation of lawful procedure or was affected by an error of law by virtue of a violation of the Open Meetings Law (see Public Officers Law § 107[1]; Matter of Cipriano v Board of Zoning Appeals of City of Glen Cove, 203 AD2d 362;cf. Matter of Wilson v Board of Educ. Harborfrelds Cent. School Div, 65 AD3d 1158, lv denied 13 NY3d 714; Matter of Halperin v City of New Rochelle, 24 AD3d 768, 777). The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit. PRUDENTI, P.J., MASTRO, FLORIO and AUSTIN, JJ., concur. ENTER: James Edward Pelzer Clerk of the Court April 20, 2010 Page 4. MATTER OF ALIANO v OLIVA FROM: John Kalas 255 Huntington Bay Road Huntington NY 11743 631.223.2721 �p�yA72012 FAX COVER DATE: January 16, 2012 Pages: 6 To; By Fax 631-765-6641, Board of Trustees, Town of Southold Town Hall Annex Building 54375 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold NY 11971 RE: In re. Petition of Nicholas Aliano SCTM#1000-83-01-11 & 12 TO 39Vd SV-IVA NHOf 089C-Tzv-9T9 90:00 6662/T0/T0 John Kalas Jerry Kalas 255 Huntington Bay Road 185 Whistler Road Huntington NY 11743 Manhasset,NY 11030 631.223.2721 January 16,2012 Hy Fax 631-765-6641 and Mail Af Board of Trustees,Town of Southold Town Hall Annex Building 54375 Route 25 3 P.O.Box 1179 _ L Southold NY 11971 In re: Petition of NicholasAliano SCTM#1000-83-01-11&12 Dear Board of Trustees,Town:of Southold We are writing in response to a notice received from Cramer Consulting on or about 1/8/2012, which was postmarked on 1/6/2012 and dated on 1/4 2012 regarding the referenced petition. The notice was sent to Jerry Kalas only. We are sending this objection in advance of the hearing as 1 may not be able to attend. Jerry Kalas and I own the adjoining parcel(995 Glen Court)to the west of the affected parcel,on Glen Court. We object to the granting of a permit or variance for the construction of a single family dwelling. We do not think any setbacks would conform with the area and object to construction as it is well within 100 feet of the long island sound bluff line. Moreover,we object to a non-conforiming driveway and access from Glen Court,as all but one house has at least 100 feet of street frontage. The one exception is one home that has 50 feet street frontage. The proposed construction would have less than 30 feet of frontage on Glen Court and would affect the harmony of the cul de sac homes on Glen Court All of these issues were previously addressed by the Town Zoning Board of Appeals,which denied the variances in 2006.Both the bluff set back and the driveway variance issues were addressed at the hearings. Their decision was upheld by the NY Supreme Court in 2010. A copy of the decision is attached. Without good cause,this Board should not upset the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Please contact me if you have any questions. e ly, John , alas Enclosures ZO 30Vd STIVA NHOf V89£-ZZb-915 9000 6661/10/10 Ouprenu (court of t4e J*tate of New lark Appellate Igiuioton: Oeconb xubirial i9epartment D26656 W/prt AD3d ?? ;.,' ="ued -December 17,2009 A. GAIL PRU'bENTI, P.J. WILLIAM F.MASTRO ° .f AN 17 ANITA R.FLORID �1z LEONARD H.AUSTIN, JJ. 2009-02136 DECISION& ORDER In the Matter of Nicholas Aliano,appellant, v Ruth D.Oliva,etc.,et al.,respondents. (Index No.23694/06) Scheyer&Jellenik,Nesconset,N.Y.(Richard I. Scheyer of counsel),for appellant. Smith, Finkelstein, Lundberg, lsler &Yakaboski, LLP, Riverhead,N.Y.(Frank A. Isler of counsel), for respondents. In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia,to review a determination of the Director ofCode Enforcement ofthe Town of Southold dated January 6,2006,confirming a stop work order issued in connection with construction on the petitioner's property, and a determination ofZoning Board of Appeals ofthe Town of Southold dated August 31,2006,denying the petitioner's application for an area variance, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County(Whelan, J.), entered February 10, 2009, which, upon an order of the same court dated June 10, 2007, granting those branches of the respondents' motion which were pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)and 7804(0 to dismiss,for failure to state a cause of action and because the petitioner failed to exhaust available administrative remedies, those branches of the amended petition which were to annul the determination dated January 6,2006,to annul the determination dated August 31, 2006,on the grounds that it deprived the petitioner of vested rights,deprived him of property in the absence of due process, and constituted an unconstitutional taking of private property for a public purpose without just compensation,to compel the reinstatement of a building permit,and to enjoin the respondents from interfering with the construction work and,in effect,denying that branch ofthe petition which was to annul the determination dated August 31, 2006, on the ground that it was arbitrary and capricious, and upon an order of the same court dated December 16, 2008,denying those branches of the petition alleging violations of Town Law § 267 and the Open Meetings Law (public Officers Law art 7),is in favor of the respondents and against him dismissing the proceeding. ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed,with costs. April 20,2010 Page 1'. MATTER OF ALIANO v OLIVA E0 39Vd SV-IVN NHOf 0896-IZV-919 90:00 666i/i0/10 On November 4, 2005, the petitioner obtained a building permit from the Town of Southold to construct a one-story house with a 42-foot setback on a bluff overlooking the Long Island Sound(hereinafter the permit). The Town's Director ofCode Enforcement issued an oral stop work order on January 5,2006,and confirmed that determination in writing on January 6,2006,after funding that the permit was mistakenly issued in violation of the local zoning ordinance, which requires a 100-foot setback from the edge of the bluff. The petitioner applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold (hereinafter the ZBA) in February 2006 for an area variance permitting him to resume construction with a reduced setback. After;a series of hearings which commenced in March 2006,and upon the ZBA's receipt ofadditional written submissions,the ZBA denied the application for the area variance in a determination dated August 31,2006. The petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding against the ZBA, its members, and the Town (hereinafter collectively the!respondents).on-September 5, 2006. In an amended petition,the petitioner sought, inter alis;to,annul the determination dated January 6,2006, confirming the stop work order,to compel the ZBA to grant the application for an area variance,to annul the ZBA's determination denying the area variance on the grounds that the determination was arbitrary and capricious,that the ZBA and the Town violated the procedural requirements of Town Law § 267 and the Open Meetings Law (Public Officers taw arc 7) in denying the variance application,and that the ZBA and other Town officers officially adopted and promulgated a policy effecting the deprivation of his constitutional rights. The respondents moved to dismiss the amended petition on the grounds,inter alfa,that the petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and that the amended petition failed to state a cause of action. In an.order dated June 10,2007,the Supreme Court granted'those branches ofthe respondents'motion which were pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)and 7804(f)to dismiss,for failure to state a cause of action and because the petitioner failed to exhaust available administrative remedies, those branches of the amended petition which were to annul the determination dated January 6,2006,to annul the determination dated August 31,2006,on the grounds that it deprived the petitioner of vested rights, deprived him of property in the absence of due process, and constituted an unconstitutional taking of private property for a public purpose without just compensation,to compel the reinstatement of building permit,and to enjoin the respondents from interfering with the construction work. The Supreme Court, in effect, denied that branch of the amended petition which was to annul the determination dated August 31,2006,on the ground that was arbitrary and capricious. The Supreme Court denied those branches of the respondents' ' not ion'whieh were to dismiss those branches of the amended petition alleging violations of Town Law §267 and the Open Meetings Law. After the respondents answered the remaining branches of the amended petition,the r: Supreme Court,in an order dated December 16,2008,denied those branches ofthe amended petition iii. 'wkich all ed violations of Town Law §267 and the Open Meetings Law. � g On February 10,2009,the Supreme Court entered a judgment which,upon the orders dated June 10, 2007, and December 16, 2008, was in favor of the respondents iand against the petitioner dismissing the proceeding. We affirm the judgment. April 20,2010 Page 2. MATTER OF ALIANO v OLIVA 00 add SV-101 NHOf OBSE-IZV-919 90:00 666T/10/10 i "It is hornbook law that one who objects to the act of an administrative agency must exhaust available administrative remedies before being permitted to litigate in a court of law" (Watergate IlApts.v Buffalo SewerAuth.,46 NY2d 52, 57;see Matter of Goldberg v Incorporated Vil. of Roslyn Estates, 61 AD3d'756;Matter of Lucas v Village:of Mamaroneck'57 AD3d 786). In the case at bar,the petitioner was required to appeal the issuance ofthe stop work order to the ZBA within 60 days after the filing of the stop work order on January 6,2006(see Town Law§267-a[4], [5][b]; Code of Town of Southold § 280-146.A;'§ 280-153). -However, although.the petitioner applied for a variance in February 2006(see Code of Town of Southold §280-146.8),the record is devoid of any evidence that he appealed the stop work order at any time after it was issued. Consequently, the Supreme Court properly determined that the petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to his challenge to-the stop work order,which extinguished his right to judicial review ofthat determination(see CPLR 7801;see Matter of Goldberg vincorporated Vil. of Roslyn Estates, 61 AD3d 756;.Matter.of Lucas v Village of Mamaroneck, 57 AD3d 786). Accordingly,the Supreme Court correctly granted that branch ofthe respondents'motion which was to dismiss, for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, that branch of the petition as sought to annul the stop work order. The Supreme Court properly granted those branches ofthe respondents'motion which ' were to dismiss those branches of the•amended.petition alleging a deprivation of vested and constitutional rights, and seeking related injunctive relief, since the allegations contained in those j branches of the amended petition,even if true,do not state a cause of action (see generally Bower Assocs. v Town of Pleasant Valley,2 NY3d 617;ef.:Town of Orangetown v Magee, 88 NY2d 41). The petitioner's failure to exhaust.administrative remedies in connection with his judicial challenge to the stop work order does not foreclose judicial review ofhis separate challenge to the ZBA's denial of his application for an area variance since those challenges involve different, and possibly inconsistent, remedies (see generally Matter of Level 3 Communicatlons, LLC v DeBellls. AD3d______ , 2010 NY Slip Op 00517, *7 [2d Dept 20101; Town of Orangetown v Magee, 88 NY2d 41;compare:Code of,Towa of Southold § 280-146.A with Code of Town of Southold § 280-146.B) . Specifically,the petitioner's application for an area variance ' constitutes an implicit concession that his construction activities were not in compliance with the applicable provisions of the zoning code, and that there was a rational basis for the issuance of the stop work order on the ground of noncompliance with the zoning code. With respect to the merits ofthe petitioner's challenge to the ZBA's denial of his application for an area variance, local zoning t w 1, , applications for variances and judicial review is limited 4 T=r r':, ' +i� �boards have broad!discretion in considering app tions inlYF1':• ,_-. 1,arb• '� ! ,,• > h "=t '' whe,#he 'tt►e actio y the board was it arbitrary,or an abuse of discretion k :s,,:, ,•, r n taken b NY3d 608,'613;Matter of j {,. (see lt�latter of Pecoraro v Board of Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 2 7frah v Utschig, 98 NY2d 304, 308; Matter of Gallo v Rosell, 52 AD3d 514, 515). Thus, the determination of a Zoning board should be sustained upon judicial review if it is not illegal, has a ! lbBsis, of Sasso v Osgood,86NY2d 374,,384; 'ic• �,. ..3:. .;;i int' + ;; , and is not arbitrary and capricious(see Mater ,�•• ..x ,i .,. ;. I. I n'r �r ' 6 o �Rvjie ht 70 AD3d'1041;Matter of Gallo v Rosell, 52 Abad at�'S I S). > utter' r!s v iA'rig , f,.. is 9 !si ,ii U '1 ..1 ?,`1: at.�_: %� :r'1 T!;.'...: .. ! •.i!' '� ,i, :a "•af s-E S.,;.J .. `` •a town's Zoning In determining whether to grant an application for an area variance, board is required to engage,in a balancing test weighing the benefit to the applicant against the ! • ` detrihteat to the'health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood or community. if the variance is granted'(see Town Law§267-b[3];see also Matter of Roberts v Wright, 70'AD3d 1041;cf. 111dtTe'r' I i April 20,2010 Page 3, MATTER OF ALIANO v OLIVA • S0 3.9dd St-W NHOr b89E-1Zb-9T9 90:00 6661./T0/10 I i of Tsunis v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Inc. Vfl. of Poquotl, 59 AD3d 726, 727; Matter of Gallo v - -Rosell, 52 AD3d at 515). The zoning board must-also consider whether.()).an-undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood; or,a detriment to nearby properties will be, created by the granting ofthe area variance,(2):the benefit.sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other method, other than an area variance,.feasible for the applicant to pursue, (3) the required area variance is substantial,(4)the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the:neighborhood or district, and (5) the alleged difficulty was self-created(see Town-Law s§ 267=b[3][b] see also Matter of Roberts v Wright, 70 AD3d 1041;Matter of Gallo:v Rosell, 52 AD3d at 515). Here,the ZBA's determination to deny the petitioner's application for an area variance was not illegal,had a rational basis,and;was not.arbitrary and capricious, since the ZBA properly considered the relevant statutory factors, and rationally concluded, based on the evidence in the 1 `'i,` ``;z recor that variance sought was substantial and self-created, and that the granting of the r d, the var gh y have an undue adverse n the physical and'environmental ,'.e' a; •> ;� :_' y acea-variaace',:would rse impact o p ysi .:i `r. to it 1'• ; I ' Y'':. •' nei borhood and produce an undesirable change in the character ofthel> e' ,�V:, ;• conditions of the rdevam gh p eighbornofHempstea ,hd 2NY3d ood(seegenerallyMatterofPecorarovoarofppea ``'-608). Accordingly,the Supreme Court properly;irieffect,denied that branch ofthe amended petition ' which was to annul the ZBA's determination on the ground that it was arbitrary and capricious(see ! 