HomeMy WebLinkAbout7140 lex
7/Af o s ree
eer
11 qe-tb4�k 0�
YD
ti'll.,
A"ce- (AJtt( bt P4�Vfl& 'i
w I
2qrf- )(Xlt 000-/1 /0 A-� ;Vfec OIB-A?
:3/1 11g, 1513119 D4ALeA (-IXt jtl�
4,, 10b W
CHECK BOX�S AS COMPLETED
Tape this form to outside of file
Pull ZBA copy of ND > 0 > 0
a3 0 a
) Check file boxes for pric 0 CL M
Assign next number on
outside of file folder
Date stamp entire origii
file number m -n -a cn -a E:
�3 Q :0,- Cc: 0 -0
Hole punch entire origi, LD . . U C) CD
:3 -.1.. =3- > M cn ,
7 CD =r 00 W co CU
0 0 CD
(before sending to T.C.) 3 ><
,X,
Cn Cn
Create new index card 3 90 z C) M CD
2) 0) -< -N �<
�< (D
Print contact info & tar 5 Cn 3 CD
co " a)
X
Prepare transmittal to ' 6 0 0
@ M co CL W 1:
< C:) CL
Send original applicatic CD
M.
to Town Clerk _:�ON
0
Note inside file folder x
and tape to inside of ft CD
) copy County Tax Map; In
neighbors and AG lots
Make 7 copies and put
Do mailing label
St CAJ
C,DP(
L-W KP I I i
E06 Otaflq —
No 4617 r-C--
OFFICE LOCATION: AIAILING ADDRESS:
Town Hall Annex
"t'rif so P.O.Box 1179
54375 State Road Route 25 Southold,NY 11971
(cor.Main Rd. &Youngs Ave.)
Southold,NY Telephone: 631 765-1809
CM
http://southoldtownny.gov
COU01
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Town of Southold
RECEIVED
' d 9!113a41X,
FINDINGS,DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION J eN2 7 2018
MEETING OF JUNE 21,2018 0. n"
ZBA FILE: 7140 e4�� ,
NAME OF APPLICANT: 1505 Birdseye Road, LLC SoLwhold Town Clerk
PROPERTY LOCATION: 1505 Birdseye Road, Orient SCTM#1000-17-1-4
SEQRA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under consideration in this
application and determines that this review falls under the Type 11 category of the State's List of Actions, without
further steps under SEQRA.
SUFFOLK COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE: This application was referred as required under the Suffolk
County Administrative Code Sections A 14-14 to 25, and the Suffolk County Department of Planning issued its
reply dated December 1, 2017 stating that this application is considered a matter for local determination as there
appears to be no significant county-wide or inter-community impact.
LWRP DETERMINATION: This application was referred for review under Chapter 268, Waterfront Consistency
review of the Town of Southold Town Code and the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) Policy
Standards. The LWRP Coordinator issued a recommendation dated February 16, 2018. Based upon the
information provided on the LWRP Consistency Assessment Form, as well as the records available, it is the
coordinator's recommendation that the proposed action is INCONSISTENT with LWRP policy standards and
therefore is INCONSISTENT with the LWRP.The agency made the following findings:
a) The proposed residential structure is not located within the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area (CEHA).
However,the property contains large area of slopes equal to or greater than 15 percent. It is recommended
that the Southold Board of Trustees verify the top of bluff on the parcel.
b) To protect life and property during storm events and erosion over time, it is recommended to locate
structures as far from the Long Island Sound bluff to the greatest extent practicable. However due to parcel
topography and the amount of slopes on the property, it is recognized that relocating the structure further
from the top of the bluff is difficult.
c) If action is approved, it is recommended that a non-disturbance buffer is established from the Coastal
Erosion Hazard Line (CEHL), seaward to prevent erosion on slopes, preserve the integrity of the bluff,
limit turf areas and preserve groundwater and surface water quality.
d) The proposal to construct a deer fence more than the code required maximum four(4)feet in height located
in the front yard is recommended as CONSISTENT.
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TOWN ENGINEER: This application was referred to the Town Engineer for review.
Comments were received on March 7,2018, after the public hearing of March 1, 2018, recommending that the
applicant re-survey the site to re-assess the location of the top of the bluff. Included with the Town Engineer's
Page 2,June 7,2018
#7140, 1505 Birdseye
SCTM No. 1000-17-1-4
comments was a copy of Suffolk County LIDAR Contours which indicated that the top of the bluff had shifted
further landward towards the eastern portion of the property than what was noted on the applicant's survey.
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BOARD OF TRUSTEES: In a memo dated March 7, 2018, the Chairperson of the ZBA
informed the.Board of Trustees that during the recent hearing, there were discussions and testimony from opposing
environmental and coastal sciences consultants, one representing the applicant, the other representing the
neighbors, relating to the accuracy of the top of the bank/bluff as depicted on the applicant's survey of January 2,
2013. On March 8, 2018, the top of the bluff was reflagged by the Trustees and their flags were consistent with the
Suffolk County LIDAR map provided by the Southold Town Engineer, and the "corrected top of bluff line" hand
drawn on the applicant's survey that was submitted at the hearing by the neighbor's environmental consultant The
ZBA asked the applicant's representative to retain a licensed surveyor to plot the flags on a survey. A revised
survey was submitted, dated April 9, 2018 showing the proposed dwelling at 36.7 feet from the top of the bluff at
its closest point. On April 13, 2018 the President of the Trustees inspected the subject property in response to a
request for comments from the ZBA Chairperson. In a memorandum dated April 13, 2018, the President of the
Board of Trustees expressed the need to preserve the vegetation that stabilizes the bluff as well as preserving the
low lying area in the southeast corner of the property. The memo stated that the NW orientation of the bluff
provides protection from storm events and should be considered a mitigating factor for the revised 36.7 foot bluff
setback.
SUFFOLK COUNTY SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT: This application was referred to the
Suffolk County Soil and Water Conservation District for an evaluation and recommendation. The agency informed
the ZBA in a letter received December 8, 2017,that a site inspection was performed on December 6,2017 to
evaluate the potential environmental impacts that would be caused by the construction of a new dwelling on the
currently vacant property. The agency observed that the bluff is very well vegetated with no signs of erosion, and
noted a large depression at the southern end of the parcel. In addition,the agency described the following potential
concerns: the installation of a septic system because of proximity to surface water which would impact water
quality;the proposed installation of deer fence on the bluff face which would pose an unacceptable erosion hazard
to the bluff, significant land clearing and excavation proposed on the site as a potential for soil erosion; and the use
of large and heavy construction equipment which can cause bluff instability.
PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION.- The subject property is located at 1505 Birdseye Road, Orient, NY. It is a
conforming 1.356 acre parcel (to tie line) located in the R-40 Zoning District. The parcel measures 218.10 feet
fronting the Long Island Sound along the northerly property line, 389.57 along the easterly property line, 84.15
along the southerly property line, and 322.25 along the westerly property line. The parcel is an undeveloped
residential property with steep slopes and a low laying swale area in the southeast comer. The parcel is accessed by
a 50 foot private right of way to the southwest comer of the property, as shown on a survey prepared by John T.
Metzger, Land Surveyor, dated January 2, 2013.
BASIS OF APPLICATION: Request for Variances from Article IV, Section 280-18; Article XXII, Section 280-
105; Article XXII, Section 280-116; and the Building Inspector's November 17 2017, Amended November 22,
2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to construct a new single family dwelling
and to erect deer fence at a height of 8 feet at; 1) proposed single family dwelling located less than the code
required minimum front yard setback of 50 feet; 2) proposed dwelling located less than the code required 100 feet
from the top of the bluff; 3) proposed deer fence more than the code required maximum four (4) feet in height
when located in the front yard, located at: 1505 Birdseye Road, (Adj. to the Long Island Sound) Orient, NY.
SCTM#1000 17-1-4.
RELIEF REQUESTED: The applicant requests variances to construct a 6,028 sq. ft. single family dwelling with
terrace, pool and pool deck, having a distance of 50 feet from the top of bluff at its closest point, instead of the
minimum required setback of 100 feet and having a distance of 41.7 feet from the front yard property line where a
Page 3, June 7,2018
#7140, 1505 Birdseye
SCTM No. 1000-17-1-4
minimum of 50 feet is required. In addition, the applicant requests permission to construct an eight (8) foot high
deer fence in the front yard, which is not permitted. All is depicted on a survey prepared by John T. Metzger, Land
Surveyor; last revised April 9, 2018.1
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: On February 28, 2018 the Board of Appeals received written correspondence
from the attorney representing several neighboring property owners opposing the variances requested. The
communication includes a letter and report from an environmental scientist specializing in coastal issues.
Subsequent to a site inspection, the specialist describes the subject property as containing extreme geological
constraints to development and cites potential adverse and unrecoverable impacts to the bluff.
During the public hearing of March 1, 2018,testimony in opposition by legal and environmental representatives of
several of the applicant's neighbors, and the neighbors themselves, continued. The concerns expressed included the
possible inaccuracy of the top of the bluff location on the original survey submitted with the application, the need
to protect the bluff from erosion which would be caused by the removal of large areas of existing vegetation close
to and on top of the bluff during clearing for construction, and the fact that deer fencing does not exist in and is
therefore not characteristic of their neighborhood.
The Board received from the applicant's agent a report dated April 2, 2018,written by a specialist from New York
Sea Grant, a SUNY University based program, outlining and discussing science based coastal processes that are
occurring on and around the subject property. In the report, causes of bluff erosion are identified, and it
acknowledges that the current well vegetated condition of the bluff helps in preventing further erosion. The low
lying, swale, located on the southern portion of the property is not identified as a wetland or as an area needing
protection.
AMENDED APPLICATION: The applicant submitted a revised survey to the Building Department, dated April 9,
2018 which depicts the top of the bluff on the property per the findings of the Town Trustees and Town Engineer.
An amended Notice of Disapproval was issued on April 18, 2018 identifying the top of the bluff setback to the
proposed new dwelling at 36.7 feet where the code requires a minimum of 100 feet. The variance relief for the
proposed non-conforming front yard setback of 47.1 feet and deer fencing in the front yard remain the same.
FINDINGS OF FACT/REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION:
The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on March 1, 2018 and May 3, 2018 at
which time written and oral evidence were presented. Based upon all testimony, documentation, personal
inspection of the property and surrounding neighborhood, and other evidence,the Zoning Board finds the
following facts to be true and relevant and makes the following findings:
1. Town Law V67-b(3)(b)(1). Grant of the variances will produce an undesirable change in the character of the
neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The neighborhood is accessed via a private right of way that
leads to several inland and waterfront properties developed with large single family dwellings. The subject property
is one of the few undeveloped parcels in the area, especially along Long Island Sound. Many of the lots are
irregularly shaped and dwellings are placed on the properties at different angles to each other. While some
waterfront homes have non-conforming bluff setbacks, the average is almost double the distance being requested
by the applicant. None of the homes in the immediate area have deer fencing of any kind. The bridge that extends
into the front yard over the low lying area, leading to the applicant's proposed dwelling, is not typical in the
neighborhood.
1 Although the application as applied for was for relief for a structure of 50 feet from the top of the bluff,an updated survey
and site inspection by members of the Board and Town Trustees showed the proposed structure would actually be 36.5 feet
from the top of the bluff(see Amended Application below.)
Page 4, June 7,2018
#7140, 1505 Birdseye
SCTM No. 1000-17-1-4
2. Town Law V67-bQ(b)(2). The benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for
the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The applicant can shift the house further to the south in order
to increase the top of bluff setback to a conforming distance. The low lying swale area to the south portion of the
parcel has not been flagged as a protected wetland, nor does it have any elements of a protected wetland area,
Additionally, as noted above, a site plan by a registered architect was submitted to the Board of Appeals that shows
a 12,954 square foot buildable area on the subject property in conformance with all town code setbacks that would
permit the applicant to construct up to a 6,028 square foot dwelling with a terrace, pool and pool deck
3. Town Law §267-b(3)(b)(3). The variances granted herein are mathematically substantial, representing 63.3%
relief from the code for the top of bluff setback, 16% relief from the code for the front yard setback, and 100%
relief from the code for an eight foot deer fence erected in the front yard.
4. Town Law §267-WAM) Evidence has been submitted to suggest that a variance in this residential
community will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood.
Differing perspectives were presented by experts on behalf of the applicant and those in opposition to the
application regarding the impacts that the proposed dwelling could have on bluff erosion and instability in the
proposed location on the subject property. The Board finds that the testimony that there exists potential adverse
and unrecoverable impacts to the bluff if the relief is granted, as more credible. The Board further finds that
relocating the proposed dwelling to conform to town setback requirements will preserve the existing vegetation that
stabilizes the bluff. Moreover, the Board has established a precedent to preserve bluffs in its decision in the Matter
of Aliano v. Oliva case in which the Board denied a 50 foot bluff setback for a proposed 1,600 square foot house
because it would "introduce impermeable surfaces and alter soil structure causing accelerated recession which
could result in damage to the neighboring properties and to the proposed dwelling"(ZBA file no.: 5 846,August 3 1,
2006). Additionally, although the Board of Town Trustees indicated the need to preserve the low lying area in the
southeast corner (front yard) of the property, they offer no explanation as to why, since the area has not been
flagged as protected wetlands.
5. Town Law §267-b(3)(b)(5). The difficulty has been self-created. The applicant purchased the parcel after the
Zoning Code was in effect and it is presumed that the applicant had actual or constructive knowledge of the
limitations on the use of the parcel under the Zoning Code in effect prior to or at the time of purchase.
6. Town Law 4267-b. Grant of the requested relief is not the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable
the applicant to enjoy the benefit of a new home while preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood
and the health, safety and welfare of the community.
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: In considering all of the above factors and applying the balancing test under
New York Town Law 267-13, motion was offered by Member Acampora, seconded by Member Planamento, and
duly carried,to
DENY the variance relief as applied for
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members Weisman(Chairperson), Dantes,Acampora, and Planamento (Member
Lehnert abstained): This Resolution was duly adopted(4-1).
4slie kaneso Weisman"Chairperson
Approved for filing 612 5/'20 18
arl
7
SE L L UV
Q SURVEY OF PROPERTY
AT ORIENT
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Ca
SUFFOLK COUNTY. MY
1000-17-01-04
kao. SGALE: 1 �= 40'
OW93 OCTOBER 17, 2012
NOVEMBER 30, 2012 (REVISION)
JANUARY 2, 2013 (ADDITIONS)
AUGUST 2. 2013 (REVISED BLDG. ENVELOPE)
0
100, - - -—----------------
'170 OCTOBER 30, 2014 (CLEARING & BLUFF LOCATION)
Zone Line
'Tr
JANUARY 03, 2018 (PROPOSED HOUSE)
e JANUARY 24, 2018 (REVISIONS)
-------- APRIL 9, 2018 (REVISIONS)
/"'000' 17.
+0 "1
0
"00"
C)16
TOP OF BLUFF LINE AS FLAGGED
Or-
BY JOHN BREDEMEYER, TOWN TRUSTEE.
-7,0/
c
30 �A\/
0
— ZONING 90ARIJ OF APPE-Al-S
//,0/ co-,
\fi
N -0 C)
/ 1 0 0. -7-
.0 10? r1k,
;A C6
EX1ST7Nr;,. '0REST OF BLUFF
4jN tl\
FLAGS ADDED BY VTER SCIENCE ON 0912j114, I
EXTENDING THE BLUFF CREST TO EASTERN LOT LINE. V 5.
-X
C,v
Cv
CO - ---------
HOUSE\FOUNDA TION WALL
&
'*y
0 21"
U)
26
k'sAy
�'Z��s
TES T HOLE DATA
0
McDONALD GEOSCIENCE
I O10J11 2
FR.HSE P77C
1q.,
EL. 21.9'
Aj .
PALE BROWN SANDY SILT Mt
0
NTH GRAVEL IN LAYERS
rn
qt
Cl)
04
EL. J.9' 18,
8
WATER IN PALE BROWN SILTY A4L
2 21'
NP k---
< WATER IN BROW CLAYEY SAND SC
EL. -10' —jj'
WATER IN BROw nNE TO COARSE SAND SP
NO 7E. WA TER ENCOUN 7ERED 18' BEL 0 W SURFA CE
Ntp 10#11
'0'0 C'v
ON\
5EPTIC, 5Y5TEM DETAIL
RAIN RUNOFF GONTAINMENT NOT 70 SCALE
FINISHED GRADE
PP,OP05E:r-> HOU5E ROOF AKEA - 6,026 5Q.FT. EL. 20.0'
6,028 X 0.17 X 1.0 - 1,024.76 CU. FT. RVASONARY CHI"'
1,024.76 CU.FT. / 42.21 5Q.FT. - 24.28 LIN. FT.
MASONARY CHIMNEY
rKOVI0E (4) I)KY WELL5 64 X 6' I)EEP I' HIM
32.00 FT. REQUIREC)
lam cm
KIM ELELV. 19.0' 300
mom
3 00 m!
SEPTIC 110'+ Ica 0 Un
cm 2-73 gems em
CM 9" r�n
1�500 GAL.PRECAST Gn on am em ED Im MI
S. 10025 2M rN IM en eg 0 E
SEP77C TANK 5' LIQUID DEP7H 00 Cn 2M RM en ED MIME
[a 0 CM 2M RM En em em M E
mom M M Im Im IM M[
2 0 25 2M RM en EM M ME
0 0 CM Rn em em M EM E31
I V-R � — — —' 3' SAND COLLAR
01-1 8, 0 1
LEACHING POOL 6,
3' SAND COLLAR-V
.0. L
__j
810 REMOVE MATERIAL 8'0 TO
SAND (SP) & BACKFILL MTH
SAND SAND (SW) DOWN TO SAND (SP)
(SP)
MONUMENT PROP05ED 5EFTICI 5y5TE:m
BLUFF FLAGS 4 DEDIKOOM HOU5E
CEHL from CEHAM Photo 48 I-PKECA5T 1500 &ALLON CYLINDKICAL 5EPTIC- TANK
6'� X 5' DEEP
Flood Zone lines from FIRM 36103CO064H I-LEACHINC, POOL.5 8'� X 16' C>EEP
and actual contours. WITH 3' 5ANr,> COLLAK
BUILDING ZONE R-40
ELEVAT70NS AND CONTOUR LINES ARE REFERENCED To NAVD. 0
+
00 0
Ui
�U-
AREA= 1.356 ACRES TO TIE LINE , 2: W
00
xb
i4-) CC
I am familiar with the STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL PO
AND CONS7RUC77ON OF SUBSURFACE SEWAGE
DISPOSAL SYSTEMS FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES 01F Nj�q.'
and will abide by the conditions set forth therein and on the
permit to construct. GIN
777e location of wells and cesspools shown hereon are
from field observations and or from data obtained from others.
ANY ALTERA77ON OR ADD177ON To THIS SURVEY IS A WOLA77ON
OF' SEC77ON 7209 OF THE NEW YORK STATE EDUCA77ON LAW AM r LIC. NO. 49618
EXCEPT AS PER SEC77ON 7209-SUBDIWSION 2. ALL CER71F7CA770NS ROAD (SR
PECOIVICy5UR VE YORS, P.C.
HEREON ARE VALID FOR 7HIS MAP AND COPIES THEREor ONLY IF
SAID MAP OR COPIES BEAR THE IMPRESSED SEAL OF THE SURVEYoR V (6-3 -765-50'20 FAX (631) 765-1797
WOSE SIGNATURE APPEARS HEREON P.0. BOX .909 —
12JO TRA VELER S TREE T
SOUTHOLD, N-Y 11971 12-260
ON10
SURVEY OF PROPERTY
AK� It 1 Z018 A T ORIENT
k0tfil'�GUOARIJOFAP� TO WN OF SOUTHOLD
SUFFOLK COUNTY., MY
1000-17-01-04
d'
SGALE: Is-- 40'
OCTOBER 17, 2012
S. NOVEMBER 30, 2012 (REVISION)
JANUARY 2, 2013 (ADDITIONS) PE)
AUGUST 2. 2013 (REVISED BLDG. ENVELO
------- OCTOBER 30, 2014 (CLEARING & BLUFF LOCATION)
'110
Zone Line USE)
JANUARY 03, 2018 (PROPOSED HO
JANUARY 24, 2CI18 (REVISIONS)
APRIL 9. 2018 (REVISIONS)
.00, ---
TO
- ,.o 1,
0
ol
TOP OF BLUFF LINE AS FLAGGED
0
BY JOHN BREDEMEYER, TOWN TRUSTEE.
40'/,
0
00,
*0
0.
10?
0.
0
EXISTING CREST OF BLUFF
FLAGS ADDED BY INTER SCIENCE ON 0-9123114,
CIV
EXTENDING 7HE BLUFF CREST TO EASTERN LOT LINE. Ov
C,v C 0\,:I
G NO
,V C06
115
HOUSE\FOUNDA 77ON WALL
Cf 0
20'
7EST HOLE DATA
McDONALD GEOSUENCE
0 10 1 "*'
26
/y,
/ 10105112
14
s4E;� X 4 EL 21.9'
.1 FR.HSE PC K 1,
A
PALE BROW SANDY WLT ML
W TH GRA VEL IN LA YERS
01h, 'y 117 0
r
EL J.9'
Rcj
WATER IN PALE BROW SILTY UL
2 21'
WA TER IN BROW aA YFY SAND SC
4, 1? EL -10, ill
WA TER IN BROW nNE TO COARSE SAND SP
FR.HSE
NO 7E., WA TER ENCOUN 7ERED 18' BEL 0 W SURFA CE
100
C
5EPTI(-, 5Y5TEM DETAIL-
NOT 70 SCALE
FINISHED GRADE
KAIN RUNOFF CONTAINMENT EL. 20.0'
PKGf 05ED HOU5E ROOF AKEA - 6,026 5QFT. ISONARY CHI MASONARY CHIMNEY
6,026 X 0.17 X LO - 1,024.76 CU. FT. V MIN.