7803131). ' Furthermore,even if the ZBA violated the Open Meetings Law when it denied the., ! 1 2006 that + seri f petitioner s variance application on August 3 , detcrmination:was made after a es o 'Public meetings,and also after June 8,2006,the agreed-upon date by which the petitioner and other interested persons were permitted to submit additional information for the ZBA's consideration. .Accordingly, the circtunstances are not sufficient to warrant the annulment of the ZBA's '''dctelmniation on the ground that the ZBA's determination was made in violation of lawful procedure y +;or was iffeetod by an error of law by virtue of a violation of the Open Meetings Law(see public ! ;:sj. 7,."*�it 1., s. 3 �' ' `; '`;a: =`t `Of bmsl Law § 1'07[1];M1 iter of,.Giprlano v!Board Zoning Appeals of City of Glen Cove, 20 'AD2d 362;cf.Mauir of Wilson v Board of Educ. H'arborflelds Cent,School Dist., 65 AD3d 1158, ' 1v-denied 13 NY3d 714;Matter of Halperin v City of New Rochelle, 24 AD3d 768,177). , is The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit. �j^ ,'kf,.. :��1''yhlG��f7�-I:tT,'�l::ir,-:1�.! ;t +t { i I.9• %:!..�.7�i, i�{�:'�tt�t•("''lir:' , '{{:" +..A,r.,.ry_'tK'`ic•.eIu{EJ."w'lyi'r�' »a,{�lfs7t4•,•'rti`k+: �yl�b'"''.`�-1fi'�P,.:1{fElt!:¢.,,j,,L•D�c.r.Ei t7T `i, :Ja.I.';iM.,.l.pa.r S,T,R...O�'FLORID and AUSTIN,J .,concur,17"2, 7 # . f 'iIi `•! :I n,;�:;��,::.'.�F't,t'I`' (t:i�.,i} fL7�3.;�� -�I1dN:••-. ,.;:•jI.( 1 1 i• 'j ,,Fye•.`, �7 (I j.4 �I.ly�'lp�`'•'F Y�E�' `y;i i ' i {:I{:'f 5.:�"�I �"Yi r'r ��4i [ ;rl1b.: �. �r INN!, r,'.j i �,. :i.• }',;,.. 1j t+�';.II"�'�.�.y: j •`''.'.4 -q-.4 ei�)ytr�,17.IFl,s'' ENTER: All r ;l.,='eifi'tFt.�!tij'�Si'�'•z;+ !i_ - , .,Ili ''' ''''' �•; fl;, x,•.:y"w 3 rilij r.l'i.•.. , G �.l: 7 '. ' •i 7i `!.��;�afN:' •It yI i'(�� 4:v7•>,.'X72%r�� s t"i , { .iVJ ,;�' f."-' •:4i'- i E�iZ�F �' 2S" o,;:l'.1::,�;,{ {,7 , ii r I� ,,.',(F •II!.) �.'" re �ef'1Ls?r+l uli :r ;.i1�r.+r.11'i, �j':( 7',5,5 r,r_�!1 1",+.:'�.,. :'E•.r.l -,7fy+.,{J..—X','•.'7a'�'�'!•l t ;f! 3a'•.J:i�r is;,i.' :j"{{�i::l: li':i•tF 't•r_ r ,,6 r:1i .7['`iflt lr �`' j�771 - .- II :?f`•i_.t.:... ..�: il,l-=a.ft,;r'r�'!� t':I' rI ,�':s•i. 5".ii'SyF 7° { "'F}'.9�F'' ;.i;a .'j. 1, r ? i r :; 1 ,: 4f; p. ,. ;I e-f 7 I• ,� ,� .i` F r '{^i�?i, :nficii ''i':,".0 t , :�t A.i'1::•3 I i �[ tc,•,y" James Edward Pella' ;l"k Ky.J.. .t J��.'{'{.�?`I,�jt �:.�,! i i' ' � t ' I• {'[ �e{�'.;�+�, I�I I Clerk ofthe Cou , . ''5�1,```•i71Zi1: 'Ii!SFli�i:�'.i'`�.�: i.. '.�'- ? I . '1 , I Page 4. } ,2010 ' Ap 1. n120 ; MATTER OF AL1ANO v OLiVA ,r SV-W NHOf 08SE-M-919 90:00 666L`10/Z0 ' ',y-£{ ¢:'7r,G,iC `'t*•:: '��'• i11 ': ,.. q'i`I'•l!�,}C i ui�f i'I('(I . r` InaI Um imm MLTIN � GROvf' Complete land Use Services—Including Planrring,Destgn and Environmental P.O.BOX 5535 Miller Place,New York 11764 Thomas W.Cramer,Principal Telephone(631)476-0984-Fax(631)476-6933 : January:5 2012 Town of Southold Board of Trustees JAN - 6 2012 ` . E Town Hall L a. 4 : 53095 Route 25 PO Box 1179 L " `'`'e Ru^nf,4 �S iF. Southold,New York 11971-0959 - -- - Re: Aliano @ Glen Court, Southold, NY TOS Board of Trustees Permit#6113 Hearing January 18, 2012 SCTM#: 1000-83-1-11 & 12 Dear Sir/Madam: As requested, enclosed herein please find Erosion Assessment Form signed by the owner. Kindly contact this office if you are in need of anything further. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very Truly Yours, Zi n Rowan /er Enc. Cc: N. Aliano ANY ALTERA77ON OR ADDITION TO THIS SURVEY IS A VIOLATION OF SECTION 7209OF THE NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION LAW. EXCEPT AS PER SECTION 7209—SUBDIVISION 2. ALL CERTIFICATIONS SURVEY OF PROPERTY HEREON ARE VALID FOR THIS MAP AND COPIES THEREOF ONLY IF , SAID MAP OR COPIES BEAR THE IMPRESSED SEAL OF THE SURVEYOR A T CUTCHOG UE WHOSE SIGNATURE APPEARS_.HEREON. LOT NUMBERS REFER�TO "MAP OF VISTA BLUFF FILED TOWN OF SO UTHOLD IN THE SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE ON MARCH SUFFOLK COUNTY, MY 15, 1968 AS FILE NO. 5060. 1000-83-01 11 & 12 ELEVATIONS REFERENCED TO N.G.V.D. SCALE: 1'--30' N JANUARY 13, 2004 / W June 23, 2004 (boh) PN July 19, 2004 (revision) r Sept. 3, 2004 (revts/ons) i Jan. 13, 2005 (revisions) �� Jan. 19, 2005 (revlslons) C�0 95• �' Ave./lo 2oo5/Prop hse) v Aug. 31, 2005 (drywells el . ✓c+n /q 200(0(fob�r^ Mai (4txu,'tJ�,7 •�9 �p Feb 25, toil (TpP of BLUFF) N63 OROS May 4 20/l (oddll/oia) � /%ay-31,201 Q 1` QA TH HSE) �' 1,( P �OA O - 0 / _ _ \ c Vol Ln \ \ S1\ 00 ol 11 oe .�Ct1Er 1 00, �' ''''� '�' �'i i i'/ /�'i:i'--_- �f► \ \ 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 \ 1 / / \ \ \ gv" _-------14-- ice%/'i iiia�i/i �� / /// / /,//'/"� �' \ � \ 1 1 1 1 1 1 \ \~\ 1 1 ' \ \ \ �♦ '•1 ---2r 2F— i'i//i'i��i�' '��/ //ii/ \\ \` \ 1 ..��•'y,l 1 1 -_--2tr--_ � %i%//�moi/��ii� � / / / \ \\ � 1 d 1 1. 1 �� \ \ 1 \ �\ \ • _N� NOTE / %'ri - -" �� '/ 1 1 1 1 1 \` 1 1 \ • \� c\ \ O \ GREA TEST-DEPTH OF. -CUT AMOUNT OF-FILL REQUIRED - 650 cu.yds. !y --'6t' '� �. � 1 1 � \� � � \, � PERCENT OF LOT WITH ° SLOPES IN EXCESS OF 15% a 1 �� \fix '�` ► ► ► 1 1 , \ •;Q Iz�ger LOT COVERAGE 1- 2.9 �6 Icr f\\\ ��e � \ �' 1. ,--� ► 1 t 1 ,� �/`� �� o V `o � \ 1 490 Od /, .30 PROVIDE 2 DRYWELLS 6' I * 5''DEEP TO HANDLE �° I ROOF RUNOFF 1 REVEGETATE ON TOP.AND BOTTOM OF THE RETAIN/Nd WALLS ANb owt SANITARY SYSTEM. 'off 1\ �� '1\ I / %K Aj t) 24 1,0'` 6 / 7A1 / ' 0%-.A 'V\ r / / / A\ SUBSURFACE SEWAGE XFE6 T I Ip� DISPOSAL SYSTEM / l 1 1 .(16 DESIGNED BY 4 �wwv WELL 6, SAND d s• GRAVEL T eJtTT\J 5� / / _. ir" (� �L, L" L -- 471QIVii r t fwt ax EL 69 � �c �YIjIRE HSE. O DEC 2 2 2011 . 6' 6 SEAI£NT nA. WELL �ccihoic ic�I'., e COMPACTED 01 Eo'•;d .� irustee, , SAND a GRA VEL 1000-8 11 AREA=6,474 SQ. -0 77E UNE `A`aAAf - - 1000-83-01-12 AREA=34,324 �T�lE E UNE rEr9� 1- I' ST -Ii*E'L13-9 ' WELL. �� 'C M 2'MIN oh" � p24� TIES SCALE,SCALE, I" r 20'! ' ! i nr Er 34 �O LP I RETAINING WALL BELOW `'�'DE CROSS SECTION I £c 29 g SEPTIC SYSTEM - DOUBLE TIER L EL ze �rrw zq y_ i / D. 49618 TYPICAL FULL CRIB RETAINING WALL ii i �'PE P CONIC SUR &?OLM MATER (631) 765-502 •5-1797 2a'+ P.O. BOX 909 COAST.AL1 .EROSION-HAZARD_LINE-FROM 1230 TRAVELER STREET SOUTHOLD, N. Y. 11971 03-303 Y_`xT. GOASTAZI EROSION#IAZARD'AREA•:ASIA 8=595=83 - --- - - :'nolo -- _ 1 APPEALS"BOARD MEMBERS �r4f SO(/y Mailing Address: Ruth D. Oliva,Chairwoman � rQ1 Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road-P.O. Box 1179 Gerard P.Gcehringer Southold,NY 11971-0959 James Dinizio,Jr. Q Office Location: Michael A. Simon i0 Town Annex/First Floor,North Fork Bank Leslie Kanes Weisman COW 54375 Main Road(at Youngs Avenue) Southold,NY 11971 http://southoldtown.northfork.net ` ! ;ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS RECEIVED J, ;{ JAN 1 1 2012 '':`:,' TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ' , i ± t F Tel.(631)765-1809-Fax(631)765-9064 S 3g4 fi, FINDINGS,DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION Sot tho d Town MEETING OF AUGUST 31,2006 ZB File No.5846—Nicholas Aliano Property Location: 3705 Duck Pond Road and Glen Court,Cutchogue CTM 83-1-12 SEQRA DETERMINATION: 'The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under consideration in this applicatiow'and determines that this review falls under the Type II category of the State's List of Actions and thus requires no additional steps under SEQRA. PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicant's parcel (CTM 1000-83-01-12) consists of 34,324 square feet and is shown as Lot 5 on the Map of Vista Bluff filed March 15, 1968 in the Office of the Suffolk County Clerk, and the adjacent Park& Playground Lot (CTM 1000-83-01-11) consists of 6,474 square feet. The linear footage along a tie line of the high water mark of the Long Island Sound, including the Park Playground premises, is 222 feet wide, and the easterly side of the premises has 150 linear feet along the west side of Duck Pond Road. The applicant's survey with topographical information taken prior to January 2006,maps the upland to be of approximately 4+8000 square feet, showing varying contours (105 and 119 linear feet in depth measured from the surveyor's top of the bluff line/64 ft. contour above mean sea level (MSL) to the southerly property line). To the north Is the Long Island Sound with adjacent steep bluffs and beach areas. To the south is applicant's Lot 6 which contains a very steeply sloping bluff, improved with a new dwelling— also of the applicant. To the west is Lot 4, improved with a dwelling and a 45 ft.wide frontage along a town street(Glen Court). To the east is a town street(Duck Pond Road). From the westerly lot line adjacent to Glen Court,to the lot line adjacent to Duck Pond Road,the scale on the applicant's survey maps the property with an approximately 170 feet wide upland area at the top of the bluff. The entire premises consists of only 8000 square feet on top of the bluff, and 26,234 square feet of steep slopes. These slopes are not gradual slopes, ranging from 8 feet elevation above MSL at the base (north side of bluff adjacent to beach area) to 68 feet at the highest existing land contour, over a short horizontal distance. The applicant's surveyor has shown a line to indicate a bluff boundary somewhat parallel to the high water mark of the sound with the line including variable elevations from the lowest point at 8 ft.above MSL on the easterly point to 68 feet at the highest elevation above MSL. At the time of construction activities, a major portion of the area at the highest elevations (landward of the 64 ft. contour)was excavated by the applicant for the footings of a foundation for a house size 20 ft. wide at the north side and widening to 30 feet at the south side,and 44 feet in depth. Activities were also Page 2—August 31,2006 Confide, Work Copy ZI3 File No. 5846—Nicholas Allan(;—- CTM llan(; --- CTM No.83-1-12 commenced to excavate for the new retaining wall structures (tiered down the bluff on the east sides), which are attempting to prevent slope failure. The eastern retaining wall concrete footing is seven feet seaward of the coastal erosion hazard line. In viewing the upland areas from Glen Court and viewing/walking the bluff top and adjacent areas, the foundation footings are built into the original bluff slope, rather than with a setback of 42 feet from the actual top or highest elevation of the original bluff(top of bluff)line. New retaining wall structures and footings are about seven(7)feet below the highest or top elevation at the easterly side. The topographical information shown on the applicant's survey does not accurately show the altered contours,before land disturbance,excavation and re-grading. The land wraps around from the north in almost a full circle to a point near Glen Court and these areas, as shown on the applicant's map,are not in its original,natural state. BASIS OF APPLICATION: Building Department's Notices of Disapproval dated January 5, 2006, amended January 13,2006,citing Sections 100-239.4A(1) and 100-244,in Its denial of an application for a building permit to construct a new single family dwelling. The reasons stated by the Building Inspector in the denials are: (a) that all buildings located on lots adjacent to sounds and upon which there exists a bluff or bank landward of the shore or beach shall be set back not fewer than 100 feet from the top of such bluff or bank,and b)that a minimum front yard setback of 40 feet is required. CHAPTER 280(formerly Chapter 100)-ZONING CODE PROVISIONS: Article XXHII Section 100-239.4A, which states: "All buildings located on lots adjacent to sounds and upon which there exists a bluff or bank landward of the shore or beach shall be set back not fewer than one hundred(100)feet from the top of such bluff or bank" Article XXIV, Section 100-244,which states that a principal building shall have a minimum front yard at 40 feet, for lots containing less than 39,999 square feet. CHAPTER 95-LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM or LWRP.PROVISIONS: The application has been reviewed under Chapter 95, and a Letter of Inconsistency Determination/Recommendation was issued on February 28,2006,revised March 3,2006. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on March 2, 2006, March 30, 2006, and April 27, 2007, at which time written and oral evidence were presented, and written submissions extended through June 7, 2006 for all documentation, and additional extension through September 6, 2006. 