1,024.76 CU.FT. / 42.21 5Q.FT. - 24.26 LIN. FT. I
Gn 27
'a 25
PKOVIDE: (4) DRY WELL5 64 X 6' 0EEP 'a 25
32.00 FT. KEQUIKED 0
KIM ELELV. 1110' SEP-nC 110'+ 1 00 25 GM ES ES as em
13 cm Cn on rht-
00252 09 es em 19
1500 GAL.PRECAST I M
OM IM
SEP77C TANK 5' LIQUID DEPTH .12
1101 . 110 21 El M M M 11
EQ 12
120 IN ISO
)f--J, 0 Q5 25 95 Eg EN Eg EM Q 3' SAND COLLAR
8' 0
LEACHING POOL 6'
ON
3' SAND COUAR�
.0. --j
REMOVE MATERIAL 8'0 TO
810
j SAND (SP) & SACKFILL MTH
SAND SAND (SW) DOWN TO SAND (SP)
(SP)
PROP05ED 5EPTIC, 51`51EIVI
YONUh0EN T 4 DEDROOM HOU5E
BLUFF FLAGS I-MECA5T 15W &AL-LON CYLINC,>KICAL 5EPTIC, TAW
84 x 5' Ceer
CEHL from CEHAM Photo 48 I-LEA(-HINC7 FOOL-5 54 X 16 I)EEP
Flood Zone lines from FIRM 36103CO064H WITH 3' 5AND COLLAP,
and actual contours.
BUILDING ZONE R-40
<
ELEVARONS AND CONTOUR LINES ARE REFERENCED TO NAVD. +
Go 0
Ui
AREA= 1.356 ACRES TO TIE LINE . W
am familiar with the STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL K) Co
AND CONS7RUC710N OF SUBSURFACE SEWAGE
DISPOSAL SYSTEA4S FOR SINGLE FAkfILY RESIDENCES
and will abide by the conditions set forth therein and on the
permit to construct.
7he location of wells and cesspools shown hereon are
from field observations and or from data obtained from others.
4�
AN Y AL TERA 77ON OR ADDI TION 70 THIS SUR VEY IS A VIOLA nON LIC. NO. 49618.
PECDWM4Pr15l'Y0RS, P.C.
OF SEC77ON 7209 OF THE NEW YORK STATE EDUCA77ON LAW AIA IN ROAD (6jj) 765-5o2o FAX (631) 765-1797
EXCEPT AS PER SEC71ON 7209-SUBDIVISION 2. AU CER77RC,477ONS (S.R.
HEREON ARE VAUD FOR MIS MAP AND COPIES THEREOF ONLY IF P.O. BOX 909 -
SAID MAP OR COPIES BEAR THE IMPRESSED SEAL OF 7HE SURVEYOR 12jo MAVELER STREET
WiOSE SIGNATURE APPEARS HEREON SOU7HOLD, N.Y 11971 12-260
6
_T_
N EW 6'
IPE WOOD NATURAL /—FENCE
STEP EDGE SLOPE
MAX. 1:8 20.0'
10.01
_j_ SECTION
BEACH ACCESS
SCALE 1/32" =1'—O"
\COV
5'-0" TYR
VO
COMPACTED
5' BEACH ACCESS SOIL
----CLEARED & BUILT BY 'HA N D IPE WOOD SLOPE
STEP EDGE
ACCESS FROM LAND MAX. 5%
1 (1/0
EL. 21.9' 0.01
PALE BROWN SANDY SILT ML
WITH GRAVEL IN LAYERS
r 16 ANCHOR EL. 3.9' — 18.0'
41 AS NEED
�k SECTION DETAIL WATER IN PALE BROWN SILTY ML
NIS) (cD-IPE WOOD EDGE STEPS 21.0'
�_J SCALE 1/32" =1'—O"
WATER IN BROWN CLAYEY SAND SC
C�
r5
NEW 6' 100. 31.0'
FENCE WATER IN BROWN FINE
TO COARSE SAND SP
38.0'
DRYWELL CALCULATIONS
NEW 8'
WATER ENCOUNTERED
ROOF DEER FENCE NOTE
X DRAINAGE FROM ROOF
-10 , 1, 0 TERR E +18' BELOW SURFACE
6,028 SF ROOF AREA
TEST HOLE DATA
6,028 X 0.17 X 1.0 =1,024.76 CIF
McDONALD
<-, r 1,024.76 CIF 42.21 SIF 24.28 LIN. FT
TEST HOLE
PHOTOVOLTAI,C\,Ro6F,-',,..
GEOSCIENCE
SCALE N-T.S.
USE (4) 8' DIA, X 8' DEEP DRYWELLS
10103112
32.00 FT REQUIRED
RIM ELEV. 19.OFT
' 0 DW
TERRA
DW
POO
PROVIDE LIGHT INLET
DW FOR MAINTENANCE
OOL SDR 35
.. , " 1 11 11 1. N EW 8' PVC INLET----.--- 8" THK. PRECAST
NEW 6' FENCE DW 1, 0" PIPE FROM ----------------CONCRETE TRAFFIC
FENCE WILL BE LAID TO AVOID LARGE TREES DEER FENCE ROOF LEADERS BEARING SLAB
NEW PEDESTRIAN
AND DISTURBED AREA WILL BE REPLANTED
SDR 35 PVC INLET
WITH NATIVE VEGETATION. ENTRY BRIDGE
FROM ROOF
LEADERS
FR.HSE SEPTIC
AREA
NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE,
Q3
Z' OVERLAP SEAMS 12" MIN
GRAVEL1 0 a 0 9 1 ri u D a 0 0 0 t
1 - 1000 GAL. PRECAST SEPTIC TANK 0
Z DRIVEWAY
1 - 8' 0 X 12' DEEP LEACHING POOL NEW 8'
8' DIA, X 8' DEEP
D 0 D 0
17' 6" DEER FENCE —PRECAST CONCRETE
2 - 5' 0 X 12' DEEP EXPANSION POOLS
LEACHING RING
IN
I EW 8'
DEE FENCE ----------NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE,
PROPOSED 0 OVERLAP SEAMS 12" MIN
LOT COVERAGE _W
I W
N
ENTRA�NC WELL
GATE CN
- LOT AREA: GUEST GROUND WATER WELL DRAINED, UNDISTURBED
Tp
PARKING
z �Ik_ NATIVE SOILS
- BUILDABLE AREA (LANDWARD OF CEHL LINE): 35,698 SIF 613"'J� ::ijWATER ENCOUNTER
- MAX. LOT COVERAGE (20% OF BUILDABLE AREA): 20% OF 35,698 SIF 7.13 SIF -0 fl�
f0d, @ 18.0'
20 8'-0" DIAMETER CLEAN SAND &
BUILDING COVERAGE: 6,028 SF TEST HOLEi i GRAVEL FILL
--NOTE: USE �MCDONALD MIN. 2'-0" MIN. 2'-0"
BRIDGE COVERAGE: 796 SF GEOSCIENCE 10/03/12
TOTAL COVERAGE: 6,824 SF (19.12 N TYP. SECTION @LEACHING POOL
SITE PLAN (GRASS SWALE DETAIL)
S 2" = 1'-0" SCALE NJ.&
WELL
WELL
DESIGNER: ARCHITECT OF RECORD: PROJECf- DRAWING TITLE: JOB NO: 1705
C A R L 0 S DATE: NOV. 16.2017
SITE PLAN SCALE: 1/32"=1'-0"
Z A P A T A ORIENT HOUSE A SHEET NO.:
Andrew Pollock Architect, PC JA
S T U D 1 0 56 SOUTH OXFORD STREET, 1505 BIRDSEYE ROAD
561 broadway,4A/4B New York,NY 10013 BROOKLYN,NEWYORK, 11217
T 212�966.9292 F 212.966.9242 T:212.620.0044 ORIENT NY1 1957 A * 10001
0 3
LOOSE STRAW WEDGED BETWEEN BALES COMPACTED SOIL ANCHOR STAKE
ADJACENT
TO BALES TO BINDING WIRE
2" x 2" (NOMINAL) WOODEN STAKES PREVENT OR TWINE
OR STANDARD STEEL POSTS OR UNDERMINING
EQUIVALENT. MINIMUM OF 2 PER BALE. STAKED AND
FLOW ENTRENCHED
6�) -—------ STRAW BALE
\N
�x 2� EXISTING GROUND
-0
EXCAVATED TRENCH
MINIMUM 4" DEEP BY
WIDTH OF BALE 00
ISOMETRIC VIEW
TYPICAL SECTION
Up STRAW BALE DIKE DETAILS
5' BEACH ACCESS 2
CLEARED & BUILT BY HAND SCALE N.T.S.
ACCESS FROM LAND
LL_ ry
0 m
FLOW DIRECTION L
CD fk'
[Ij Lij 36" MIN. 2X2
u
FENCE POST
LL_
tkb
7-
011 __GEOTEXTILE WOVEN WIRE FENCE
FABRIC (6X6 -10/10 WWF)
C�
"0 2-0
FILTER CLOTH-
Q0 EXISTING
EXCAVATED AND C)
GROUND
BACKFILLED TRENCH
AND EXISTING GROUND
C .0 #0 N
�T_tq '4
K��I�L E�DF N
5 BAC TRE C,H,
\AV 100.
Gv
NEW6'
FENCE
NEW 8'
EMBED FILTER CLOTH
DEER FENCE MIN. 6" INTO GROUND
X ROOF`
ISOMETRIC A EW
4" TYPICAL SECTION
R TERRI E SILT FENCE DETAILS
AP r3
A% SCALE N.T,S.
3/4" 08" THREADED
eo
A BOLT (C/W NUT
PHOTOVOLTA16
AND WASHER) CATE W/WIRE MESH
WELDED TO
V)
SUPPORTP LATE WOOD POST WOOD POST
@10' O.C.
DW
TERR
A 12 112 GA.
BARBED WIRE
DW
POO
HINGE ----------
OOL DW STAGGER HOG RINGS
C ------ ------
NEW 6' FENCE OR WIRE TIES AT V-0"
NEW 8' ALTERNATING INTERVALS
FENCE WILL BE LAID TO AVOID LARGE TREES
DEER FENCE
AND DISTURBED AREA WILL BE REPLANTED NEW PEDESTRIAN ------ - ------
WITH NATIVE VEGETATION. 11 GA. WIRES
ENTRY BRIDGE
-EX
@6" CENTERS
SEPTIC co
FR.HSE AREA -————-
A0
Q3 tz 121/2 GA.
GRAVEL
BARBED WIRE
DRIVEWA
% Y
8
FRONT VIEW- BEACH: ACCESS GATE
% DEER FENCE
r4 DEER FENCE DETAILS
NEW
DIE PROPOSED POST CENTERS, 68" WOOD SCALE N.T.S.
NEW 8'
INDEX WELL END POST
FENCE
NEW EN
EROSION CONTROL SILT FENCE SURROUNDING CONSTRUCTION
DISTURBANCE.
% GATE
GUEST
HINGE
PARKING
r
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY AREA-
-CATE W/WIRE
I A rI P 20
-0" MESH
AREA TO BE CLEARED OF DEBRIS, DEAD AND OR DYING TREES, TEST HOLE1 TOP VIEW-BEACH ACCESS CATE
TREES REMOVED IN CONSTRUCTION ZONE. el NOTE: USE �MCDONALD
REMOVE GREENBRIAR VEGETATION. TRIM TREES AT TOP OF BLUFF. GEOSCIENC� 10/03/12
DEER FENCE SITE PLAN N K 5'� BEACH ACCESS DETAILS
SCALE 1/32" SCALE N.T.S.
WELL
WELL
DESIGNER:
C A R L 0 S ARCHITECT OF RECORD: PROJECf DRAWING TITLE: JOB NO: 1705
DATE: NOV. 16.2017
Z A P A T A D A SITE PLAN SCALE: 1/32"=1'-0"
S T U D 1 0 Andrew Pollock Architect, PC ORIENT HOUSE A CLEARANCE DIAGRAM SHEET NO.:
561broadway,4A/4B NewYork,NY10013 56 SOUTH OXFORD STREET, 1505 BIRDSEYE ROAD
T 212-966.9292 BROOKLYN, NEWYORK, 11217
F 212.966.9242
T:212.620.0044
ORIENT NY1 1957
N . 4 At 100 # 2
FF
501 FROM TOP OF BLU
.....................................
mummumm, 0 =OEM m momm a
aftftamm Mom ft"mm
108'-8"
r77
-0"
35'_10" _8"
32' 19 10" 12'-0"
0
m
C/)
m
> — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — C)
woft
0
MEP
POOL
EQUIP 20'-0"
L�)100 1 JTM�OE
GARAGE
f
C\j 20'-0" 01
r1_)1C0
ENTR�--__;
u P
-F
RAGE 00
STO
=9_
LImm _-4smam --40mm
-L u
-7 rrr r17 r! T r! -F I-T -Fi-
I
19'-0" - - - Ll 111 Ll-i Ll I U-L LJ _L
C I D
NE 8' DEER FENCE
CN
T78 ULDING LINE
ABOVE
BRIDGE LINE
ABOVE
GRAVEL
DRIVE WAY
GARAGE LEVEL
SCALE : 1/8" � 1'-0"
GROUND FLOOR A EA: 2,399 SF
LEVEL EL = 20'-0"
V��L
:0
)ORIA , El
ROMI)
DESIGNER: ARCHITECT OF RECORD: PROJECT: DRAWING TITLE: JOB NO: 1705
C A R L 0 S DATE: NOV. 16.2017
Z A P A T A ORIENT HOUSE GARAGE LEVEL PLAN ISCALE: 1/8"1'-0"
SHEET NO.:
Andrew Pollock Architect, PC
S T U D 1 0
561 broadway,4A/4B New York,NY 10013 56 SOUTH OXFORD STREET, 1505 BIRDSEYE ROAD
BROOKLYN,NEWYORK, 11217
T 212.966.9292 F 212.966.9242 T:212.620.0044 ORIENT NY1 1957
A4101
OF BLUFF
FROM TOP
50
all C-n
m m
3'-4
32'-0" 19'-10" 'Iteo� (/)
0
cn, Uj
r77
C)
m
Cn
m
.........................................................................
r77
ffi
Ir
r--100
13EDROOM ff
POO
F I Om-
0(
3\vO' T'
�D ill 11 —
48'-102 0 3
L1�193 DN
7
0
11.............
POOL D�CK
0 'WALK- Ni
ROO
34'-(f HRO70 2 LOSE
THRO
SAUNA UP EDRO
M
4----------------
00
Li I
UP() 0')
IULL� LLL —
BUILDING LINE
ABOVE
ENTRY
BRIDGE
FIRST LEVEL PLAN
vFL '-L'
SCALE : 1/8"
POOL LEVEL AREA- 463 SF k6epuw,
LEVEL EL 34'-0"
Z01VING
DESIGNER: ARCHITECT OF RECORD: PROJECT: DRAWING TITLE: JOB No: 1705
0 S POOL LEVEL PLAN DATE: NOV. 16.2017
SCALE: 1/8"=Y-0"
Z A P A T A
ORIENT HOUSE
Andrew Pollock Architect, SHEET NO.:
S T U D 1 0 �j
561 broadway,4A 48 New York,NY 10013 56 SOUTH OXFORD STREET, 1505 BIRDSEYE ROAD
BROOKLYN,NEWYORK, 11217
T 212.966,9292 F 21Z966.9242 T:212.620.0044
ORIENT NY1 1957
As 102 ,
C()
0
TOP OF BLUFF
50f FROM co J�" 0
............................ ............................................
rf 7
W-
M
41,00M An mppik—tllill =mmlllllllll� 2 0'-77,, -61
8
21'-2"
saw 35'-10"
mom.
............
r77
Cl)
m
CD
cf) LIVING ROOM
m
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
op po
IV ASTER
FFMNGE BE DROOM
F-1 F-1 F-1 F----I
00
DINING ROOM
TERRACE
LC)100
CC) =F-
CN
ELEV. C)
;TER- (D
LOB EL .
ATrHROOM
--T-T
DOOR N
ITCH'EN KITCHEN
TERRACE
— — — — — — — — — -- — — -
r--100
00
DN(
0
71, \Z- — — — — — — -531,
8" 2 8 3'-54 18'- 2r 18' 4 Ir 14'-1
18'-33
BUILDING LINE
ABOVE
SECOND LEVEL PLJ&N
SCALE : 1/8" = 1'-0"
MAIN LEVEL AREA:1,773 SF
LEVEL EL 46'-0"
1)AkL)
DESIGNER: ARCHITECT OF RECORD: PROJECT: DRAWING TITLE: JOB No: 1705
C A R L 0 S DATE: NOV. 16.2017
SCALE: 1/8"=F-0"
MAIN LEVEL PLAN
Z A P A T A ORIENT HOUSE SHEET NO.:
Andrew Pollock Architect, PC
S T U D 1 0
1505 BIRDSEYE ROAD
56 SOUTH OXFORD STREET,
561 broadway,4A/4B New York,NY 10013
BROOKLYN,NEWYORK, 11217
T 212.966.9292 F 212.966.9242 T:212.620.0044 ORIENT NY1 1957 A0103
02,
'A.1 E
16'—8Z
501 OF BLUFF ------
FROM TOP
a
. .. ... .....
[I-100
Ln
(Jr,
M rr7
co
0
m M
cn ICU
m
m
L0100
co C)
>
A,
PHOTOVOLTAIC ROOFING
METAL ROOFING SYSTEM
SYSTEM
Ln
CC)
Ln
CY)
-7-
Lnloo
CD
CIA
CONT. METAL GUTTER
29'-07" 30'-9"
8 8
3'—21
8
6,
el. ROOF PLAN
11 SCALE : 1/8" = 1'-0"
MAIN LEVEL AREA: 765 SF 71
LEVEL EL 46'-0"
'40NING
(IF
DESIGNER: ARCHITECT OF RECORD: PROJECT: DRAWING TITLE: JOB NO: 1705
DATE: NOV. 16.2017
C A R L 0 S ROOF PLAN SCALE:
Z A P A T A ORIENT HOUSE SHEET NO.:
Andrew Pollock Architect PC
S T U D 1 0 56 SOUTH OXFORD STREET, 1505 BIRDSEYE ROAD
561 broadway,4A/4B New York,NY 100 13 BROOKLYN,NEW YORK, 11217 ORIENT NY1 1957 A * 104
T 212.966.9292 F 212.966.9242 T:212.620.0044
TE
FULL-HEIGHT PHOTOVOLTAIC ROOFING
SYSTEM W
z
W u- WINDOW WALL SYSTEM
—-—-—-- MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT OIL LL. — z j4 ROOF LEVEL
W _j 'qV 60'-0"
60'-0" "F i 1 0
Fn: C)
U-
ft
W 01 W< W
o- LAMINATED GLASS co a_
n I I 1 0 SECOND LEVEL
------ ....
GUARDRAIL_ __---�
0 46'-0"
(L FULL-HEIGHT GUARD RAIL
WINDOW WALL SYSTEM
ASSEMBLY
BASEMENT LINE jFIRSTLEVEL
34'-0"
GRAVEL DRIVEWAY
CURB
AVG. LEVEL OF EXIST GRADE
..........
25'-0"
GARAGE LEVEL
L-------------------------------- ---
20'-0"
d9d
EAST ELEVATION
SCALE : 1/16" = V-0"
W
PHOTOVOLTAIC ROOFING z
W SYSTEM _j _j
z MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT LL EL
I ROOF LEV
_j 60'-O' _$� W :D v 60,-0"
_j
co W
FULL-HEIGHT 0-
U-
Of << WINDOW WALL SYSTEM 0
W W
CL
LAMINATED GLASS SECOND LEVEL
W-1 1_0
r—-—-—-—--- GUARDRAIL
Loco 'p 46'-0"
I C I D
FULL-HEIGHT
GUARD RAIL WINDOW WALL SYSTEM I BASEMENT LINE
A E9130 FIRST LEVEL
ra
34'-0"
-L Sys
AVG. LEVEL OF EXIST GRADE
25'-
-:��GGRR�Ay�V�,ID rIVEWAY
....... EL
-—-—-—-—- -—- -—-—----a JGARAGE LEV
20'-0"
WESTELEVATION
SCALE 1/16" V-0"
DESIGNER: ARCHITECT OF RECORD: PROJECT: DRAWING TITLE: JOB No: 1705
C A R L 0 S DATE: NOV. 16.2017
EAST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/1 6"=I'-T
Z A P A T A Andrew Pollock Architect, PC ORIENT HOUSE WEST ELEVATION SHEET NO.:
S T U D 1 0
561 broadway,4A/4B New York,NY 10013 56 SOUTH OXFORD STREET, 1505 BIRDSEYE ROAD
BROOKLYN,NEW YORK, 11217
T 212.966.9292 F 212�966.9242 T:212.620.0044 ORIENT NY1 1957
A0301
s
PHOTOVOLTAIC ROOFING
PERFORATED METAL
MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT W SYSTEM CLADDING SYSTEM 1W
z C) z ROOF LEVEL
_j
60'-0" _j 60'-0"
ca FULL-HEIGHT
F- F- CD
W WINDOW WALL SYSTEM
W of
U) U) W
LAMINATED GLASS W
GUARD�IL _ Tj 0,_-______T�___ _j, SECOND LEVEL
0 U) ---------- U) 46'-0"
Ln STONE CLADDING LO C)
LAMINATED GLASS (N
GUARDRAIL i Loqn FIRST LEVEL
-—-—-—-—-—
34'-0"
AVG. LEVEL OF EXIST GRADE I
i* -1-—-—-—-— -—-—--- _1------
oil
kRAGE LEVEL
SOUTH ELEVATION
SCALE : 1/16" V-0"
PHOTOVOLTAIC ROOFING
SYSTEM
FULL-HEIGHT IV 1W
MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT z WINDOWWALL-S.Y.S.TEM :Q z ROOF LEVEL
60'-0" _j <
F_
W . W 0
LAMINATED GLASS
GUARDRAIL co
W 111 4
LLJ
Q_
SECOND LEVEL
FULL-HEIGHT U) 11� 46'-0'
CL 0- CD
L0 WINDOW WALL SYSTEM -C:)
CN
LAMINATED GLASS
-- GUARDRAIL FIRST LEVEL
34'-0"
C)
AVG. LEVEL OF EXIST GRADE T _7
GARAGE LEVEL
—-—-—-—-—-—
20'-0"
NORTH ELEVATION ZONNG BOA
SCALE : 1/16" = 1'-0" RL)up
DESIGNER: ARCHITECT OF RECORD: PROJECT: DRAWING TITLE: JOB No: 1705
C A R L 0 S DATE: NOV. 16.2017
SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/16"=1'-0"
Z A P A T A Andrew Pollock Architect, PC; ORIENT HOUSE NORTH ELEVATION SHEET NO.:
S T U D 1 0 56 SOUTH OXFORD STREET, 1505 BIRDSEYE ROAD
561 broadway,4A/4B New York,NY 10013 BROOKLYN, NEWYORK,11217
T 212.966.9292 F 212.966.9242 T:212.620.0044 ORIENT NY1 1957
A0302
FULL-HEIGHT PHOTOVOLTAIC ROOFING
SYSTEM
WINDOW WALL SYSTEM
MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT W W
z z ROOF LEVEL
_j
60'-0" 1' 77- 60'-0"
LAMINATED GLASS co
i F- LLJ GUARDRAIL MASTER C)
X U) TERRACE LIVING ROOM BATHROOM TERRACE W ry
W U) W
CL W W a_
0 EVEL
j4 SECOND L
C) 1 0
of 46'-0"
C) FULL-HEIGHT CD
C14 WINDOW WALL SYSTEM -DECK FAMILY ROOM BEDROOM I
FIRST LEVE
POOL 34'-0"
Q
AVG. LEVEL OF EXIST GRADE
EQUIP GARAGE ENTRY
25'-0"
GARAGE LEVEL
20'-0"
SECTION A-A
SCALE 1/16" = 1'-0"
FULL-HEIGHT
WINDOW WALL SYSTEM
PHOTOVOLTAIC ROOFING
SYSTEM
W LL
z MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT ,I., u- W
60'-0" W -in z ROOF LEVEL
\7 _j 60'-0"
LL
CD
IVING R0014 KITCHEN BREAK I
W 0 FAS W
U)
W
0 0 F-1 F-1
Of 0 1 0 SECOND LEVEL
FULL-HEIGHT [if 46'-0"
Ln a- C)
rq WINDbW WALL SYSTEM
FAMILY ROOM
W
ry FIRST LEVEL
-------- 34'-0"
Lo
AVG. LEVEL OF EXIST GRADE OIL
25'-0" —-—-—-—- --t
-- ------- LEVEL
--------- -----------
--------------- --------------
SECTION B-B
2
�_j SCALE : 1/16"
DESIGNER: ARCHITECT OF RECORD: PROJECT: DRAWING TITLE: JOB No: 1705
C A R L 0 S DATE: NOV. 16.2017
Z A P A T A ORIENT HOUSE SECTION A-A 714�o SCALE: 1/1 6"_1'-0"
RIECFYVF[� SHEET NO.:
Andrew Pollock PC"I" SECTION B-B
S T U D 1 0
561 broadway,4A 4B New York,NY 10013 56 SOUTH OXFORD STREET, 1505 BIRDSEYE ROAD
BROOKLYN,NEWYORK, 11217 ZONING
T 212.966.9292 /,jppkA1
F 212.966.9242 T:212.620.0044 ORIENT NY1 1957
Q Ae351
-11K
02
'�7;;7.02
. E O�
Michael A. Kimack
ATTORNEY AT LAW
P.O. Box 1047
Southold,N.Y.11971
71
Cell No. 516-658-6807
E-mail: mkimack2@verizon.net DEC 2 J 2017
December 20, 2017
Re: 1505 Birdseye Road LLC
1505 Birdseye Road, Orient,N.Y
To: Southold Zoning Board of Appeals:
On December, 20, 2017, 1 hand delivered 10 sets of revised site plans for the above referenced
application. The revisions were the result of a DEC Incomplete Application letter (attached), that
, among other items, set the non jurisdiction line at 24 feet. Once establisli6d;-they prohibit any
clearing or construction seaward of that elevation. To comply, we relocated the-proposed beach
access path to lessen the grade and relocated the proposed deer fence back to the proposed house.