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: AREA VARIANCES REQUESTED: The applicant proposes a single-family dwelling, two wood retaining walls with concrete footings, proposed driveway, well facility, sanitary/septic system facility, drywell and landscaping,within 100 feet from the top of bluff line adjacent to the Long Island Sound. The dwelling initially was proposed of a size 34.7 ft. wide x 44.4 ft. deep, set back 42 feet to the existing footing and-/+40 feet at the closest measurement at the north/east corner of the proposed dwelling,and Page 3—August 31,2006 Confidq Work Copy ZB File No. 5846—Nicholas Akan., - CTM No.83-1-12 44 feet to the edge of the retaining walls, shown on the January 18, 2006 survey and measured by the surveyor from the top of the bluff. The following survey site maps were submitted by applicant for consideration: a) survey revised January 18, 2006, proposing building setbacks to the northern top of the Sound bluff line, 40.8 ft. front setback from the westerly property line (adjacent to Glen Court), 16.2 feet from the southerly lot line (adjacent to other property of the applicant). The size of the new dwelling is shown to be 34.7 ft. wide x 44.4 ft. deep building. The new footings for the residence is shown 40 feet and 42 feet from the surveyor's delineation for a "bluff line", and only 33 feet from eastern retaining wall structure. The dwelling's sanitary system is proposed to be built below the highest land elevation and into the eastern slope of the bluff. b) survey revised February 14,2006,with building setbacks to be 50 feet from the northern top of the Sound bluff line, 30.3 feet to the westerly lot line, 15.3 feet from the southerly lot line. The size of the new dwelling was revised to be 45 ft. wide by 35.5 ft. deep. The dwelling's sanitary system is proposed to be built below the highest land elevation and into the eastern slope of the bluff. c) survey revised March 27,2006 to show contour changes in the area of the newly constructed footings at 44 feet to the top of the Sound bluff(with the same proposed building, sanitary system and related facilities as shown on February 14,2006 survey). BUILDING PERMIT ERROR: ,A Stop Work Order was issued by the Building Department regarding Building Permit # 31581-Z issued 11-04-2005, after the Building Department learned of the error in locating the proposed dwelling and related activities at less than 100 feet from the top of the bluff. OTHER AGENCY DETERMINATIONS: The applicant has submitted information to show the following agency determinations related to this property: (a) Authorization issued December 28, 2004 - New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Tidal Wetland Permit # 1-4738-03391/0001. The Metzger survey dated 1/13/04, revised 7/19/04 approved by the DEC shows the northwest corner of the residence at 48' from the top of bluff line and the retaining wall 27' from the top of bluff line. (b) Authorization issued April 20,2005; Town of Southold Board of Trustees#6113. (c) Letter of Inconsistency with Policy Standards under Chapter 95,Waterfront Consistency Review of the Town of Southold Town Code and the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) Policy Standards dated February 28,2006 and revised March 3,2006. (d) Opinion issued by the State of New York Department of State,Resource Management Bureau,Division of Coastal Resources indicating rate of bluff recession. ADDITIONAL PROPERTY FACTS: The property has been mostly cleared of vegetation, including areas seaward of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Line. Prior to construction, no clearing limits were established to mitigate and/or stabilize slopes or preserve indigenous vegetation to "the extent practical". Foundation footings were placed after excavating more than 12 feet into the ground of the Page 4—August 31,2006 Contidi Work Copy Z13 File No. 5846—Nicholas Alian D �' CTM No.83-1-12 hill side (bluff) at the highest elevations above mean sea level (MSL). Aerial photos (attached) indicate that the bluff/cliff on the property is unstable and erosive. REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: Information in the January 24, 2006 report authored by William L. Jaeger,P.E.,LS indicated the bluff is currently unstable with no toe control and some vegetated overburden, and the current bluff instability is unrelated to the construction of the foundation..." No evaluation of the clearing of the moderate to severe slopes in relation to bluff/cliff/slopes instability and erosion was made in support of applicant's claims. In addition,the Jaeger report does not address the potential instability of the area down slope of the eastern retaining wall which consists of severe slopes cleared of vegetation. The effectiveness and success of the planting plan dated January 26, 2006 has been submitted by the Cramer Consulting Group cannot be assessed without knowing the percent slope post construction grading and the erosion control methods(if any)that will be employed at the bluff areas. Adverse changes to the Long Island Sound and adjacent areas would result from impairment of ecological quality, as indicated by degradation of ecological components. Degradation occurs as an adverse change in ecological quality, either as a direct loss originating within the resource area or as an indirect loss originating from nearby activities. Degradation can also occur over a more extended period of time and may be indicated by increased siltation, changes in natural community composition, or evidence of pollution. A re-vegetation plan proposing high density Plantings of Indigenous drought tolerant plant species on all slopes greater than 15% to provide more effective slope stabilization and minimize fertilization and irrigation requirements is a method that should be used for any activity whatsoever, with construction after the areas have become stabilized and certified as such, before further excavating or building activities take place. Additional or further activities related to the new dwelling (including equipment, further excavating activities for a sanitary system, in-ground drywells,well hook-ups,underground electric and plumbing, and other related land disturbances)will result in a physical loss of the hillside ecosystem. The ability to reduce adverse impact of development is limited due to the fact that clearing and grading has already occurred on site, even while the applicant tried to mitigate some impacts through the placement of bay bales and silt fencing during construction. Also, septic systems shall not be located in an area with slopes greater than 15% or less than 65 feet from bluffs(ref. Suffolk County Sanitary Code). The property contains very steep hillside slopes greater than 15% on three sides (north, east and south), and the septic system Is proposed to be built and excavated into the side of the bluff. After excavating 10 or more feet into the bluff for installation of a septic system, at least 10 feet of fill would be needed for the entire excavated area (ref. Thackoor (George)Mootoo,P.E. report dated 5/22/2006). Substantial cutting of the property took place, creating high walls for the footings of the foundation. The cutting was at the top of the bluff creating a very high wall (12 or more feet in height) on the west side of the foundation. Coastal Resources Division,New York State Department of State Evaluation Report by Fred J. Anders, Chief, Resource Management Bureau: In reply to the Town of Southold's request for geological technical opinion, a written evaluation was submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals May 31, 2006. The Board adopts and incorporates the findings and opinions from this report. -Page 5—August 31,2006 Confidt- Work Copy ZB File No. 5846—Nicholas Aliar:_ CTM No.83-1-12 The Board has visited the property and is aware of the coastal bluff at the applicant's property and recent bluff conditions and receding edges and other land changes. The parcel is bounded on the north by steep, loosely consolidated glacial outwash bluffs fronting Long Island Sound, and on the east by a steep, loosely consolidated glacial outwash bluff along Duck Pond Road. The remainder of the applicant's parcel at the top of the bluff is small. Steep bluffs composed of loosely consolidated materials are well documented hazards to construction because of their geological activity. They are subject to alternating periods of stability followed by storm induced rapid erosion and/or catastrophic failure. Rapid erosion results from water flow over the surface and failure results from groundwater action within the bluff materials. Erosion of bluffs results In their recession,thus exposing construction near the receding edge to high risk of damage. The steep bluffs on the north side of applicant's parcel are adjacent to Long Island Sound and are thus subject to erosion at their base due to storm waves. Failure of these bluffs occurs during storms when a combination of waves oversteepening the bluff toe and rain penetrating along the top and face of the bluff, causes the materials to fail and slide down to the beach. This natural process is essential to long term maintenance of the beach,replacing sand washed away by storms, but is detrimental to properties on the bluff. The Town of Southold administers Article 34 of the NYS Environmental Conservation Law, Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas,which requires that in areas of coastal erosion all structures be set back landward from a receding bluff edge. This protects the natural process of bluff failure that replenishes sand to beaches, thus protecting the beach, and protects life and property on or adjacent to the bluff. Beach and bluff recession rates.are related and applying the beach erosion rate for this locality, the property building, set back 50 feet from the receding bluff edge,would have a theoretical maximum life of 62 years and a minimum life of about 14 years (ref. rate of erosion of approximately 0.8 feet per year between 1884-85 and 1998, but over the short term, erosion of more than 3.5 feet per year has been measured,and other geological data on Page 2). The risk of failure can be increased by drainage changes atop the bluff. In coastal and non-coastal bluffs, failure and erosion due to rain events is usually enhanced when natural conditions are altered. The presence of new impermeable surfaces and resultant concentration and alteration of drainage, changes in vegetation and soil structure, and septic system placement on a steep bluff have been responsible for accelerated bluff recession in the past at similar sites, and these same factors are important In this case and will likely increase the rate of bluff recession resulting in damage to the proposed building. Damage could also occur to neighboring properties. The facts and opinions contained in the Suffolk County Soil & Water evaluation reports and George Mootoo,P.E.reports have also been relied upon and accepted by the Board in making its determination. 1. For the above reasons, grant of the variance will produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. 2. While it appears that the benefit sought cannot be accomplished without a variance, the variance requested is too severe under the constraints of the property. Page 6—August 31,2006 Confid(f ]Wont Copy ; ZB File No. 5846—Nicholas Alian-4- CTM No.83-1-12 3. The variances requested are substantial. The construction is proposed in an area that is substantially the top of a hill, or bluff,and the percentage of relief Is at least 60% less than the code-required 100 ft. setback from the top of the bluff or hill for any construction. 4. The difficulty has been self-created when the applicant designed a plan that is not in conformity to the minimum setback restrictions of the Zoning Code. 5. Substantial evidence has been submitted establishing that a variance in this residential community will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. Among other things, testimony was received from John Kalas that his family lived at their home on the west side for 18 years,and they have seen a fair amount of erosion through these years. After placement of a bulkhead at the Kalas property for toe protection along the bottom of the hill, the bluff eroded about two feet over that period of time. The applicant's property does not have toe protection or bulkheads at the north side of the hill, and the property is not adequately vegetated to prevent erosion. Instead of protection measures at the north,side of the bluff and area adjacent to the Kalas property,the applicant excavated and installed retaining walls at the easterly side of the hill,and his southerly adjacent hillside where recent construction related to a new dwelling was completed. RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: In considering all of the above factors and applying the balancing test under New York Town Law 267-B, and based upon,the detailed reports and testimony submitted to the Board, a motion was offered by Chairwoman Oliva,seconded by Member Simon, and duly carried, to DENY the variances applied for. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members Oliva (Chairwoman), Goehringer, Simon and Weisman. Nay: Member Dinizio.This Resolution was duly adopted(4-1). RUTH D.OLIVA,CHAIRWOMAN 9-1-06 Approved for Filing EXCEPT AS PER SECTION 7209-SUBDIVISION 2. ALL CERTTFICAT 'VEY OF PROPERTY HEREON ARE VALID FOR THIS MAP AND COPIES THEREOF ONLY SAID MAP OR COPIES BEAR THE IMPRESSED SEAL OF THE SUR' A T CUTCHOG UE WHOSE SIGNATURE APPEARS HEREON. LOT NUMBERS REFER TO "MAP OF VISTA BLUFF" f WN OF SOUTHOLD IN THE SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERKS OFFICE ON MAR FOLK COUNTY, N._Y___._ ___._ _.. w _:,15 1968 AS FILE NO. 5060. �._ _ 1000-83-01-11 & 12 y ILT_ �u ,,1 f` 'xy''EL EVA 710NS REFERENCED TO N.G.V.D. SCALE. 1'-=30' JANUARY 13, 2004 June 23, 2004 (boh) i JAN . July 19, 2004 (revislon) Sopl. 3, 2004 frov/alom) Jon. l3, 2005 (re vlslons) t Jan. 19, 2005 (rev/slons) o� A,e a./!o, Zoos/pi op hoe) '.a__,....:..._.._ Aug. 31, 2005 (drywalls J00 �1. r X9 , � /8, 7000(Fob � c 1$yA ,55 Nro $, lop N, \ \ ✓r \ \ \ \ N, toN, \ b '6Q ��' ='Y \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \\ �\ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ W\ \ �a \ \ \ \ \ \ \ O \ \ d �%�i i'i�i/ �/��/i�i�i�� \\ \\ �l � 1 1 � 1 1 ✓ � 1 t � 1 1 + t 11 \ \ --4s---/ / q /i i -3o-�� '��i//i� - • �.�'�?. �l ` - !'..4.� \ � '�. .�.1 t�� ': 1`:i 1 \ i \ \ •� 1 Ct 1 11t �• N ou \ \ vim , ,_- �� 1 I � Ii4 � 1 9 0. 4' r 5' DEEP TO HANDLE ND BOTTOM OF THE RETA/NINd 'Y SYSTEM. 1� VC 14 SMITH,FINKELSTEIN,LUNDBERG,ISLER AND YAKABOSKI,LLP ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 456 GRIFFIN AVENUE.CORNER OF LINCOLN STREET RIVERHEAD,N.Y.11901-0203 FRANK A.LSLER (631)72'7-4100 HOWARD M.FINKEISTEIN SUSAN ROGERS ORUN FAX(631)727-4130 RETIRED GAIR G.BETTS JEANMARIE OUNDERSON PIERRE O.LUNDBERG PHIL SIEOEL RETIRED CHRISTIN E.HARRIS Direct E-Mail:fister@sfliy.com FRANCIS J.YAKABOSKI JONATHAN M.MARMO OF COUNSEL April 23,2010 REGINAIM C.SMITH LB29-1963 [ RECEIVED Leslie Kanes Weisman Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals JAN 1 1 2012 y . 'APR 2 6 2010 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 --� _ BOARD OF APPEALS Southold,New York 11971 r Re: Nicholas Aliano v. Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Suffolk County Index No. 06-23694 Appellate Division No. 2009-02136 Dear Chairperson: We are pleased to enclose the Appellate Division's decision affirming the decision of the lower Court which sustained the Zoning Board's denial of an area variance to Mr. Aliano and his claim that he had vested rights to a building permit. On a personal note, I know that Ruth felt very strongly about this case and I am gratified that the Appellate Court sustained her determination and that of the other Board members. Very truly yours, cC_ti, Frank A. Isler FAW-,!L, Enclosure cc: Martin Finnegan,Esq.