The proposed length of the deer fence is approx. 415 feet. the proposed short section of fence
from the house to the easterly property line is proposed to be 6 feet in height, which is
permitted.
Please let me know if I may be of further assistance in this matter.
Sincerely
Michael A. Kimack, Agent
Suffolk County SWCD CO Corey Humphrey
423 Griffing Avenue District Manager
Suite 110 (631)852-3286
Riverhead,NY 11901 L
www.SuffolkSWCD.org
Rob Carpenter
Chairman
4
0;e
LkO
CONSIV*MN
June 2,2014
Chairperson Leslie K. Weisman
Southold Town Board of Appeals
53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971-0959
RE: ZBA File No. 7140—1505 Birdseye Rd., LLC SCTM#100-17-1-4
Dear Chairperson Weisman:
As per the request of your office, a site investigation was conducted at 1505 Birdseye Rd, Orient NY.
This site investigation was performed to evaluate the potential environmental impacts that would be
caused by the construction of a new dwelling on the currently vacant property. District staff visited the
property on December 6 th, 2017.The following are the observations and recommendations of our office
based on the findings of this inspection.
I —
The parcel in question is vacant at the moment.Towards the north end of the parcel near the bluff,the
land is well vegetated, mostly with small to medium sized dense brush and vines.The bluff itself is very
well vegetated,with no signs of erosion.
Of note, at southern end of the parcel, is a large depression that appears to receive a significant amount
of runoff from surrounding land, including neighboring property. In the owner's application to the ZBA,
this depression is given as the reason for building closer to the bluff, rather than being set back 100 feet
from the bluff top.
The first item of potential concern is the installation of a septic system at this site. Due to the proximity
of the septic system to surface water and groundwater,water quality could potentially be impacted by
this project. Our office recommends that the owners seek out guidelines from the Suffolk County Health
Department to ensure that the septic system will not adversely impact water quality.
The second item of concern is-the proposal to install deer fencing on the entire perimeter of the
property, including on the bluff.While most of the deer fence would not pose a resource concern,the
proposed installation of deer fence on the bluff face would pose an unacceptable erosion hazard to the
bluff. Deer fence posts are typically pounded in, and heavy equipment is necessary to tension the wire
fencing.This sort of equipment and activitV is extremely detrimental to bluff stability. We strongly
recommend against installing deer fence on the bluff.
The third and final concern we have considering this project is the potential for soil erosion during
construction.The site will undergo significant land clearing, excavation, and preparation,with the
Office Hours:Monday through Thursday 7:30 a.m.to 4:00 p.m. Ffiday 7:30 a.m.through 3:00 p.m. Page I
associated large and heavy equipment during construction.These activities will cause significant soil
disturbance. Proper erosion control measures must be taken during construction.Additionally,
machinery and equipment should be set back at least 25 feet from the bluff's edge wherever possible.
Weight and vibration from machinery operation can cause bluff instability.
Should you require further assistance in this matter, please don't hesitate to contact our office.
Thank you,
Ken Johnson
Soil District Technician,
Page 2
Pt
Z�q SO
TION: MAILING ADDRESS:
LOCA
Town Hall Annex P.O. Box 1179
54375 State Route 25 Southold, NY 11971
IT�W(cor.Main Rd. &Youngs Ave.) Telephone: 631 765-1938
Southold, NY 11971 Fax: 631 765-3136
\fAls coum
LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM tt4o
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD RECEIVED
FEB 16 2018
MEMORANDUM ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
To: Leslie Weisman, Chair
Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals
From: Mark Terry, LWRP Coordinator
Date February 16, 2018
Re: LWRP Coastal Consistency Review for ZBA File Ref 1506 BIRDSEYE ROAD, ILLC, 7140
SCTM# 1000-17-1-4.
1505 BIRDSEYE ROAD, ILLC, 7140— Request for Variances from Article IV, Section 280-18; Article
XXII, Section 280-105; Article XXII, Section 280-116; and the Building Inspector's November 17 2017,
Amended November 22, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to
construct a new single family dwelling and to erect deer fence at a height of 8 feet at; 1) proposed
single family dwelling located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 50 feet; 2)
proposed dwelling located less than the code required 100 feet from the top of the bluff; 3) proposed
deer fence more than the code required maximum four (4) feet in height when located in the front yard,
located at: 1505 Birdseye Road, (Adj. to the Long Island Sound) Orient, NY. SCTM#1000 17-1-4.
The proposed action has been reviewed to Chapter 268, Waterfront Consistency Review of the Town of
Southold Town Code and the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) Policy Standards.
Based upon the information provided on the LWRP Consistency Assessment Form submitted to this
department, as well as the records available to me, it is my recommendation that the action to locate
the proposed dwelling less than the code required 100 feet from the top of the bluff is INCONSISTENT
with the below listed Policy Standards and therefore is INCONSISTENT with the LWRP.
Policy 4.1. Minimize losses of human life and structures from flooding and erosion hazards.
The following management measures to minimize losses of human life and structures from flooding and
erosion hazards are recommended. specifically
A. Minimize potential loss and damage by locating development and structures
away from flooding and erosion hazards.
The proposed residential structure is not located within the Coastal Erosion Hazard
Area, however, the property contains large areas of slopes equal to or greater than 15
percent (Figures 1 and 2). It is recommended that the Board of Trustees verify the top-
of-bluff on the parcel.
11
AT
11 Tc
4
Figure 1. Subject parcel showing 15 percent or more slopes as solid polygons
(ArcMap).
011
VE 1"
"AR
Z U
91 �3`
r,---44 V
'3't
Ai",
3A, "A'
6A
Y
"'n
6"
1207 FURDR FYF Rn
1/4 T
�x'�Ont'�'
AA"
Figure 2. Subject property showing FEMA flood zones and LIDAR topography. Note
that the parcel contains a hill (Suffolk County GIS).
To protect life and property during storm events and erosion over time, it is
recommended to locate structures as far from the Long Island Sound bluff(top of bluff)
to the greatest extent practicable. However, due to parcel topography and the amount of
slopes on this property it is recognized that relocating the structure further from the top
of bluff is difficult.
The location of the proposed structure is not located within a FEIVIA flood zone.
Policy 6.3. Protect and restore tidal and freshwater wetlands.
E Maintain buffers to ensure that adverse effects of adjacent or nearby
development are avoided.
1. Maintain buffers to achieve a high filtration efficiency of surface
runoff
2. Avoid permanent or unnecessary disturbance within buffer areas.
3. Maintain existing indigenous vegetation within buffer areas.
In the event the action is approved, it is recommended that a non-
disturbance buffer is established from the CEHL, seaward to prevent
erosion on slopes, preserve the integrity of the bluff, limit turf areas and
preserve groundwater and surface water quality.
a. Recommended activities in the non-disturbance buffer include:
i. Prohibiting the cutting, removal or disturbance of vegetation,
including trees, shrubs, and groundcover unless vegetation has
been determined to be hazardous to life and property.
ii. Trimming tree limbs up to a height of 15 feet to maintain view
sheds.
iii. Supplemental planting with native vegetation to achieve soil
stabilization.
iv. Prohibiting structures.
v. Prohibiting excavation, grading and removal of materials other
than to repair erosion hazards.
vi. Prohibiting dumping of unsightly or offensive materials.
vii. The establishment of a four-foot-wide access path constructed of
pervious material for access to the water-body.
viii. Installation of deer fencing.
The proposal to construct a deer fence more than the code required maximum four (4) feet in height
located in the front yard is recommended a CONSISTENT.
Pursuant to Chapter 268, the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals shall consider this
recommendation in preparing its written determination regarding the consistency of the proposed
action.
Cc: William Duffy, Town Attorney
'A
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
RECEIVED
Steven Bellone DEC 6 " 2017
SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE
Department of ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Theresa Ward Economic Development and Planning Division of Planning
Deputy County Executive and Commissioner and Environment
December 1, 2017
Town of Southold
Zoning Board of Appeals
53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold,NY 11971-0959
Attn: Leslie Weisman
Dear Ms.,Weisman:.
Pursuantto therequirements of Sections A14-14 thruA 14-25 of the Suffolk County Administrative
Code, the following application submitted to the Suffolk County Planning Commission is to be a
matter for local determination as there appears to be'no significant county-wide or inter-community
'&uld not be construed as either an approval or
impacts. A decision of local determination,"
disapproval.
Applicant Municipal File Number
Seven Cats Investment, LLC #7136
Teicher, Stephanie #7138
Nicholson, Bryan(CV) #7139
1505 Birdseye Rd., LLC #7140
Dixon Reisman, Joanna #7141
Very truly yours,
Sarah Lansdale
Director of Planning
Theodore R. Klein
Principal Planner
TRK/cd
H.LEE DENNISON BLDG 100 VETERANS MEMORIAL HWY,11th F1 P.O.BOX 6100 a HAUPPAUGE,NY 11788-0099 u (631)853-5191
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Notice of Incomplete Application - This is NOT a Permit
Application ID: 1-4738-04573/00001 Batch Number: 821763
Facility: 1505 BIRDSEYE ROAD LLC
1505 BIRDSEYE RD
ORIENT,NY 11957
Contact: MICHAEL A KINIACK OwnerID: 1634985
PO BOX 1047 Lill
DEC 2 0 2017
SOUTHOLD,NY 11971-1047
E"Y: ij
Permit(s)Appliedfor: I -Article 25 Tidal Wetlands
-project Location: in SOUTHOLD in SUFFOLK COUNTY
Your application for Permit is incomplete. The following items are required:
1. As explained in our application checklist, the plans (5 sets)must depict the high tide line along
the shoreline. You must address these missing items and resubmit 5 sets of site plans.
2. You must provide a crosss sectional view of the proposed "beach acess" and the site plans
must provide more details about its construction. How will this access be constructed? What
materials will be used? What is the proposed clearing width to construct the access? The slope
in some areas of the proposed access are steep,how will the access be constructed and cleared in
these areas? Please address these items and resubmit 5 sets of plans showing more details
regarding this "beach access".
3. - DEC will not permit any cutting or trimming of vegetation or trees below the 24.' foot
contour line on the eastern portion of the propoerty, except for the construction of the "beach
access" path. The clearing line must be adjusted accordingly on the "clearance diagram(5 sets).
4. Please provide a brief history of this vacant property. Has the property remained single and
separate since 1977? Was the property subdivded from another larger property?
Please submit requested information by
Nofurther action can be taken until all of these materials are received.
Contact Person: Signature: 090�
MARK CARRARA .1
NYSDEC Date:November 28,2017
SUNY @ Stony BrookJ50 Circle Rd
Stony Brook,NY 11790
Telephone Number: (631)444-0374
BOARD MEMBERS rif so Southold Town Hall
Leslie Kanes Weisman,Chairperson 53095 Main Road-P.O.Box 1179
Southold,NY 11971-0959
Patricia Acampora Office Location:
Eric Dantes C.* Town Annex/First Floor,Capital One Bank
54375 Main Road(at Youngs Avenue)
Gerard P.Goehringer
Nicholas Planamento 00 U NOV Southold,NY 11971
http://southoldtownny.gov
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Tel.(631)765-1809-Fax(631)765-9064
MEMORANDUM
To: Michael Domino, President, Board of Town Trustees
From: Leslie Weisman, Chairperson, Zoning Board of Appeals
Date: March 7, 2018
RE: Appeal No. #7140, 1505 Birdseye Road, LLC, 1505 Birdseye Road, Orient
Carlos Zapata, Owner
SCTM No. 1000-17-1-4
During our March 1, 2018 public hearing, the Zoning Board decided to request comments from the
Town Trustees relating to the above referenced application. The hearing has been adjourned to the
May 3, 2018 meeting.
Attached is a copy of the application which results in a Notice of Disapproval identifying the proposed
house construction located less than the minimum required setback of 100 feet from the top of the
bluff.
During the recent hearing, there were discussions and testimony relating to the accuracy of the top o
bank/bluff as depicted on the survey of January. 2, 2013, and in recent correspondence, we have asked
the Town Engineer to verify the top of bluff location, as well as'verifying the location of the Coastal
Erosion Hazard Line. The applicant's agent also stated at the hearing that he had done an informal site
inspection with the Trustees who had indicated that the proposed house location was preferable to
keep the proposed dwelling as far away as possible from a ponding or swale depression on the south
dies of the property. However, no written confirmation was available. Therefore, we asked the
applicant to apply to the Trustees directly for updated pre-submission comments.
In addition, we also wish to arrange a meeting to discuss this application, and possibly schedule a site
visit with you.
Your timely assistance with this matter is greatly appreciated. Thank you.
Encls.: Copy of ZBA Application originally received November 21, 2018.
Site Plan by Andrew Pollock Architect dated November 16, 2017
Survey by John Metzger,L.S. last revised January 2,2013
Michael J.Domino,President if So Town Hall Annex
it's John M.Bredemeyer III,Vice-President *r 54375 Route 25
Im P.O.Box 1179
Glenn Goldsmith Southold, New York 11971
A.Nicholas Krupski Telephone (631) 765-1892
Greg Williams Cou Fax(631) 765-6641
I I*
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES RECOED
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD APR
TO: Zoning Board of Appeals
FROM: Michael J. Domino, President Board of Trustees ZC)NING BOARD OF APPEALS
DATE: April 13, 2018
RE: 1505 Birdseye Road LLC
CC: Michael Kimack
This is a follow-up to the Board of Trustees field inspection of April 11, 2018 of
1501 Birdseye Road LLC wherein we discussed: the survey received April 9, 2018
showing the top of bluff line as determined by area Trustee John Bredemeyer, the need
to preserve the vegetation that stabilizes the bluff, the need to preserve low lying area in
the southeast corner of the property, and the general satisfaction of the Board regarding
placement of the proposed structures to achieve those goals.
The Trustees also noted that the general NW orientation of the bluff provided
protection to this property during recent winter storms, consequently the lower elevation
in the northeast corner of the property and the associated migration of the top of bluff
inland was a mitigating factor regarding the reduced 36.7 foot setback of the proposed
structure.
The applicant has designed a structure that supports the intent Town code while
addressing the physical constraining characteristics of this property.
FORM NO. 3 (q
RECEIVED
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD APR R 8 2018
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
SOUTHOLD,N.Y. ZONING BOARD OF APPFALS
NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL
DATE: August 25, 2017
RENEWED: November 17, 2017
AMENDED: November 22, 2017
RENEWED &AMENDED: April 18, 2018
TO: Mike Kimack (1505 Birdseye)
PO Box 1047
Southold,NY 11971
Please take notice that your application dated August 18, 2017
For a permit to construct a new single family dwelling and a deer fence at
Location of property 1505 Birdseye Road, Orient,NY
County Tax Map No. 1000 - Section 17 Block 1 Lot 4
Is returned herewith and disapproved on the following grounds:
The proposed construction is not permitted pursuant to Article XXII Section 280-116 which states;
"All buildings located on lots adjacent to sounds and j1pon which there exists a bluff or bank
landward of the shore or beach shall be set back not fewer than one hundred G 00) feet from the
top of such bluff or bank."
The proposed construction notes a setback of 36.7 feet from the top of bluff, at its closest point.
Furthermore, the proposed deer fence is not permitted pursuant to Article XXII Section 280-105,
which states,
"Fences, walls or berms mqy be erected and maintained, subject to the following height
limitations:
C. "In residential and nonresidential zones except properties parcels engaged in bona
fide agricultural production the installation of a deer exclusion fence mqy be permitted
by obtaining a building pen-nit issued by the building inspector subject to the follq�y�
criteria:
1. "When located in or along side and rear yards the height of the deer
exclusion fence shall not exceed eight feet.
The proposed 8-foot deer fence is will be partially located in the front yard.
The proposed construction is also not permitted pursuant to Article IV, Section 280-18, which states;
"No building or premises shall be used and no building or part thereof shall be erected or
altered in the Low-Density R-40 District unless the same confonns to the requirements of the
Bulk Schedule and of the Parking Schedule with the same force and effect as if such
regulations were set forth herein full."
Bulk schedule requires a minimum front yard setback of 50 feet.
Following the proposed construction,the dwelling will have a front yard setback of 41.7 feet.
This Notice ofDisapproval was amended on November 17, 2017 to address the needfor a variance for
aproposed deerfence, on November 22, 2017 to addressftont yard setback, and on April 18, 2018 to
correct a top of bluffsetback
Authorlz-�edignlai;;::���
Note to Applicant: Any change or deviation to the above referenced application may require
further review by the Southold Town Building Department.
CC: file,Z.B.A.
FORM NO. 3
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD R_SC,�MI ED) '1140
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
SOUTHOLD,N.Y.
�6NNb 90ARD OF APPEM
NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL
DATE: August 25, 2017
RENEWED: November 17, 2017
TO: Mike Kimack(15 05 Birdseye)
PO Box 1047
Southold,NY 11971
Please take notice that your application dated August 18, 2017
For a permit to construct a new single family dwelling and a deer fence at
Location of property 1505 Birdseye Road, Orient,NY
County Tax Map No. 1000 - Section 17 Block I Lot 4
Is returned herewith and disapproved on the following grounds:
The proposed construction is not permitted pursuant to Article XXII Section 280-116 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."
The proposed construction notes a setback of 50 feet from the top'-6f bluff, at its closest point.
Furthermore, the proposed deer fence is not permitted pursuant to Article XXII Section 280-105,
which states,
"Fences,walls or berms may be erected and maintained, subject to the followinji heigh
limitations:
C. "In residential and nonresidential zones except properties parcels enjjaj4ed in
bona fide agricultural production the installation of a deer exclusion fence may be
permitted by obtaining a building permit issued by the building inspector subject
to the following criteria:
1. "When located in or along side and rear yards the height of the deer
exclusion fence shall not exceed eight feet.
The proposed 8-foot deer fence is will be partially located in the fLU yard.
This Notice ofDisapproval was amended on November 17, 2017 to address the needfor a variance for
a proposed deerfence. RECEIVED '7/40
2 12017
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Aut
o -zed S* nat
Note to Applicant: Any change or deviation to the above referenced application may require
further review by the Southold Town Building Department.
CC: file,Z.B.A.
40
FORM NO. 3 T 4L
RECEIVED
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
BUILDING DEPARTMENT NOY 2 12017
SOUTHOLD,N.Y. ZONING 130ARD OF APPEALS
NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL
DATE: August 25, 2017
RENEWED: November 17, 2017
AMENDED: November 22, 2017
TO: Mike Kimack(1505 Birdseye)
PO Box 1047
Southold,NY 11971
Please take notice that your application dated August 18, 2017
For a permit to construct a new single family dwelling and a deer fence at
Location of property 1505 Birdseye Road, Orient,NY
County Tax Map No. 1000 - Sectiofi' 17 Block I Lot 4
Is returned herewith and disapproved on the following grounds:
The proposed construction is not permitted pursuant to Article XXII Section 280-116 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."
I of bluff, at its closest point.
The proposed construction notes a setback of 50 feet from the
Furthermore, the proposed deer fence is not permitted pursuant to Article XXII Section 280-105,
which states,
"Fences, walls or ben-ns may-be'6rected and maintained, subject to the following height
limitations:
C. "In residential and nonresidential zones except properties parcels engaged in bona
fide agricultural production the installation of a deer exclusion fence mqy be permitted
by obtaining a building permit issued by the building inspector subject to the following
criteria:
1. "When located in or along side and rear yards the height of the deer
exclusion fence shall not exceed eight feet.
The proposed 8-foot deer fence is will be partially located in the froNvard.
The proposed construction is also not pennitted pursuant to Article IV, Section 280-18, which states;
40
"No building or premises shall be used and no building or part thereof shall be erected or
altered in the Low-Density R-40 District unless the same confonns to the requirements of the
Bulk Schedule and of the Parking Schedule with the same force and effect as if such
regulations were set forth herein full."