—w/encl. Dictated but not read Matter of Aliano v Oliva(2010 NY Slip Op 03314) Page 1 of 6 Matter of Aliano v Oliva 2010 NY Slip Op 03314 Decided on April 20,2010 Appellate Division,Second Department Published by New York State Law Reportin Biu pursuant to Judiciary Law§ 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. Decided on April 20, 2010 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J. WILLIAM F. MASTRO ANITA R. FLORIO LEONARD B. AUSTIN, JJ. 2009-02136 (Index No. 23694/06) [*1]1n the Matter of Nicholas Aliano, appellant, v Ruth D. Oliva, etc., et al., respondents. Scheyer&Jellenik, Nesconset, N.Y. (Richard I. Scheyer of counsel), for appellant. Smith, Finkelstein, Lundberg, Isler& Yakaboski, LLP, Riverhead,N.Y. (Frank A. Isler of counsel), for respondents. DECISION & ORDER In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review a determination of the http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_03314.htin 4/22/2010 Matter of Aliano v Oliva(2010 NY Slip Op 03314) Page 2 of 6 Director of Code Enforcement of the Town of Southold dated January 6, 2006, confirming a stop work order issued in connection with construction on the petitioner's property, and a determination of Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold dated August 31, 2006, denying the petitioner's application for an area variance, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County(Whelan, J.), entered February 10, 2009, which,upon an order of the same court dated June 10, 2007, granting those branches of the respondents' motion which were pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) and 7804(f) to dismiss, for failure to state a.cause of action and because the petitioner failed to exhaust available administrative remedies, those branches of the amended petition which were to annul the determination dated January 6, 2006,to annul the determination dated August 31, 2006, on the grounds that it deprived the petitioner of vested rights, deprived him of property in the absence of due process, and constituted an unconstitutional taking of private property for a public purpose without just compensation, to compel the reinstatement of a building permit, and to enjoin the respondents from interfering with the construction work and, in effect, denying that branch of the petition which was to annul the determination dated August 31, 2006, on the ground that it was arbitrary and capricious, and upon an order of the same court dated December 16, 2008, denying those branches of the petition alleging violations of Town Law § 267 and the Open Meetings Law(Public Officers Law art 7), is in favor of the respondents and against him dismissing the proceeding. ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs. On November 4, 2005, the petitioner obtained a building permit from the Town of Southold to construct a one-story house with a 42-foot setback on a bluff overlooking the Long Island Sound (hereinafter the permit). The Town's Director of Code Enforcement issued an oral stop work order on January 5, 2006, and confirmed that determination in writing on January 6, 2006, after finding that the permit was mistakenly issued in violation of the local zoning ordinance, which requires a 100-foot setback from the edge of the bluff. The petitioner applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold (hereinafter the ZBA) in February 2006 for an area variance permitting him to resume construction with a reduced setback. After a series of hearings which commenced in March 2006, and upon the ZBA's receipt of additional written submissions, the ZBA denied the application for the area variance in a determination [*2]dated August 31, 2006. http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010-03314.htm 4/22/2010 Matter of Aliano v Oliva(2010 NY Slip Op 03 314) Page 3 of 6 The petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding against the ZBA, its members, and the Town(hereinafter collectively the respondents) on September 5, 2006. In an amended petition, the petitioner sought, inter alis, to annul the determination dated January 6, 2006, confirming the stop work order, to compel the ZBA to grant the application for an area variance, to annul the ZBA's determination denying the area variance on the grounds that the determination was arbitrary and capricious, that the ZBA and the Town violated the procedural requirements of Town Law § 267 and the Open Meetings Law (Public Officers Law art 7) in denying the variance application, and that the ZBA and other Town officers officially adopted and promulgated a policy effecting the deprivation of his constitutional rights. The respondents moved to dismiss the amended petition on the grounds, inter alia, that the petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and that the amended petition failed to state a cause of action. In an order dated June 10, 2007, the Supreme Court granted those branches of the respondents' motion which were pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)and 7804(f) to dismiss, for failure to state a cause of action and because the petitioner failed to exhaust available administrative remedies, those branches of the amended petition which were to annul the determination dated January 6, 2006, to annul the determination dated August 31, 2006, on the grounds that it deprived the petitioner of vested rights, deprived him of property in the absence of due process, and constituted an unconstitutional taking of private property for a public purpose without just compensation, to compel the reinstatement of a building permit, and to enjoin the respondents from interfering with the construction work. The Supreme Court, in effect, denied that branch of the amended petition which was to annul the determination dated August 31,2006, on the ground that it was arbitrary and capricious. The Supreme Court denied those branches of the respondents'motion which were to dismiss those branches of the amended petition alleging violations of Town Law § 267 and the Open Meetings Law. After the respondents answered the remaining branches of the amended petition, the Supreme Court, in an order dated December 16, 2008, denied those branches of the amended petition which alleged violations of Town Law § 267 and the Open Meetings Law. On February 10, 2009, the Supreme Court entered a judgment which, upon the orders dated June 10, 2007, and December 16, 2008, was in favor of the respondents and against the petitioner dismissing the proceeding. We affirm the judgment. http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010-03314.htm 4/22/2010 Matter of Aliano v Oliva(2010 NY Slip Op 03 314) Page 4 of 6 �� J "It is hornbook law that one who objects to the act of an administrative agency must exhaust available administrative remedies before being permitted to litigate in a court of law" (Watergate II Apts. v Buffalo Sewer Auth., 46 NY2d 52, 57; see Matter of Goldberg.v Incorporated Vil. of Roslyn Estates, 61 AD3d 756;Matter of Lucas v Village of Mamaroneck, 57 AD3d 786). In the case at bar, the petitioner was required to appeal the issuance of the stop work order to the ZBA within 60 days after the filing of the stop work order on January 6, 2006 (see Town Law § 267-a[4], [5][b]; Code of Town of Southold § 280-146.A; § 280-153). However, although the petitioner applied for a variance in February 2006 (see Code of Town of Southold § 280-1463), the record is devoid of any evidence that he appealed the stop work order at any time after it was issued. Consequently, the Supreme Court properly determined that the petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to his challenge to the stop work order,which extinguished his right to judicial review of that determination(see CPLR 7801; see Matter of Goldberg v Incorporated Vil. of Roslyn Estates, 61 AD3d 756;Matter of Lucas v Village of Mamaroneck, 57 AD3d 786). Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly granted that branch of the respondents' motion which was to dismiss, for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, that branch of the petition as sought to annul the stop work order. The Supreme Court properly granted those branches of the respondents' motion which were to dismiss those branches of the amended petition alleging a deprivation of vested and constitutional rights, and seeking related injunctive relief, since the allegations contained in those branches of the amended petition, even if true, do not state a cause of action (see generally Bower Assocs. v Town of Pleasant Valley, 2 NY3d 617; cf. Town of Orangetown v Magee, 88 NY2d 41). The petitioner's failure to exhaust administrative remedies in connection with his judicial [*3]challenge to the stop work order does not foreclose judicial review of his separate challenge to the ZBA's denial of his application for an area variance since those challenges involve different, and possibly inconsistent, remedies (see generally Matter of Level 3 Communications, LLC v DeBellis,AD3d, 2010 NY Slip Op 00517, *7 [2d Dept 2010]; Town of Orangetown v Magee, 88 NY2d 41; compare Code of Town of Southold § 280-146.A with Code of Town of Southold § 280-146.B) . Specifically, the petitioner's application for an area variance constitutes an implicit concession that his construction activities were not in compliance with the applicable provisions of the zoning code, and that there was a rational basis for the issuance of the stop work order on the ground of http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_03314.htm 4/22/2010 Matter of Aliano v Oliva(2010 NY Slip Op 03314) Page 5 of 6 noncompliance with the zoning code. With respect to the merits of the petitioner's challenge to the ZBA's denial of his application for an area variance, local zoning boards have broad discretion in considering applications for variances, and judicial review is limited to determining whether the action taken by the board was illegal, arbitrary, or an abuse of discretion(see Matter of Pecoraro v Board of Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 2 NY3d 608, 613;Matter of Ifrah v Utschig, 98 NY2d 304, 308;Matter of Gallo v Rosell, 52 AD3d 514, 515). Thus, the determination of a zoning board should be sustained upon judicial review if it is not illegal, has a rational basis, and is not arbitrary and capricious (see Matter of Sasso v Osgood, 86 NY2d 374, 384; Matter of Roberts v Wright, 70 AD3d 1041;Matter of Gallo v Rosell, 52 AD3d at 515). In determining whether to grant an application for an area variance, a town's zoning board is required to engage in a balancing test weighing the benefit to the applicant against the detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood or community if the variance is granted(see Town Law § 267-b[3]; see also Matter of Roberts v Wright, 70 AD3d 1041; cf. Matter of Tsunis v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Inc. Vil. of Poquott, 59 AD3d 726, 727; Matter of Gallo v Rosell, 52 AD3d at 515). The zoning board must also consider whether: (1) an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood, or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance, (2)the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other method, other than an area variance, feasible for the applicant to pursue, (3)the required area variance is substantial, (4)the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district, and(5)the alleged difficulty was self-created(see Town Law § 267-b[3][b]; see also Matter of Roberts v Wright, 70 AD3d 1041;Matter of Gallo v Rosell, 52 AD3d at 515). Here, the ZBA's determination to deny the petitioner's application for an area variance was not illegal, had a rational basis, and was not arbitrary and capricious, since the ZBA properly considered the relevant statutory factors, and rationally concluded,based on the evidence in the record, that the variance sought was substantial and self-created, and that the granting of the requested area variance would have an undue adverse impact on the physical and environmental conditions of the relevant neighborhood and produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood(see generally Matter of Pecoraro v Board of Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 2 NY3d 608). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly, in effect, denied that branch of the amended petition which was to annul the ZBA's http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010-03314.htm 4/22/2010 Matter of Aliano v Oliva(2010 NY Slip Op 03 314) Page 6 of 6 determination on the ground that it was arbitrary and capricious (see CPLR 7803[3]). Furthermore, even if the ZBA violated the Open Meetings Law when it denied the petitioner's variance application on August 31, 2006, that determination was made after a series of public meetings, and also after June 8, 2006, the agreed-upon date by which the petitioner and other interested persons were permitted to submit additional information for the ZBA's consideration. Accordingly, the circumstances are not sufficient to warrant the annulment of the ZBA's determination on the ground that the ZBA's determination was made in violation of lawful procedure or was affected by an error of law by virtue of a violation of the Open Meetings Law (see Public Officers Law § 107[1];Matter of Cipriano v Board of Zoning Appeals of City of Glen Cove, 203 AD2d 362; cf. Matter of Wilson v Board of Educ. Harborfields Cent. School Dist., 65 AD3d 1158, Iv denied 13 NY3d 714;Matter of Halperin v City of New Rochelle, 24 AD3d 768, 777). The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit. PRUDENTI, P.J., MASTRO, FLORIO and AUSTIN, JJ., concur. [*4] ENTER: James Edward Pelzer Clerk of the Court http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010-03314.htin 4/22/2010 y r , y .T z n l - - ° 61 , Nicholas Aliano 5 ' � �• "' �a �' 3705 Duck Pond Road,Cutchogue \y< SCTMq 83-1-11&12 1.(11/201.2 i, r - o�oguFFotxco - Peter Young,Chairman - Town Hall,53095 Main Rd. P.O. Box 1179 Lauren Standish,Secretary w Z Southold,NY 11971 Telephone(631)765-1892 Fax(631)765-6641 Conservation Advisory Council Town of Southold At the meeting of the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council held Wed:, January 11, 2012 the following recommendation was made: NICHOLAS ALIANO'to construct a single-family dwelling 25'X 40' with associated sanitary system, driveway and retaining walls. Located: 3705 Duck Pond Rd., Cutchogue. SCTM#83-1-11&12 Inspected by: Peter Young The property was inspected, however, there is no recommendation at this time. F- Y OgUFFOt4. Jill M.Doherty,President �� 'p P O Box 1179 Bob Ghosio,Jr.,Vice-Presidentj Gy2 Southold,NY 11971 James F King ti Telephone(631 765-1892 Dave Bergen LOP Fax(631)765-6641 John Bredemeyer Southold Town Board of Trustees Field Inspection/Worksession Report f Date/Time: LI'2— 'f�� NICHOLAS ALIANO requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling 25'X 40' with associated sanitary system, driveway and retaining walls. Located: 3705 Duck Pond Rd., Cutchogue. SCTM#83-1-11&12 Ty o area to be impacted: _Saltwater Wetland Freshwater Wetland Sound Bay Distance of proposed work to edge of wetland Part of Town Code proposed work falls under: _Chapt.275 Chapt. 111 other Type of Application: WetlanCoastal Erb ' _Amendment Administrative_Emergency re- u mission Violation Info needed: Lk &✓ AV -I,- - p Modifications: Conditions: .eCrd l.�lif to Gin Prepmt Were: 1-11-J. King B. Ghosio �D. Bergen, ir�l'✓Y�'�� J. Bredemeyer D. Dzenkowski other Form filled out in the field by Mailed/Faxed to: Date: f SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK RECORDS OFFICE RECORDING PAGE Type of Instrument: DECLARATION/DOP Recorded: 10/20/2005 Number of Pages : 4 At: 02 : 03 :59 PM Receipt Number : 05-0110375 LIBER: D00012415 PAGE : 670 District: Section: Block: Lot: 1000 083 . 00 01. 00 011. 000 EXAMINED AND CHARGED .AS FOLLOWS Received the Following Fees For Above Instrument Exempt Exemnt Page/Filing $0 .00 YES Handling $0 .00 YES COE $0 .00 YES NYS SRCHG $0 .00 YES TP-584 $0 .00 YES Notation $0 . 00 YES Cert.Copies $0 .00 YES RPT $0 . 00 YES SCTM $0 .00 YES Fees Paid $0 . 00 THIS PAGE IS A PART OF THE INSTRUMENT THIS IS NOT A BILL Edward P.Romaine County Clerk, Suffolk County Number of p' r•�-- rr ager TORRENS Serial # r r.-,, t. ur , `- �jrr1 j1`41� Certificate # f• : G Prior Ctf. # Deed / Mortgage Instrument Deed / Mortgage Tax Stamp Recording/ Filing Stamps 3 FEES Page/Filing Fee 49 Mortgage Amt. 1. Basic Tax Handling 5. 00 2. Additional Tax TP-584 Sub Total Spec./Assit. Notation or EA-52 17 (County) Sub Total Spec. /Add. EA-5217 (State) TOT. MTG. TAX �@x� �. Dual Town Dual County R.P.T.S A '50 Held for Appointment Comm. of Ed. 5. 00 =': Transfer Tax Affidavit YR � o" d - U .Mansion Tax / t VI19ND IH00Q�� The property covered by this mortgage is ertifie Cd Copy1(�% `� or will be improved by a one or two NYS Surcharge 15. 00 family dwelling only. Sub Total YES or NO Other Grand Total - If NO, see appropriate tax clause on t '� page# of this instrument. 01.06 ll.�'Oo 4 list./OQ'� Section Q Block 01 .00 Lo OI Z,0,00 5 Community Preservation Fund Real Property 1000 08300 0100 011000 Consideration Amount $ Tax Service 1000 08300 0100 012000 Agency RP PA A CPF Tax Due $ Verification 3o-AUG-0 Improved Vacant Land 6 Satisfactions/Discharges/Releases List Property Owners Mailing Address RECORD & RETURN TO: TD TD, Cramer Consulting Group TD P.O. Box 5535 Miller Place,NY 11764 7 Title Company Information Co. Name Title # 8 Suffolk County Recording & Endorsement Page This page forms part of the attached )2C-L,4k+-r(d4) 04 J made by: (SPECIFY TYPE OF INSTRUMENT) NC.t)n( Ana The premises herein is situated in SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK. TO In the Township of �cvo C� 1 �4e In the VILLAGE �/U(�t P-0AllM n N C NIERV I V or HAMLET of BOXES 6 THRU 8 MUST BE TYPED OR PRINTED IN BLACK INK ONLY PRIOR TO RECORDING OR FILING DECLARATION OF COVENANTS This declaration made and dated the �. day of SEPTEMBER, 2005, by. NICHOLAS ALIANO, a domestic corporation with the principal place of business located at 970 ROUTE 25A, MILLER PLACE, hereinafter referred to as "declarant": WITNESSETH : WHEREAS, declarant is the owner in fee simple of the real property as described in Schedule "A" annexed hereto and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS the property is also known as Suffolk County Tax Map 1000-83-1-11 & 12; and NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, the declarant declares that the above real property is held subject to the following covenants: Regulated tidal wetlands associated with Long Island Sound are located, at Suffolk County Tax Map Number District 1000, Section 83, Block-0 I) Lot-11 & 121 otherwise known as the properties of Nicholas Aliano. and his heirs, assigns or successors. This property is subject to the provisions of New York State Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) Article 25 or its successor, and the conduct of regulated activities may occur only pursuant to ECL Article 25 if prior approval is given by the New York State Department of Conservation(NYSDEC) or its successor. Regulated activities include, but are not limited to the erection of any structure(s); excavation; dredging; grading and filling; clearing of vegetation; and application of chemicals. Said covenants shall run with the land and shall be binding on the heirs, successors and assigns of the declarant, subject to the right of the New York State Department of Conservation (NYSDEC) or its successor to amend, modify or repeal said covenants at any time with the permission of the owner of said property. Witnesseth: NICHOLAS ALIANO STATE OF NEW YORK ss: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK Ont y SEPTEMBER 2005, before me, the undersigned, a the day da Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared NICHOLAS ALIANO, personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the individual whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his capacity, and that by his signature on the instrument, the individual, or the person upon behalf of which the individual acted, executed the instrument. Notary MLEEN RMAN Notary Public,State of NOW York No. 01R04878678 Qualified in Suffolk County Comrnisston Expires February 10.2007 Suggested description of Lot 5 and Park and Playground Suffolk County Map Number 1000—83—01 — 11 & 12 ALL that certain plot,piece or parcel of land,situate,lying and being at.Cutchogue, Town of Southold,County of Suffolk and State of New York,being know"Map of designated as Lot 5 and Park and Playground as shown on a certain map Vista Bluff"filed in the office of the Suffolk County Clerk on March 15, 1968 as map number 5060,more particularly bounded described as follows; BEGINNING at a point at the westerly lune of Duck Pond Road atm kt n formed by the westerly line of Duck pond Road with the northerly as shown sho ho on the aforesaid filed map,said point and place of beginning being'a distance of feet as measured in a northerly direction along the westerly line of Duck Pond Road from the end a curve which connects the westerly line of Duck Pond Road with the northeasterly line of Vista Place; RUNNING THENCE from said point and place of beginning along the northerly line of Lot 6 as shown on the aforesaid filed map South 70 degrees 42 minutes 30 seconds West a distance of 90.00 feet to a point; THENCE South 35 degrees 26 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 80.34 feet to a point and the easterly terminus of Glen Court; THENCE North 19 degrees 17 minutes 30 seconds west along the easterly termmus of Glen Court a distance of 45.00 feet to a point and Lot 4 as shown on aforesaid filed map: THENCE North 37 degrees 55 minutes 40 seconds West a distance of 203.38 feet to a point and the mean high water line of the Long Island;. THENCE along the mean high water line of the Long Island Sound along a tie line South 63 degrees 05 minutes 30 seconds East a distance of 126.96 feet to a point; THENCE South 63 degrees 19 minutes 55 seconds East a distance of 95.56 feet to a point and the westerly line of Duck Pond Road, THENCE Southl9 degrees 17 minutes 30 seconds Fast along the westerly lime of Duck Pond Road a distance of 220.46 feet to the POINT AND PLACE OF BEGINNING. New `'ork State Depar ?nt of Environmental Conservation Division of Environmental Permits, Region 1 AM SUNY @Stony Brook 50 Circle Road, Stony Brook, NY 11790-3409 iftow Phone: (631) 444-0365 - Fax: .(631) 444-0360 Website: www.dec.nv.qov Joe Martens Commissioner June 30, 2011 PERMIT REISSUANCE AND MODIFICATION Nicholas Aliano 970 Route 25A Miller Place, NY 11764 Re: Permit # 1-4738-03391/00001 Facility at Glen Court (aka 3705 Duck Pond Road), Southold SCTM# 1000-83-1-11 & 12 Dear Permittee: The Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has completed a review of your request to reissue the above referenced permit. Pursuant to the Uniform Procedures Regulations (6NYCRR Part 621) your permit is hereby reissued with a new expiration date of December 27, 2014. DEC has also reviewed your request to modify the above referenced permit in accordance with the Uniform Procedures Regulations. It has been determined that the proposed modifications will not substantially change the scope of the permitted actions or the existing permit conditions. Therefore, the permit is hereby modified to authorize: Revised configuration of project, as shown on the plans prepared by John T. Metzger, last revised 2/25/11 and stamped NYSDEC approved on 6/30/11. This letter is a modification to the original permit and must be available at the job site whenever authorized work is in progress. All other terms and conditions remain as written in the original permit. Sincerely, Mark arrara Permit Administrator cc: Cramer Consulting Group BOH-TW File \1 ANY ALTERATION OR ADDITION TO THIS SURVEY IS A VIOLATION OF SECTION 7209OF THE NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION LAW EXCEPT AS PER SECTION 7209-SUBDIVISION 2. ALL CERTIFICATIONS SURVEY OF PROF'ERT Y HEREON ARE VALID' FOR THIS MAP AND COPIES THEREOF ONLY IF SAID MAP OR COPIES BEAR THE IMPRESSED SEAL OF THE SURVEYOR A T CUTCHOG UE WHOSE SIGNATURE APPEARS HEREON. LOT NUMBERS REFER TO "MAP OF VISTA BLUFF" FILED TOWN OF SO UTHOL_D IN THE SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE ON MARCH SUFFOLK COUNTYM Y. 15, 1968 AS FILE NO. 5060. , 1000-83-01-11 & 12 EL EVA TIONS REFERENCED TO N.G. V.D. SCALE: 1'=30' JANUARY 13, 2004 / N June 23, 2004 (boh) Ju/v 19, 2004 (revision) PN Sepl. 3, 2004 (rev/slons) /11 Jan. 13, 2005 (revisions) t t�Y + Jon. 19, 2005 (re vislons) CJQ v At-? 16� 20o51p/.1 Aug. 31, 2005 (drywells elc.- �.� J v W ✓a-n i8, 2006(FuGa�., : „ �I�E �� O fC-b AI. ;,. - ( ,55 E rE s Ma/ 27 �- �(c+d 639 Feb 25, 2011 (TOP OF BLUFF) � G?- ,0 R,0 O N\ E G?6 iii i� �'�'� �' �i� / ///, / ✓ /, I \^ \ \ 1 1 1 1 1 ( / / \ \ !//imoiiiii� \ \ �B - -----2&-= �-� / !!/'/moi i�� i�! / / � '\ \ \ ` •,� 1 1 - , -1, 1'� �\' -\ �-- •pW\ - _ - — - - ,. - . --- _ / / / / i / •ice �/ / / -34 \. Sir 5g- �i .- \� o. \ 1� \ 1 , `_ IL \ s \ \ o 2p �� . ;P S- 1 1 1 ,1 1 l IGI i 1 1 `\•�' '.�, 1 � ' I �(JSC �\ O ,n l Od IDE 2 ORYWELLS 6' m • 5' DEEP TO HANVLE RUNOFF Ap A \ I S 3ETATE ON TOP AND BOTTOM'OF THE RErrAINZN6 r SANb owk SANITARY SYSTEM. 1 � / /� pc /'c �• C'1c:Vim,✓/i� 1 "�ZG• SUBSURFACE SEWAGE (5.0 j 6E / fo WELL p DISPOSAL SYSTEM ` c / / c DESIGNED BY, vC, EF'� � � 6• 6• COMPACTE 0 , , h SAND d Q\ 5 �- �\ 1 C:) 6' 6: GRAVEL ArrRC�, ;) •'� t'Ff? ;rx�rz FW. FLR. EL 64 c, 9GU( wo - O ARE _ y 4.mw HSE. 6' 6 B.aSENENT FLR. y - T;A, i•F' /,,J�.lW�-- .. EL 54 � � - 6WELL -A COMPACTED SAND 4 GRA VEL EL 44 F 1000-83-01-11 AREA=6,474 SQ. FT TO 71E LINE -) �GFdOE 1000-8J-01-12 AR A=3. 24 SQ. FT. TO 77E UNE �_ .r A< 41 ' 0 1 sl' rW EL.39 ° WELL /��_j-' iS�N cP ov- SCALE, I' = 20 rw LP ;-�\ RETAINING WALL ./ `\ ----_ � l ( 1 CROSS SECTION £L 29 SEPTIC SYSTEM _ UBL E TIER L Y E< 26 , •; ''- 4L FULL CRIB - nv z4 ;` /i YS. LIC. NO. 49618 �1NING WALL 6RouNu Wore 5Zo'°E P ONIC `SUR' Y0 ', P.C. 20'l (6 '_S. DZEcl F.4 X (631) 765— 179 7 - - New York State Der nent of Environmental Conserv ,n Division of Environmental rermits Building 40 - SUNY, Stony Brook, NY 11790-2356 Telephone (631) 444-0368 Am Facsimile (63,1) 444-0360 Website: www.dec-state.ny.us Erin M. Crotty Commissioner December 28, 2004 Mr. Nicholas Aliano 970 Route 25A Miller Place, NY 11764 RE: 1-4738-03391/00001 Dear Permittee: In conformance with the requirements of the State Uniform Procedures Act (Article 70, ECL) and its.implementing regulations (6NYCRR, Part 62 1) we are enclosing your permit. Please read all conditions carefully. If you are unable to comply with any conditions, please contact us at the above address. Also enclosed is-a permit sign which is to be conspicuously posted at the project site and protected from the weather. Sincerely, Claire K.Werner Environmental Analyst CKW/ls NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONcFR%/ATION cRMIT NUMBER 38-03391/00001 EFFECTIVE DATE ACILITY/PROGRAM NUMBER(S) December 28,2004 PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE(S) Under the Environmental December 28,2009 Conservation Law TYPE OF PERMITS New .❑Renewal❑Modification■Permit to Construct ❑Permit to O erate ❑ Article 15,Title 5 Protection of Waters ❑ Article 17,Titles 7,8: SPDES ❑ Article 27,Title 9; 6NYCRR 373. ❑ Article 15,Title 15.Water Supply- Hazardous Waste Management PP Y' ❑ Article 19•Air Pollution Control ❑ Article 15,Title 15.Water Transport ❑ Article 34 Coastal Erosion P ❑ Article 23,Title 27• Mined Land Management. ❑ Article 15,Title 15. Long Island Wells Reclamation ❑ Article 36. Floodplain Management ❑Article 24 Freshwater Wetlands ❑Article 15,Title 27 Wild, Scenic and Recreational ❑ Articles 1, 3, 17, 19, 27, 37, 6NYCRR 'Rivers ■ Article 25.Tidal Wetlands 380• Radiation Control ❑ 6NYCRR 608•Water Quality Certifica- ❑ Article 27,Title 7, 6NYCRR 360: tion Solid Waste Management PERMIT ISSUED TO TELEPHONE NUMBER Nicholas Aliano (631) 744-5000 ADDRESS OF PERMITTEE 970 Route 25A, Miller Place, NY 11764 CONTACT PERSON FOR PERMITTED WORK TELEPHONE NUMBER Cramer Consulting Group, P O Box 5535, Miller Place, NY 11764 631 476-0984 NAME AND ADDRESS OF PROJECT/FACILITY Aliano property, Glen Court, Southold SCTM#1000-83-1-11 & 12 COUNTY TOWN WATERCOURSE NYTM COORDINATES Suffolk Southold Lon Island Sound DESCRIPTION OF AUTHORIZED ACTIVITY Construct a single family dwelling, septic system, driveway and retaining walls. All work must be done in accordance with the attached plans stamped NYSDEC approved on 12/27/04. By acceptance of this permit, the permittee agrees that the permit is contingent upon strict compliance with the ECL, all applicable regulations, the General Conditions specified (see page 2 & 3) and any Special Conditions included as part of this permit. PERMIT ADMINISTRATOR: rRen SS Mark Carrara CKW 1 Headquarters, Bldg. #40, SUNY, Stony Brook, NY 11790-2356 AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE DATE Page 1 of 4 December 28, 2004 NEW Yi TATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERv SPECIAL CONDITIONS 1 During construction, concrete or leachate shall not escape or be discharged, nor shall washings from transit mix trucks, mixers, or other devices enter tidal wetlands and or protected buffer areas 2 Any debris or excess material from construction of this project shall be completely removed from the adjacent area (upland) and removed to an approved upland area for disposal. No debris is permitted in tidal wetlands and or protected buffer areas. 3 All areas of soil disturbance resulting from this project shall be stabilized immediately following project completion or prior to permit expiration, whichever comes first. The approved methodologies are as follows: a. Stabilization of the entire disturbed area with appropriate vegetation (grasses, etc.) 4 The storage of construction equipment and materials shall be confined to the landward side of proposed house 5. To protect the values of the tidal wetlands, a permanent vegetated buffer zone shall be established There shall be no disturbance to the natural vegetation or topography north of the line labeled "Top of Bluff" . 