Bulk schedule requires a minimum front yard setback of 50 feet.
Following the proposed construction, the dwelling will hay a front yara setback of 41.7 feet.
This Notice ofDisapproval was amended on November 17, 2017 to address the needfor a variancefor
aproposed deerfence and on November 22, 2017 to address ftont yard setback. -7//�o
RECEIVED
NOV 2-12017
ZONIM BOARD OF APPEALS
"��orized Signature
Note to Applicant: Any change or deviation to the above referenced application may require
further review by the Southold Town Building Department.
CC: file,Z.B.A.
Fee:$ Filed By: —Assignment No._. RECEIVED
APPLICATION TO THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF AM'ALS NOV 2
AREA VARIANCE
House No.Zf(76Street 5 V Hamlet Q-P1,,—'–N 7�-ZONING 130ARD OF APMALS
ZLQX,j:�,R M - — —
SCTM 1000 Section 17 Block / Lot(s) Lot Size Z 356A Zonee-- 0
4
1(WE) APPEAL THE WRITTEN DETERMINATION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR
DATED
ZeZ' BASED ON SURVEY/SITE PLAN DATED_ J7
Owner(s):.
-fXZMailing Address: L
Telephone:q/ - -85! -
747& 38Fax: —Email: C71JA47,401 CO-DW Al
j iOo CO
NOTE:In addition to the above please complete below if application is signed by applicant's attorney, agent,architect,
builder,contract vendee,etc.and name of person who agent represents:
Name of Representative:. &Iql-1
"Z- A ICI&4 W for X Owner ( )Other:
Address:- 164C7
I? - )?02,
Telephone; 6-40-69a7F a x: —Email:
IV, NZ,,7-
Please check to specify ivhoyou)vish correspondence to be inadedto,fi-oin the above natnes:
Applicant/Owner(s), Authorized Representative, Other Name/Address below:
WHERE BY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR REVIEWED SURVEY/SITE PLAN
DATED and DENIED AN APPLICATION DATED --FOR:
Building Permit
Certificate of Occupancy Pre-Certificate of Occupancy
Change of Use
Permit for As-Built Construction
Other:
Provision of the Zoning Ordinance Appealed. (Indicate Article,Section,Subsection of Zoning Ordinance by
numbers.Do not quote the code.) 9>,0,1
Article: XX/I Section: d U Subsection: 42��-
Type of Appeal. Wn Appeal is made- for:
0<) A Variance to the Zoning Code or Zoning Map.
A Variance due to lack of access required by New York Town Law-Section 280-A,
Interpretation of the Town Code, Article Section
) Reversal or Other
A prior appeal has, has not been made at any time with respect to this iproi)er , UNDER
Appeal No(s). Year(s). (Please be sure to research before
conipleting this question or call our office.for assistance)
Name of Ownei: ZBA File#
RECEIVED
IZEASONS FOR APPEA'.._,,'?lease be specific, additional sheets may be with preparers - NOV 2 12017
signature notarized)
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
1. An undeshable change will not be produced in the CH/aACTER of the neighbor or a detriment to nearby
properties if granted,because: ?WA 417,e,0^0-
.,,P/y 1Y/,t V.4 C4Aooll-/-11 f- 7wjr- A?6,P-0 X40
A,6 V15'1,946� oc;eOH
,0W,eW416r, 7,-A.1,4r C4A1-V0r0Z,4V0VP'-'A-
IS J-1 7ZP AMO AEP/6 40P 720.4'17- ;%4e MERAW- -4-'-'16�1/allo 945015 V.46
7;V4 W-444 MiEX 0,-'- Ok,# pj57R' 1N.,EAY-7- 7-0 Al2-c"j!rY
W 0 Ul-APIV 0 7-tye5" &M101i5r11eAAfZZ CMAAA&Ag-,
2.The bE fitirug§qyreh4�ypplicant CANNOT be achie'ved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue,
other than an area variance,because: 7;V25 0.,c PWk5 Z Or-T Z OW Ao�41V44,45
,ff,4-5-1A1 cyV/y�T -ro r/.Pc PIC.7Ar" /A-4=- ReDA1,0X,6,P 0,(
,10 4ZRW140-' 7-V WARP M6 A61-14:�c 7-1-10A9,V
3
/1,&//jr OV Al eW CC-N-111,048EP J-VO.'f MAM10Y .4 V a rVZ NA 7&W-4&
,0,VC4(A1,4 MAI 00WA14V,#,W AWN 7,Ve��'6�f"y a ow"f I;-/&,#rz "Y
Alr--&Ar1Vf IV,400 Cr 7-0 M5 UIA" Vl_--6,55-7-Arr:?0 h7l- 7;91,e-Aed,"65,dW 46"
,"41W,0 /-r MO 7-WMW&7- ,PRICIR AOX 0 Y-4Z-7 IAI rl,4114" Jr/7Z- 6',0A1,D1,r104G.
4. The variance will NOT have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in tile
&P x
neighborhood or district because: ;7yw m-516hwolw CLIP /57 C-0 P �C�
A V,44ZE711 4C VMMU.9 J-1Ze5YANjA0 JrYLET d90^9697Z 7ME
A&Y CZ45Ae VId6
Z440SCAfA45 iW1771 61�5V"- .4/15' ffAZ4CN' -07N' Af�e
77155 AAPP 17110AI 01' 77,W 1W6,1,0rZP AW,1541AX6 4VIeZ WO 7WA X�5-4 Al
j7A/ yrlC#L Cl,> 6AAo11'e'00Mo0V61V710-L
A0 V.--&P—P4 A 5 PK& OR /N,o 19,4 r—7 AAIL,5P.6&�r4Y
5. Has the alleged difficulty been self-created? x YeSFRITV/ 7XIAr
Are there any Covenants or Restrictions concerning this land? X No Yes(please furnish a copy)
This is the MINIMUM that is necessary and adequate,and at the same time preserve and protect the character of the
neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community.
Signature of Applicant or Authorized Agent
S'Alq,M;o betfoie me tills IT"day (Agent must submit wiaten Authorization from Owner)
of 20_a_
JKWy Pub
TRACEY L. DVVYER
NOTARY PUBLIC,STATE OF NEW YORK
NO.OIDW6306900
QUALIFIED IN SUFFOLK COUNTY
COMMISSION EXPIRES JUNE 30,2_QW
RECEIVED
NOV 2 12017
X�PPLICANT'S PROJECT DESCRIPTION
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
APPLICANT: "IC&"Z A --kIHAC16 DATE PREPARED:_
1. For Demolition of Existing Building Areas
Please describe areas being'removed: 2zD"- 1MY o4 VAC4,4177 40 7—
II. New Construction Areas (New Dwelling or New Additions/Extensio'ns):
Dimensions of first floor extension: x -0,5
Dimensions of new second floor:
Dimensions of floor above second level: Al 6FAIZ
Height(from finished ground to top of ridge): -30 owirez, 5V-'0-C4
Is basement or lowest floor area being constructed? If yes-,please provide height(above'ground)
m easured from natural ex isti ng grade to fi rst fl o or: Z 0,cr-j&ffl A1,47V"1- &,e4pe- 64AW6=05,ocM,V/Z
ro
111. Proposed Construction Description (Alterations or Structural Changes)
(Attach extra sheet if necessary). Please describe building areas:
Number of Floors and General Characteristics BEFORE Alterations: A11,A7
Number of Floors and Changes WITH Alterations: A11.0
IV. Calculations of building areas and lot coverage(from surveyor):
Existing square footage of buildings on your property: A/OV,6
Proposed' increase of building coverage: 9WA-.1 oz.8 macld go ev g0c- Pz'!;f5'X'
Square footage of your lot: .-:Eg FJJiZAdAe'5"-zA - 667. 36-Grz.07-'046.4
Percentage of coverage of your lofby building area: .&e11441 -Ag!L 9 70 1pmn"AWSA!-&Uz ve
V. Purpose of New Construction: C cz,.4 2e6QAW-4W
cc,6 T�r lea
42W
VI. Please describe the land contours (flat, slope 1/6, heavily wooded, marsh area, etc.) on your land
and how it relates to the difficulty in meeting the code requirement (s):
r-MAX-' AV de-1 2VZ 14,102725e >ZO ZJZ t!Adc, 7-6 AWAk, /Y ZUW'el
7,-d ZQTW RMMVA(.,6,AArA -4M < Zip, 506.--1Z
.10-PIMAy&e-'0&59?2 46VAE.10 V6 <1�!;- 0 - 9
P-26" 0-DYIAA6 ZMIV. C 0 V Al Z"
6A ANZAC W-&-AWMWAe. f Y
#7.25D, M E�Z,4,V D C 6 AOV JQZ�&5' exC-Pj2rC1vjY ME Z OM--
PRAIA14 64 41?69' IMPAIC 11X7,24,_0 Y7.-;,e B&40 OfA5P AA0 U-rX 4,0 C-477&V
Please submit 8 sets of photos,labeled to show different angles of yard areas after staking corners
for new construction, and photos of building area to be altered with yard view.
4/2012
L.-7 I
QUESTIONNAIRE 1140
FOR FILING WITH YOUR ZBA APPLICATION RECEIVED
A. Is the subject premises listed on the real u-state market for sale? NOV 2 12017
Yes )�( No ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
B. Are there any proposals to change or alter land contours?
No )< Yes please explain on attached sheet. _.ME 4, ON, 4,..4�Z f' 4, :0-/
co.vr,9,q,ey4V122 eF AVXALA P1VzV&1A16
rO .4 CCOHO�0,47,-F_ f)71/CM^10,6 I OZly,6404y NAIP )PA4EIV&A z6v
C. 1.) Are there areas that contain sand or wetland grasses? ME
2.) Are those areas shown on the survey submitted with this application? Y
,r,s'
3.) Is the property bulk headed between the wetlands area and the upland building
area? 0
4.) If your property contains wetlands or pond areas, have you contacted the Office of the Town
trustees for its determination of jurisdiction?_)��Please confinri status of your inquiry or
application with the Trustees:P&_
,4M OA?a�-OeAb7and if issued, please attach
copies of permit with conditions and apprc;�ed survey. If
D. Is there a depression or sloping elevation near the area of proposed construction at or
below five feet above mean sea level? /V 10
E. Are there any patios, concrete barriers, bulkheads or fences that exist that are not shown
on the survey that you are submitting? A/() --Please show area of the structures on a diagram
ifany exist or state none on the above line.
F. Do you have any construction taking place at this time concerning your
premises?- Ald If yes, please submit a copy ol'your building permit and survey as approved
by the Building Department and please
describe:
G. Please attach all pre-certificates of occupancy and certificates of occupancy for the
subject premises. If any are lacking, please apply to the Building Department to either obtain
them or to obtain an Amended Notice of Disapproval. IVI,4 - Z0,7—
H. Do you or any co-owner also own other land adjoining or close to this parcel? Al d If
yes, please label the proximity of your lands on your survey.
I. Please list present use or operations conducted at this parcel VA C4A17'
—6, and the proposed use 0
6VI APID66 . (ex: existing single family, proposed: same
with garage, pool or other)
x///9
Authorized signature and Date
RECEIVE
I
3RICULTURAL DATA STATEME1,4 1 1) 71140
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOV 9 12017
TOWN OFSOUTHOLD
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
WHEN TO USE THIS FORM: This form must be completed by the applicant for any special use
permit, site plan approval, use variance, area variance or subdivision approval on property within
an agricultural district OR within 500 feet of a farm operation located in an agricultural district.