6. Necessary erosion control measures i.e., haybales, silt fencing, etc. are to be placed on the downslope edge of any disturbed area. This sediment barrier is to be put in placebefore any disturbance of the ground occurs and is to be maintained in good condition until thick vegetative cover is established. 7 Roof runoff shall be directed to drywells at the corners of the proposed house for immediate on-site recharge. 8. Sanitary system (bottom of tank and leaching pools) shall be located a minimum of 2' above seasonal high groundwater 9 The permittee shall incorporate the following language as a notice covenant to the deed "Regulated tidal wetlands associated with Long Island Sound are located at Suffolk County Tax Map Number District 1000, Section 83, Block 01, Lots 11 & 12, otherwise known as the properties of Nicholas R. Aliano and his heirs, assigns,or successors. This property is subject to the provisions of New York State Environmental Conservation Law (ECL)Article 25 or its successor, and the conduct of regulated activities may occur only pursuant to ECL Article 25 if prior approval is given by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) or its successor. Regulated activities include, but are not limited to the erection of any structure(s); excavation, dredging grading and filling; clearing of vegetation, and application of chemicals." This deed covenant shall be recorded with the Clerk of Suffolk County within 90 days of the issuance of this permit. A copy of the covenanted deed or other acceptable proof of record, along with the number assigned to this permit, shall be sentwithin one calendaryearof the issuance of this permitto:NYSDEC,Regional Manager, Bureau of Marine Habitat Protection, SUNY Building 40, Stony Brook, New York 11790-2356. DEC PERMIT NUMBER PAGE 2 of 4 1-4738-03391/00001 ,0DITIONAL GENERAL CONDITIONS FOR ARTICLES 15 (TITLE 5), 24, 25,34 AND 6NYCRR PART 608 • ( TIDAL WETLANDS) I If future operations by the State of New York require an alteration in the position of the structure or work herein authorized, or if, in,the opinion of the Department of Environmental Conservation it shall cause unreasonable obstruction to the free navigation of said waters or flood flows or endanger the health, safety or welfare of the people of the State, or cause loss or destruction of the natural resources of the State,the owner may be ordered by the Departmentto remove or alter the structural work,obstructions,or hazards caused thereby without expense to the State, and if, upon the expiration or revocation of this permit, the structure, fill, excavation, or other modification of the watercourse hereby authorized shall not be completed,the owners, shall, without expense to the State,and to such extent and in such time and manner as the Department of Environmental Conservation may require, remove all or any portion of the uncompleted structure or fill and restore to its former condition the navigable and flood capacity of the watercourse. No claim shall be made against the State of New York on account of any such removal or alteration. 2 The State of New York shall in no case be liable for any damage or injury to the structure or work herein authorized which may be caused by or result from future operations undertaken by the State for the conservation or improvement of navigation, or for other purposes, and no claim or right to compensation shall accrue from any such damage. 3 Granting of this permit does not relieve the applicant of the responsibility of obtaining any other permission, consent or approval from the U S.Army Corps of Engineers,U.S.Coast Guard,New York State Office of General Services or local government which may be required. 4 All necessary precautions shall be taken to preclude contamination of any wetland or waterway by suspended solids, sediments, fuels, solvents, lubricants, epoxy coatings, paints, concrete, leachate or any other environmentally deleterious materials associated with the project. 5 Any material dredged in the conduct of the work herein permitted shall be removed evenly,without leaving large refuse piles, ridges across the bed of a waterway or floodplain or deep holes that may have a tendency to cause damage to navigable channels or to the banks of a waterway. 6 There shall be no unreasonable interference with navigation by the work herein authorized. 7 ' If upon the expiration or revocation of this permit, the project hereby authorized has not been completed, the applicant shall,without expense to the State,and to such extent and in such time and manner as the Department of Environmental Conservation may require, remove all or any portion of the uncompleted structure or fill and restore the site to its former condition. No claim shall be made against the State of New York on account of any such removal or alteration 8 If granted under 6NYCRR Part 608,the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation hereby certifies that the subject project will not contravene effluent limitations or other limitations or standards under Sections 301, 302, 303, 306 and 307 of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (PL 95-217)provided that all of the conditions listed herein are met. 9 At least 48 hours prior to commencement of the project,the.permittee and contractor shall sign and return the top portion of the enclosed notification form certifying that they are fully aware of and understand all terms and conditions of this permit. Within 30 days of,completion of project, the bottom portion of the form must also be signed and returned, along with photographs of the completed work and, if required, a survey. 10 All.activities authorized by this permit must be in strict conformance with the approved plans submitted by the applicant or his agent as part of the permit application. Such approved plan was prepared by John T. Metzger dated 1/13/04, last revised 7/19/04 DEC PERMIT NUMBER PAGE 3 of 4 1-4738-03391/00001 NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION NOTIFtreTION OF OTHER PERMITTEE OBLIGA' IS ,n A: • Permittee Accepts Lega ;ponsibility and Agrees to Indemnifica The permittee expressly agrees to i,iuc,nnify and hold harmless the Department of Environmental Conservation of the State of New York, its representatives,employees,and agents("DEC")for all claims,suits,actions,and damages,to the extent attributable to the permittee's acts or omissions in connection with the permittee's undertaking of activities in connection with,or operation and maintenance of,the facility or facilities authorized by the permit whether in compliance or not in compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit. This indemnification does not extend to any claims, Suits, actions, or damages to the extent attributable to DEC's own negligent or intentional acts or omissions, or to any claims, suits, or actions naming the DEC and arising under article 78 of the New York Civil Practice Laws and Rules or any citizen suit or civil rights provision under federal or state laws Item B: Permittee's Contractors to Comply with Permit The permittee is responsible for informing its independent contractors, employees, agents and assigns of their responsibility to comply with this permit, including all special conditions while acting as the permittee's agent with respect to the permitted activities, and such persons shall be subject to the same sanctions for violations of the Environmental Conservation Law as those prescribed for the permittee. Item C: Permittee Responsible for Obtaining Other Required Permits The permittee is responsible for obtaining any other permits, approvals, lands,easements and rights-of-way that may be required to carry out the activities that are authorized by this permit. Item D: No Right to Trespass or Interfere with Riparian Rights This permit does not convey to the permittee any right to trespass upon the lands or interfere with the riparian rights of others in order to perform the permitted work nor does it authorize the impairment of any rights, title, or interest in real or personal property held or vested in a person not a party to the permit. GENERAL CONDITIONS General Condition 1: Facility Inspection by the Department The permitted site or facility, including relevant records, is subject to inspection at reasonable hours and intervals by an authorized representative of the Department of Environmental Conservation (the Department)to determine whether the permittee is complying with this permit and the ECL. Such representative may order the work suspended pursuant to EGL 71-0301 and SAPA 401(3) The permittee shall provide a person to accompany the Department's representative during an inspection to the permit area when requested by the Department. A copy of this permit, including all referenced maps,drawings and special conditions, must be available for inspection by the Department at all,times at the project site or facility. Failure to produce a copy of the permit upon request by a Department representative is a violation of this permit. General Condition 2: Relationship of this Permit to Other Department Orders and Determinations Unless expressly provided for by the Department, issuance of this permit does not modify, supersede or rescind any order or determination previously issued by the Department or any of the terms, conditions or requirements contained in such order or determination General Condition 3: . Applications for Permit Renewals or Modifications The permittee must submit a separate written application to the Department for renewal, modification or transfer of this permit. Such application must include any forms or supplemental information the Department requires Any renewal, modification or transfer granted by the Department must be in writing. The permittee must submit a renewal application at least: a) 180 days before expiration of permits for State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(SPDES), Hazardous Waste Management Facilities (HWMF), major Air Pollution Control (APC) and Solid Waste Management' Facilities (SWMF); and b) 30 days before expiration of all other permit types. Submission of applications for permit renewal or modification are to be submitted to NYSDEC Regional Permit Administrator, Region 1, SUNY Bldg#40, Stony Brook NY 11790-2356 General Condition 4: Permit Modifications,Suspensions and Revocations by the Department The Department reserves the right to modify, suspend or revoke this permit in accordance with 6 NYCRR Part 621 The grounds for modification, suspension or revocation include- a) materially false or inaccurate statements in the permit application or supporting papers, b) failure by the permittee to comply with any terms or conditions of the permit; c) exceeding the scope of the project as described in the permit application; d) newly discovered material information or a material change in environmental conditions,relevant technology or applicable law or regulations since the issuance of the existing permit; e) noncompliance with previously issued permit conditions,orders of the commissioner,any provisions of the Environmental Conservation Law or regulations of the Department related to the permitted activity DEC PERMIT NUMBER PAGE 4 OF 4 1-4738-03391/00001 "S. _'-�-Y, �! �� \1•\ .,' r + 1 - . w :�. ` ,\h 1 11 \i 11 11 1, �, 1 v \ lO* -5_6-ise �� \ �� 1 11 X60' `, 1 1 � � � � �\�l \ 1`. I 1 t 1 Il 1 1 I 1 1 1 11 1\ \ ' �♦ 1 1 go- 30 � � I 1 ! ! >x 1 { / t Z � a / 1 - C7 Gur r / -f�738 -v `i 11ti � J CIO 1000-83-01-11 AREA=6,474 SO. FT TO 77E UNE 1000-83-01-12 AREA=34,324 SO. FT. TO 77E UNE ft S�aSkot. O N. LIC. NO. 496.18 P IC - O C. (6 631) 765-1797 P 0. 1230 EET 03-303 SOU THOLD, N. Y. 11971 ANT AL/tKA 1/UJV UK AUUI/IUN /U /l•1IJ �UKVt Y /5 A VIULA/IUN OF SECTION 72090E THE NEW YORK STATE EDUCAAON LAW, EXCEPT AS PER SECTION 7209—SUBDIVISION 2 ALL CERTIFICATIONS HEREON ARE VALID FOR THIS MAP AND COPIES THEREOF ONLY IF SURVEY OF PROPERTY SAID MAP OR COPIES BEAR THE IMPRESSED SEAL OF THE SURVEYOR A T CUTCHOO UE *HOSE SIGNATURE APPEARS HEREON. L 0 T NUMBERS REFER TO "MAP OF N9 TA BLUFF" FILED TOWN OF SOUTHOLD IN THE SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE ON MARCH SUFFOLK COUNTY, N. Y. 15, 1968 AS FILE NO 5060 1000-83-01-11 & 12 EL EVA TIONS REFERENCED TO N.C. V,D. SCALE: 1'--30' JANUARY 13, 2004 N June 23, 2004 (boh) W►� July /9, 2004 (revision) 95' to w i 1511 63 9 55 pUX10 N 1,00 - '/ RK p�O�°1'11 4 c� 10 f� \ ---_— ---- \ 60 loll .10.— i / / / / iii�� i/ \ ♦ f, 1 1 1 1 0 \ \ 1 +1 1 \ ..... ..... ............ ....... . . ..... .................... V, kAxy, Ts ........... _R n D'A"P_ �k V,; MAR, .15 s u YS . A Mix, -A m" �;r,- • M A Wly - Y ml! r M US,T. N_`.5- -,T-T-..RUC.--T- ONc, - THIS7 N 'IF-ICE LA EV,__ to I.-- O.-J.. TOWN,TRUSTEES.OFFIC. 01 =Q `5o 'Ho -= SOUTH.OLD,!: N.Y. 11.971' TEL.: 765-1892 Albert J Kru ski, President CoE SO(/ p Town Hall James King,Vice-President 53095 Route 25 Artie Foster P.O. Box 1179 Ken Poliwoda N Southold,New York 11971-0959 . �c Pe A. DickG` Peggy Dickerson .cam ® �� Telephone(631)765-1892 lf'COUNTI Fax(631)765-6641 `��cczrr., ' BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD COASTAL EROSION MANAGEMENT PERMIT Permit #6113 Date: April 20, 2005 SCTM# 83-1-11,12 Name of Applicant/Agent:'Cramer Consulting Group Name of Permittee: Nicholas Aliano Address of Permittee: 970 Route 25A, Miller Place, NY 11764 Property Located: 3705 Duck Pond Rd, end of east side of Glen Court, Cutchogue DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY: Permit to construct a single family dwelling and retaining walls with the condition of drywells to contain runoff and plantings seaward of the retaining walls after construction and all as depicted on the plans surveyed by Peconic Surveyors and last dated Aug. 31, 2005. Permit to construct and complete project will expire two years from the date the permit is signed. SPECIAL CONDITIONS: (apply if marked) Bluff restoration through a re-vegetation plan is a necessary special condition of this permit. A relocation agreement is attached hereto and is a necessary special condition of this permit. _A maintenance agreement is attached with application and is a necessary special condition of this permit. Albert J. Krupski, Jr. President, Board of Trustees AJK/hkc Albert J. Krupski, President Town Hall James King,Vice President 53095 Route 25 Artie Foster �0 OG P.O. Box 1179 Ken Poliwoda y� Southold, New York 11971-0959 Cz Peggy A. Dickerson H = O Telephone (631) 765-1892 T Fax (631) 765-1366 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE OFFICE OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES 72 HOURS PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE WORK, TO MAKE AN APPOINTMENT FOR A PRE-CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION. FAILURE TO DO SO SHALL BE CONSIDERED A VIOLATION AND POSSIBLE REVOCATION OF THE PERMIT. ireemit 611.3 INSPECTION SCHEDULE Pre-construction, hay bale line 1 s' day of construction '/z constructed 1 Project complete, compliance inspection. SURVEY OF PROPERTY A T CUTCHOG UE TOWN OF SO UTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, N. Y. 1000-83-01 11 & 12 SCALE: 1'=30' JANUARY 13, 2004 June 23, 2004 (boh) July 19, 2009 (revision) sepl. 3, 2004 (revisions) Jon. 13, 2005 (revisions) Jan. 19, 2005 (re visions) 50 Avq /Co 2oos/Pi op hse ) Aug. 31, 2005 (drywalls etc. �^ SLA (0, c� N ro L ' s i 0 1 Once Use Only _Coastal Erosion Permit Application Wetland Permit Application Administrative Permit Amendment/Transfer/Extension _kLIeceived Application: ' Received Fee:$ _Completed Application iii 1,p �L, 'N� ��r r �•,l y _Incomplete '' j� .,I _SEQRA Classification: Type I Type H Unlisted DEC 2 2 2011 Coordination:(date sent) L-'I WRP Consistency Assessment Form a �)"1 11 /CAC Referral Sent: )�-1 411 Date of Inspection: 1. L_ _ _ _Eca�A� cf _;ust _Receipt of CAC Report: _Lead Agency Determination: Technical Review: Public Hearing Held: _Resolution, Name of Applicant(V 2-(_(A N6 Address dA) (� PLS &W a K* Q Phone Number:(31 `7(fit — 6-deb Suffolk County Tax Map Numbers 1000 - 0 1 — Property Location: Z/s L Cdoo-r0_&C .E (provide LILCO Pole #, distance to cross streets, and location) AGENT: �I tj (If applicable) Address: b-7��&y_ �3��i . A `C cLyk � Any 01�_ wl I W CgAL��&OPt-6tVLI jU Z, a-Phone: 631 4-71,o -6C0cjf' ]= -fid of Trustees Applicatio GENERAL DATA ZLA Land Area(in square feet) Qp �7 Area Zoning: — L Q Previous use of property: Intended use of property: Covenants and Restrictions: '--� Yes No If"Yes", please provide copy. Does this project require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals /—Yes No If"Yes",please provide copy of decision. Prior permits/approvals for site improvements: r S A UL'1 * P i I _Ott Date m^ 3 [��I ,2 2 0� '473 03 r No prior permits/approvals for site improvements. Has any permit/approval ever been revoked or suspended by a governmental agency? �� Yes n If yes,provide explanationl �-i lut�=UO&— PUA (r— �Uz '-rtVz UU Egleok Project Description (use attachments if necessary): �i��J��1S �[/LY�-C� �71(L Y W-E—L-LIA6� �Cl4(!U cN�- ��5 • �`tf� �'12� ?4�N� Ld��9-c~�� '�' �� NG- �b9-v� 1`3�'� ►� g Jc S ��5�� '7'tf� ��'c/c�c� r . E' :d of Trustees Applicatio: WETLAND/TRUSTEE LANDS APPLICATION DATA ose of the proposed operations: �(b Qd s�ea Q:$A � d� a Aj� duic(G-wo 01L.1 L4-(� 10"0 aa CC� a Area of wetlands on lot: square feet Percent coverage of lot: Closest distance betweene�rest Vistin structure and upl d edge of wetlands: .`�p` ;`�_,c rfeet Closest distance between nearect.nroposed structure and upland edge of wetlands: ' -7 �oU leet Does the project involve excavation or filling? No_ X Yes If yes, how much material will be excavated? cubic yards How much material will be filled? ;Jn cubic yards Depth of which material will be removed or deposited: feet ©Proposed_sl9pe throughout th rea ofeThigns: (�OF (A) Manner in which material will be removed or deposited: L &o� • Statement of the effect, if any, on the wetlands and tidal waters of the town that may result by reason of such proposed operations (use attachments if appropriate): IL _'' _ 4_ _ C a. �' • ti's' .� , � _ • Ord of Trustees Applicatic COASTAL EROSION APPLICATION DATA Purposes of proposed activity: 2t1G-4ZE ( lam UJ _ AA& W (( y Qy Are wetlands present within 100 feet of the proposed activity? c _No Yes �� lS &-)l�tW (4�� d TT' T�°.r � Does the project involve excavation or filling? i I No ` Yes If Yes, how much material will be excavated? (cubic yards) How much material will be filled? (cubic yards) Manner in which material will be removed or deposited: (� Describe the nature and extent of the environmental impacts to the subject property or neighboring properties reasonably anticipated resulting from implementation of the project as proposed, including erosion increase or adverse effects on natural protective features. (Use attachments if necessary) 0-6&2 gQ1C-3/V 7b C1DA)INQ _ AM aW• X- �3Y&f f- .ftNAZY1/t CQA�JWL- I LAA tuA7S PUPAOM-h&I - tWrZVr �LZA ' PROJECT ID NUMBER 817,20 SEAR APPENDIX` C STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM -for UNLISTED ACTIONS Only PART 1 .PROJECT INFORMATION, (To:be complated byApplidant'or Project Sponsor) 1.APPLICANT l SPONSOR: 2:PROJECT `NAME —Aft 040 C_7� 2L lub- 3.PROJECT .LOC(`q��TION� /��: ► 'Munldpality cJ�v T" ] 4.PRECISE' LOCATION: SU66C Addass and Road :fere, n Promin Iandmerke' old -- p- file .�aD-,�g A fav /� `1 00� "l� /(J . LCD �2 L h7V)S 01V 5.IS PROPOSED, ACTION 11 New ❑Expansion ModKlcatiorr/atterabow &DESCRIBE..PROJECT.;BRIEFLYY- 96 06!� .1-2-b J l/JGLZ +V(.CL_y UJE L-L T..AMOUNT OF QA' ND' AFFECTED: initially seise. Ultimately 'coo _ B.WILL PROPOSED.ACTION COMPLY WITH. EXISTING ZONING-OR,OTHER RESTRICTIONS? NP Yes; No if,no,.deseribe briefly: II9��WHAT.IS RRESENT LAND USE IN 'VICINITY .OF PROJECT? (Choose as many as apply.) ` I v+'Realdentlal Industrial, Ej Coniirierclal ❑Agriwlture` tAark/Forest'/Open Space �Ott>a� (describe) 10. DOES ACTION .INVOLVE•A.PERMIT APPROVAL, OR FUNDING,. NOW'OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY (Federal,. State'or:focal); Yes PNo If yes, list agency nanre ;and permit!. approval: Ii-'DOE$; ANY ASPECT-OF THE,ACTION' HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID'PERMIT OR .APPROVAL?' aYes No If yes,.list,agency name;:and permit•% approval:; 1 AS`A- - ULT OF PR AS ION`WILL EXISTING PERMIT/ APPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATION?• es: No f CERTIFY THAT E INF ION .PROVI ABOVE IS-TRUE TO'THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Applicant %SpOris ams, �-S �--t/TiVLJ Date., W61 S`"nature_ " If the actioIn A a Gostal.Area,.and you ace a.state agency,. complete the Coastal Assessment Form before-proceeaing*1th this asseasiiieitt. PART 11- IMPACT ASSESSMENT To be completed by Lead Agency) A. DOES ACTION EXCEED ANY TYPE I THRESHOLD IN 6 NYCRR,PART 617.4? If yes,coordinate the review process and use the FULL EAF. Yes a No B. WILL ACTION RECEIVE COORDINATED REVIEW AS PROVIDED FOR UNLISTED ACTIONS IN 6 NYCRR PART 617.6? If No,a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency. Yes a No C. COULD ACTION RESULT IN ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FOLLOWING:(Answers may be handwritten,If legible) C1. Existing air quality,surface or groundwater quality or quantity,noise levels,existing traffic pattern,solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion,drainage or flooding problems? Explain briefly: C2. Aesthetic,agricultural,archaeological,historic,or other natural or cultural resources;or community or neighborhood character?Explain briefly: C3. Vegetation or fauna,fish,shellfish or wildlife species,significant habitats,or threatened or endangered species?.Explain briefly.- C4. riefly:C4. A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted,or a change in use or Intensity of use of land or other natural resources?Explain briefly- 05. rieflyC5. Growth,subsequent development,or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?Explain briefly: C6. Long term,short tern,cumulative,or other effects not identified in C1-05? Explain briefly C7. Other Impacts including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy? Iain briefly. D. WILL THE PROJECT HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS THAT CAUSED THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA CEA 7 If Yes,explain briefly: aYes a No E. IS THERE.OR IS THERE LIKELY TO BE CONTROVERSY RELATED TO POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS? If yes Iain: QYes Q No ` PART 111-DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE(To be completed by Agency) INSTRUCTIONS: For each adverse effect Identified above,determine whether it Is substantial,large,important orotherwise significant Each effect should be assessed in connection with its(a)setting(i.e.urban or rural);(b)probability of occurring;(c)duration;(d)Imeversibirdy;(e) geographic scope;and(f)magnitude. If necessary,add attachments or reference supporting materials. Ensurethat explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse Impacts have been identified and adequately addressed. If question d of part U was checked yes,the determination of significance mustevaluate the potential impact of the proposed action on the environmental characteristics of the CEA. Check this box Ifyou have Identified one or more potentially largeor significant adverse Impacts which MAY occur.Then proceed direcy to the FU EAF and/or prepare a positive declaration. Check this box If you have detem*wd,based on the Information and analysis above and any supporting documentation,that the proposed actio WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide,on attachments as necessary,the reasons supporting ttti determination. Board of Trustees Name of Lead Agency Date President Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Uead Agency Title of Responsible Officer Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer(If different from responsible officer E -d of Trustees Applicatioi County of Suffolk State of New York � C LLI BEING DULY SWORN DEPOSES AND AFFIRMS THAT HE/SHE IS THE APPLICANT FOR THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PERMIT(S)AND THAT ALL STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE TRUE TO THE BEST OF HIS/HER KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF, AND THAT ALL WORK WILL BE DONE IN THE MANNER SET FORTH IN THIS APPLICATION AND AS MAY BE APPROVED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF TRUSTEES. THE APPLICANT AGREES TO HOLD THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD AND THE TOWN TRUSTEES HARMLESS AND FREE FROM ANY AND ALL DAMAGES AND CLAIMS ARISING UNDER OR BY VIRTUE OF SAID PERMIT(S), IF GRANTED. IN COMPLETING THIS APPLICATION, I HEREBY AUTHORIZE THE TRUSTEEY, THE ENT(S)OR REPRESENTATIVES(S), TO ENTER ONTO MY PROP TY T ECT THE PREMISES IN CONJUNCTION WITH REVIEW OF APP C� ON. SignaturiP SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS DAY OF 20_LE otary Public EILEEN ROWAN Notary Public,State of New York No. 01804878676 Qualified In Suffolk County Commission Expires February 19,20 L S ;wSjSw!lqq4A uqoJ'au?.iT lo bi-, - "R 'V'Yi0Vi? "Y'JU01 IT I _151A A!J!, E!ll Q TXJ P MY) 2TABI UTAI 8 AWFAHT 0A A i?)Tl -APIOY/ JUP I AM (MA, �lVil, X1 ��.'UTIF OT ".IP JUIT 'Y'AMI 2 A�GVIA 2M F W 110110`1 lv"CDO "�lla T,' TT }3 J17 2 WTI URT, �41 IA,10T ME CITIA (w o m r j cis 4o -j'v o.,j o hif 10"", 04121 Nit 2WA,J-) G,TA ?JDAKAG UA (0.f/TA y4ll� _N"CIA 1171071 •4V 11 2201ARA H. 21M 'ra.' lJ 11 J EISUPOH-VUh, Y8'-, --l-PH 1, EUTF T139M M., YTAEVioftll 11.01A CYI fl�() 0 i'llh-I'll 2N."ll JAMRS OT AffolAy .hoy Nit ni n !"-o noi, l rd of Trustees Applicatic AUTHORIZATION (where the applicant is not the owner) I, �[0 60LA22 j Ak)d residing at ?(print owner of property) (mailing address) (lam do hereby authorize CkAA2& 0 (Agent) C 1�suc�-cN� �l 10 to apply for permit(s) from the Southold Board of Town es on my be signa ) APPLICANT/AGENT/RE PRESENTATIVE 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: ALJ ALOC. (Last name,-first na ,middle initial,unless you are applying in the name of someone else oroffer entity,such as a company.If so,indicate the other person's or company's name.) NAME OF APPLICATION: (Check all that apply.) Tax grievance Building _ Variance Trustee Change of Zone Coastal Erosion Approval of plat Mooring Exemption from plat or official map Planning Other (If"Other",name the activity.) 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 �!;4- - 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 applicantlagent/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 than 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 Submitte 2Z y of I 20Q Signa Print Name Form TS 1 Town of Southold Erosion, Sedimentation 8i: Storm-Water Run-off ASSESSMENT FORM PROPERTY LOCATION: S.C.T.M.A: THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS MAY REQUIRE THE SUBMISSION OF A 0ZO( � DQ3 (I Ck Z STORM-WATER,GRADING,DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN his r c-F Iecl o CERTIFIED BY A DESIGN PROFESSIONAL IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK. SCOPE OF WORK - PROPOSED CONSTRUC'T'ION ITEM# /' WORK ASSESSMENT Yes No a. What is the Total Area of the Project Parcels? (include Total Area of all Parcels located within 1-f � Will this Project Retain All Storm-Water Run-Off Generated by Two( Inch Rainfall on Site? the Scope of Work for Proposed Construction) ❑ (S.F.AMreer— (This item will i all all run-0ff created by site b. What is the Total Area of Land Clearing ^^ clearing and/or construction activities as well as all � and/or Ground Disturbance for the propose Cf�J l� i�(-0 Site Improvements and the permanent creation of construction activity? j(S.F FMM� impervious surfaces.) 2 Does the Site Plan and/or Survey Show All Proposed PROVIDE BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION (Provide Additional Pops aeNeedeM Drainage Structures Indicating Size&Location?This Item shall Indude all Proposed Grade Changes and Slopes Controlling Surface Water Flow 3 Does the Site Plan and/or Survey describe the erosion and sediment control practices that will be used to — control site erosion and storm water discharges. This item must be maintained throughout the Entire Construction Period. 14 4 Will this Project Require any Land Filling,Grading or Excavation where there is a change to the Natural Existing Grade Involving more than 200 Cubic Yards U — of Material within any Parcel? 5 Will this Application Require Land Disturbing Activities — Encompassing an Area in Excess of Five Thousand (5,000 S.F.)Square Feet of Ground Surface? 6 Is there a Natural Water Course Running through the Site? Is this Project within the Trustees jurisdiction General DEC SWPPP Requirements: or within One Hundred(100')feet of a Welland or Submission of a SWPPP is required for all Construction activities involving soil Beach? disturbances of one(1)or more acres; including disturbances of less than one acre that 7 Will there be Site preparation on Existing Grade Slopes are part of a larger common plan that will ultimately disturb one s a more acres land; which Exceed Fifteen(15)feet of Vertical Rise to Including Construction activities involving soil disturbances of less than one(1)acre where One Hundred(100')of Horizontal Distance? — the DEC has determined that a SPDES permit is required for storm water discharges. (SWPPP's Shall meet the Minimum Requirements of the SPDES General Permit 8 Will Driveways,Parking Areas or other Impervious for Storm Water Discharges from Construction activity-Permit No.GP-040-001.) Surfaces be Sloped to Direct Storm-Water Run-Off - 1 The SWPPP shall be prepared prior to the submittal of the NOI.The NOI shall be into and/or in the direction of a Town right-0f-way? J submitted to the Department prior to the commencement of construction activity. 2.The SWPPP shall describe the erosion and sediment control practices and where 9 Will this Project Require the Placement of Material, required,postconstructkm storm water management practices that will be used and/or Removal of Vegetation and/or the Construction of any ` / constructed to reduce the pollutants In storm water discharges and to assure Item Within the Town Right-0f--Way or Road Shoulder 2` compliance with the terms and conditions of this permit.In addition,the SWPPP shall Area?(This item will NOT include the Installation of Driveway Aprons.) Identify potential sources of pollution which may reasonably be expected to affect the quality of storm water discharges. NOTE: If Any Answer to Questions One through Nine Is Answered with a Check Mark 3.Ag SWPPPs that require the post-construction storm water management practice in a Box and the construction site disturbance is between 5,000 S.F.&1 Acre in area, component shag be prepared by a qualified Design Professional Licensed in New York a Storm-Water,Grading,Drainage&Erosion Control Plan is Required by the Town of that is knowledgeable In the pdndples and practices of Storm Water Management Southold and Must be Submitted for Review Prior to issuance of Any Building Permit (NOTE A Check Mark(,I)and/or Answer for each Question is Required for a Complete Applica0m) STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF. .. .... .. �-....SS That I,l..V.� ... . .. ...... /...11!.0....being duly sworn,deposes and says that he/she is the applicant for Permit,(Name of indivl ua signing ment Andthat he/she is the ....................... ..'............................................................................................................ (Owner,Contractor,Agent,Corporate Officer;etc.) Owner and/or representative of the Owner or Owners,and is drily authorized to perform or have performed the said work and to make and file this application;that all statements contained in this application are true to the best of his wledge anelief;and that the work will be performed in the manner set forth in the application filed herewith. Sworn to b e this; /// A i ......day o . .Q..�/.L�✓..1.. Notary Public: l�1LEEN.RQWAR... .................. ....... .. ........................... Not Public,State of New --t- . . ....(Sig azure nq FORM - 06!10 pualified in Suffolk County CaMmIulon Expires February 19,201� Town of Southold LWRP CONSISTENCY ASSESSMENT FORM A. INSTRUCTIONS 1. All applicants for permits* including Town of Southold agencies, shall complete this CCAF for proposed actions that are subject to the Town of Southold Waterfront Consistency Review Law. This assessment is intended to, supplement other information used by a Town of Southold agency in making a determination of consistency. *Except minor exempt actions including Building Permits and other ministerial permits not located within the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area. 2. Before answering the questions in Section C, the preparer of this form should review the exempt minor action list, policies and explanations of each policy contained in the Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. A proposed action will be evaluated as to its significant beneficial and adverse effects upon the coastal area(which includes all of Southold Town). 3. If any question in-Section C on this form is answered "yes", then the proposed action may affect the achievement of the LWRP policy standards and conditions contained in the consistency review law. Thus, the action should be analyzed in more detail and, if necessary, modified prior to making a determination that it is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the LWRP policy standards and conditions. If an action cannot be certified as consistent with the LWRP policy standards and conditions,it shall not be undertaken. A copy of the LWRP is available'in the following places: online,at the Town of Southold's website (southoldtown.northfork.net), the Board of Trustees Office, the Planumk-. epartment, all local libraries and the Town Clerk's office. B. DESCRIPTION OF STTEAND PROPOSED ACTION ( � 2 2011 ! ,J DEC 2 SCTM ScOhoid Ta,,:;n The Application has been submitted to(check appropriate response): �^ Board of Tms ees Town Board 0 Planning Dept. © Building Dept. XBoard of Trustees 1. Category of Town of Southold agency action(check appropriate response): (a) Action undertaken directly by Town agency(e.g. capital 0 construction,planning activity,agency regulation, land transaction) (b) Financial assistance(e.g. grant, loan, subsidy) (c) Permit,approval, license, certification: Nature andAxtent of action: QNdj, Z :tj!Lkcc-!r - ww U& c�CQ , Octic)(� P-6NCP-& Location of action: (=fo Site acreage: Present land use: \",A 1�1 Present zoning classification: ` 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: , CSC. —� 74,(1L� /�7g; ►�� / vy C� — (b) Mailing address: (c) Telephone number: Area Code(� ( 4?76 (d) Application number, if any: Will the action be directly undertaken,require funding, or approval by a state or federal agency? Yes ❑ No 19 If yes,which state or federal agency? DEVELOPED COAST POLICY Policy 1. Foster a pattern of development in the Town of Southold that enhances community character, preserves open space, makes efficient use of infrastructure, makes beneficial use of a coastal location, and minimizes adverse effects of development. See LWRP Section III—Policies; Page 2 for evaluation criteria. IsqYes ❑ No ❑ (Not Applicable-please explain) v� 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 thro4gh 6 for evaluation criteria Yes ❑ No ❑ (Not Applicable—please explain) Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 3. Enhance visual quality and protect scenic resources throughout the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section HI—Policies Pages 6 through 7 for evaluation criteria Yes 0 Non (Not Applicable—please explain) 6 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 I —Policies Pages 8 through 16 for evaluation criteria El"Yes D No D (Not Applicable—please explain) C_- -Attach _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 0 No 13 (Not Applicable—please explain) GM6,W6 LM 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 0 No 0 (Not Applicable—please explain) 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. See Section III— Policies Pages; 34 through 38 for evaluation criteria. 0 Yes 0 Noj�L(Not Applicable—please explain) 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. ub u Yes ❑ No (Not Applicable—please explain) ) LL 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, criteri YesO No 0 (Not Applicable—please explain) Attach additional sheets if necessary WORKING COAST POLICIES Policy 10. Protect Southold's , !r-dependent uses and promote siting of new water-dependent uses in suitable locations. See LWRP Section III—Policies; Pages 47 through 56 for evaluation criteria. lj�Kes ❑ No ❑ (Not Applicable—please explain). 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. ri- I Yes ❑ No Not Applicable—please explain 'LDAttach 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. 0 Yes ❑ No ErNot Applicable—please explain 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—please explain ALIANO PROPERTY GLEN COURT, CUTCHOGUE NY LWRP CONSISTENCY ASSESSMENT ADDENDUM POLICY 1. Forster 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. This project is consistent with this policy. A proposed single family dwelling on a conforming lot, located on an existing road, offering water views. The clearing of the property will be minimal and as necessary for the proposed development of the lot. POLICY 2. Protect and preserve historic and archaeological resources of the Town of Southold. This project is consistent with this policy. The property is not located within or within close proximity to an archaeologically sensitive area as defined by the NYS Historic Preservation Office. POLICY 3. Enhance visual quality and protect scenic resources throughout the Town of Southold. This project is consistent with this policy. The single family dwelling is proposed on a privately owned parcel of land. The structure will not interfere with scenic views. All utilities are installed underground in this area. Denuded areas of the bluff to be re-vegetated with drought resistant town approved species. POLICY 4. Minimize loss of life, structures and natural resources from flooding and erosion. This project is consistent with this policy. The single family dwelling is to be located approximately 60' from the bluff and outside the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area. The dwelling is set as far back from the bluff while still maintaining town required setbacks to property lines or requiring minimal variance to setback requirements. Clearing of site to allow for the construction of the dwelling shall be kept to a minimum. All disturbed areas and de-nuded areas of the bluff shall be re-vegetated with town approved species. No hard structural erosion protection measure proposed as part of this project. POLICY 5. Protect and improve water quality and supply in the Town of Southold. This project is consistent with this policy. All run-off will be contained on site with the use of leaders and gutters and drywells. POLICY 6. Protect and restore the quality and function of the Town of Southold ecosystems including Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats and wetlands. This project is consistent with this policy. No development in the Long Island Sound Ecosystem. Run-off to be maintained on site, no intrusion into the Long Island Sound. No fill will be deposited in any wetlands or adjacent area. The dwelling to be located 60' from the top of the bluff maintaining a sufficient buffer from development to the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area. POLICY 7. Protect and improve air quality in the Town of Southold. N/A POLICY 8. Minimize environmental degradation in Town of Southold from solid waste and hazardous substances and wastes. This project is consistent with this policy. This is a single residence producing household waste to be disposed of according to town policy. POLICY 9. Provide for public access to, and recreational use of coastal waters, public lands and public resources of the Town of Southold. This project is consistent with this policy. The property is adjacent to public access to the Long Island Sound and does not interfere or encumber this public access to the.beach. POLICY 10. Protect Southold's water-dependent uses and promote siting of new water-dependent uses in suitable location. This project is consistent with this policy. This project does not have an impact on water dependent uses. POLICY 11: Promote sustainable use of living marine resources in Long Island Sound,the Peconic Estuary and Town waters. N/A POLICY 12. Protect agricultural lands in the Town of Southold. N.A POLICY 13. Promote appropriate use and development of energy and mineral resources. N/A Complete land Use Services—Including Planning,Design and Environmental P.O.Box 5535 Miller Place,New York 11764 Thomas W.Cramer,Principal Telephone(631)476-0984-Fax(631)476-6933 December 20, 2011 Town of Southold Board of Trustees Town Hall 53095 Route 25 PO Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Re: Aliano @ Glen Court, Southold, NY TOS Board of Trustees Permit#6113 SCTM#: 1000-83-1-11 & 12 Dear Sir/Madam: Please be advised that the owner of the above named property proposes to construct a Single Family Dwelling. The property is located within 100' of Mean High Water. However, the location of the dwelling is outside 100' of Mean High Water. Further, ground disturbance is outside of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area. Please note that a permit was issued by the Trustees, April 20, 2005 as Permit#6113. This application is being submitted for review of the Trustees as the location of the dwelling has changed. Further, there is an existing foundation on the property, built with the benefit of a Town Building Permit. Subsequent to the construction of the foundation, the Town determined that the building permit was issued in error. As a result,the property owner is required to make an application to the Board of Zoning Appeals. In support of this application to the Board of Trustees, enclosed herewith please find the following: • Board of Trustees Application including General Data Sheet, Coastal Erosion. Application Data Sheet, Short Environmental Assessment Form, and Transactional Disclosure Form. • Board of Trustees Wetlands Application Data Sheet. • Application for Coastal Erosion Permit. • LWRP Consistency Form with Addendum • Copy of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Permit and Amendment • Copy of the Declaration of Covenants as required by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. • One original copy of the Site Plan/Survey, dated May 31; 2011. Ouc ou .nuuj co 'n oLiim Awj), 3 f; �c)1, r ,1110 Olf,COAC�IYYUT2 92 U;dr!Lc-q 0.,flit 14VA )-,OLY ?,N' D (lb! q MG pyn% Loq OLIIUA!LOUNA-1)(11 I'slAn(f) nqfp Vqq U ci.jq BOaq OLIUMM /Ocqvuqa x1bbpayu pil." Banq wt.j mncse vbbpc'qj!caf ju arlbou%gla vbbpctif!ou fo tpG j..j-osrq nj.j,Lmg-;s-.,' rwjqm�e;q jJCU'WO.!jl.J blGFIn �'juq fpG abygou BnHTUR bow, ?fT?Gdncuj la PC caulphya"." of qjc Ip c lzfi�f� fpc' 'R ou tijr.;bl.Ob'Ut�.' Pn!g tagp Q PGUOU! 010 JOMU) p'q'jjc'r" � CPUURcq- Ige ubbpcopon p pqUR 2npuj!tK,0,,' 4.(6L LCAICH.. %Q ILnKCG,? U2 111C. j()Cl4fl0IJ q/Acqu, U 8 ju a ht tom. y413f�Q () )b!unpl, �--erlc'q fA jp; of fu13 ELOP!011 tIfTSIMS1 yLel. 01,!pc qmcqpo jj ampe 100, 01, �".uiuq qic i'?cXj 1pf.', 0,�jIuIC-L 0j'QJG UPOAC)MIM011 WHO Anbom? 10 caumcr I ,.Lo -F.�os i.q ot,.j y-ung Q,l 1 u u a cof-ff.r 0 r,,',G A j,() 1 f 0�I-Yluill b fl) :3 A 23062 KOM Me J'0HJj 01i,?OfJfIJOlTq Bwfq OL,V-fl2fGG2 isrhymc WA i One - CW 1 ins' SAY M • One check, rr payable to the Town of Southold in the amount of$250.00 to cover the application fee. • One copy of the Board of Trustees Permit#6119 Kindly contact this office if you are in need of anything further to process this application. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very Truly Y LSA, 1 een owan /er Enc. Cc: N. Aliano SOUND 7i'W D-AS 13 S H.D.9 F.O. 12 4• 1Wq 7.3 ui� 12.2 ldlp 37 ..No 14 4-114 � NO. 3 n II roa.c�NO, FOR NO UM EC W ———— --Z--— ——— ———— --—Z--— —--------—2---------------- —————Z- lWE CO�W�9FSy!�K.Q E M�NO �K PERNA wWe"`•il�--�4=0 —n 'A 44