All applications requiring an agricultural data statement must be referred to the Suffolk County
Department of Planning in accordance with Section 239m and 239n of the General Municipal
Law,
I Name of Applicant:_ /-5-os A6,600-J;e Y=r� 9-,P- zz C
2. Address o f Applicant:. - / 4 4zq� v-
3. Name of Land Owner (if other than Applicant):
4. Address of Land Owner:
5. Description of Proposed—Project: C01--
I J Jd],/
4VA& peylgrM.41#1
6. Location 'of Property: (road and Tax map )�;;-Ooz-
number)_
AIT IVY
7. Is the parcel within 500 feet of a farm' operation?f'j Yes {W No
8. Is this parcel actively farmed? f I Yes X No
9. Name and addresses of any owner(s) of land within the agricultural district containing
active farm operations. Suffolk County Tax Lot numbers will be provided to you by the Zoning
Board Staff, it is your responsibility to obtain the current names and mailing addresses from the
Town Assessor's Office (765-1937) or from the Real Property Tax Office located in Riverhead.
NAME and ADDRESS
I.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
(Please use the back of this page if there are additional property owners)
Signature of Applicant Date
Note:
1. The local Board will solicit comments from the owners of land identified above in order to
consider the effect of the proposed action on their farm operation. Solicitations will be made by
supplying a copy of this statement,
2. Comments returned to the local Board will be taken into consideration as part as the overall
review of this application.
3. Copies of the completed Agricultural Data Statement shall be sent by applicant to the property
owners identified above. The cost for mailing shall be paid by the Applicant at the time the
application is submitted for review.
617.20 1140
Appendix B RECEWED
Short Environmental Assessment Form NOV % 12017
Instructions for CompletW2 ZONING BOARD OP APPEALS
Part I - Project Information. The applicant or project sponsor is responsible for the completion of Part 1. Responses
become part of the application for'approval or funding,are subject to public review, and may be subject to further verification
Complete Part I based on infon-nation currently available. If additional research or investigation would be needed to fully
respond to any item,please answer as thoroughly as possible based on current information.
Complete all items in Part 1, You may also provide any additional information which you believe will be needed by or useful
to the lead agency; attach additional pages as necessary to supplement any item.
Part 1 - Project and Sponsor Information
Name of Action or Project:
Y25 Rb a-C,: N45 Ul&QM"77AZ_ lVdIA6
Project Location(describe, and attach a location map):
—1-5-05 9M%'_6 gr RW OR&CA17- IV, X
Brief Description of Proposed Action: C4
,i5j)R Z.#AIV WIPXIIV r0A1&XVC71'a41 -4 Corl
c o VMR&C-1- 6,oZdP _ror p 4t1,6&1m& a// &Z4 V,&_ PRY V,60A Y AWD
P)W POTX-V A-!-_-,AH7ZM.V --1VX;PY SOM00 ?6-M).,RRW 0-17"V g"');/ '4
7'
(:6 4
j//_1_0 -IAI OV)Or"
PAM >
OW,65-17251t1-Y Pe6 X 'A"t "0 1 141.
0 wl!vt X1-VA OA AM y A/Z o PX-,R Y 4 1 WZ-, A
9 rA
,6V66 A/
0'0V& 014 7" /1/V Jo 7, _P)o oJ' Y:2 YN A 4 5'0 4-/;W Cj 0
XND -P M e
P Al
Name of Applicant or Sponsor: Telephone: -
JIA- 602 ",0 7
ZVOLIA45z 141 e1144cle E- 'I.
Address:
AQ 4 7
City/130: State: Zip Code:
ro 6�T;q 0z'D Al 11107,1
1 Does the proposed action only involve the legislative adoption of a plan, local law, ordinance, NO YES_
administrative rule, or regulation?
If Yes, attach a narrative description of the intent of the proposed action and the-environmental resources that NX/
may be affected in the municipality and proceed to Part 2. If no, continue to question 2,
2. Does the proposed action require a permit,approval or funding from any other governmental Agenc_y? NO YES
If Yes, list agency(s) name and permit or approval:
7_
Zo
J.7_
Ah�W-5V 1016A�F_ Afr)&yl/7-lr_=440 R,654 A1k&f1*V0&,8Al2-
3.a. Total acreage of the site of the proposed action? A 9-4-6 acres
b Total acreage to be physically disturbed? -Al [2:�5 1 acres
c.Total acreage(project site and any contiguous properties) owned
or controlled by the applicant or project sponsor? acres
4. Check all land uses that occur oil, adjoining and near the proposed action,
0 Urban El Rural (non-agriculture) 13 Industrial 0 Commercial VResidential (suburban)
El Forest 0 Agriculture 1:1 Aquatic 0 Other(specify):
C1 Parldand
Page I of 4
5. Is the proposed action, NO YES N/A
a A permitted use Linder the zoning regulations? Noy 2�1 2-017 114fo X
b. Consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan? X
6. Is the proposed action consistent with th e predominant char acli-ell"Oly K AIWJ%ral NO YES
landscape? X
7. Is the site of the proposed action located in,or does it adjoin, a state listed Critical Environmental Area? NO YES
If Yes, identify:
X
8. a.Will the proposed action result in a substantial increase in traffic above present levels? NO YES
b. Are public transportation sei-vice(s) available at or near the site of the proposed action? X
X
c, Are any pedestrian accommodations or bicycle routes available on or near site of the proposed action?
9. Does the proposed action meet or exceed the state energy code requirements? NO YES-
If the proposed action will exceed requirements,describe design features and technologies:
6- WW A55 6W r-
�MYJMCU- a�6r/(-
OOF 6' 67E0 71449H,41- 7JMrZd/ %oyAq- WIPA)ono VOZ M�4 X
. ,2 U=yh
gy4l pj�
Ve.oo
V A�;
10. Will the proposed action-connect to an existing- public/private water sufrPy1179--1C.C- 1"�A- NO YES
If No, describe method for providing potable water:_CIA) "U) 14�5L&
11. Will the proposed action connect to existing wastewater utilities? NO YES
If No, describe method for providing wastewater treatment: %
A/
12 a. Does the site contain a structure that is listed on either die State or National Register of Historic NO YES
Places?
b. Is the proposed action located in an archeological sensitive area? X
13. a. Does any portion of the site of the proposed action,or lands adjoining the proposed action,contain NO YES
wetlands or other waterbodies regulated by a federal,stale or local agency?
b. Would the proposed action physically alter,or encroach into, any existing wetland or waterbody?
If Yes, identify the wetland or waterbody and extent of alterations in square feet or acres:
14. Identify the typical habitat types that occur on, or are likely to be found on the project site. Check all that apply.
VShoreline 11 Forest 11 Agricultural/gi asslands 0 Early mid-successional
1:1 Wetland 11 Urban NV
ym-Suburban
15 Does the site of the proposed action contain any species of animal, or associated habitats, listed NO YES
by the State or Federal government as threatened or endang(,-red? N/
16 Is the project site located in the 100 year flood plain? NO YES
-- V-
17. Will the proposed action create storm water discharge, either from point or non-point sources? NO YES
If Yes,
a. Will storin water discharges flow to adjacent properties? VNO 0 YES
b. Will storm water discharges be directed to established conveyance systems ( off and storm diaiDS)?
If Yes,briefly describe: "UR NO 0 YES
—,T-A2XZ72F- =4e,1V WAnE& /1,&&r P zZ�&
Page 2 of 4
18. Does the proposed action inclu( nst
-- ruction or other activities that result in t rnent of NO YES
water or other liquids (e.g. retention pond, waste lagoon, dam)? mff� —
If Yes,explain purpose and size: 1140
NOV 24
4019ING 130AR0
19 Has the site of the proposed action or an adjoining property been the location of an active or closed NO YES
solid waste management facility?
If Yes,describe:
X
20. Has the site of the proposed acti)n or an adjoining—propert,y been the subject of remediation (ongoing or NO YES
completed) for hazardous waste?
If Yes,describe:
I AFFIRM THAT THE INFORM—ATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF MY
KNOWLEDGE
Applicant/sponsor name:
Signature: Cje—" Date: /1/4 ZW7
Part 2- Impact Assessment. The Lead Agency is responsible for the completion of Part 2. Answer all of the following
questions in Pail 2 using the information contained in Part I and other materials submitted by the project sponsor or
otherwise available to the reviewer When answering the questions the reviewer should be guided by the concept"Have my
responses been reasonable considering the scale and context ofthe proposed action?"
No, or Nio—derate
small to large
impact impact
may may
occur occur
1. Will the proposed action create a material conflict with an adopted land use plan or zo—ning ---
iegulations?
2. Will the,proposed action result in a change in the use or intensity of use of land?
3. Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of rhe existing community?
4. Will the proposed action have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the
establishment of a Critical Environmental Area(CEA)?
5. Will the proposed action result in an adverse change in the existing level of traffic or
affect existing infrastructure for mass transit,biking or walkway?
6. Will the proposed action cause an increase in the use of energy and it fails to incorporate
— reasonably available energy conservation or renewable energy opportunities?
7. Will the proposed action impact existing:
a, public/private water supplies?
b.public/private wastewater treatment utilities?
8, Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of important historic, archaeological,
ai chitectural or aesthetic resources?
9. Will the proposed action result in an adverse change to natural resources (e.g., wetlands,
waterbodies, groundwater, air quality, flora and fauna)?
Page 3 of 4
RpCE-IVEL) � 140 No, or Moderate
small to large
impact impact
may may
occur occur
E)ARD OF APPEALS
10. Will the proposed action result in an increase in the potential Teromsionlooding or drainage
problems?
11. Will the proposed action create a hazard to environmental resources or human health?
Part 3-Determination of significance. The Lead Agency is responsible for the completion of Part 3. Forevery
question in Pali 2 that was answered"moderate to large impact may occur", or if there is a need to explain why a particular
element of the proposed action may or will not result in a significant adverse environmental impact,please complete Part 3.
Part 3 should, in sufficient detail, identify the impact, including any measures or design elements that have been included by
the project sponsor to avoid or reduce impacts. Pait 3 should also explain how the lead agency deten-nined that the irripact
may or will not be significant. Each potential impact should be assessed considering its setting,probability of occurring,
duration, irreversibility,geographic scope and magnitude. Also consider the potential for short-term, long-term and
cUmulative impacts.
heck this box if you have determined, based on the information and analysis above, and any supporting documentation,
C
t
hat the proposed action may result in one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts and an
environmental impact statement is required. 7
Check this box if you have determined, based on the information and analysis above, and any supporting documentation,
that the proposed action will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts.
Name of Lead Agency Date
Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Offic-er
Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer(if different from Responsible Officer)
Page 4 of 4
APPLICANVOWNER
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.
YOURNAME :
C
(Last nanii-,—first name,midgle initial,unless you are applying in the name of someone else or other entity,such as a
company.If so,indicate the other person's or company's name.) —�/L�o
TYPE OF APPLICATION: (Check all that apply) RECEIVED
Tax grievance Building Permit
Variance Trustee Permit NOV 2 1 poll ,
Change of Zone Coastal Erosion
Approval of Plat Mooring ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Other(activity) Planning
Do you personally(or through your company,spouse,sibling,parent,or child) have a relationship,with any officer or
employee of the Town of Southold? "Relationship"includes by blood.marriage, or business interest. "Business interest"
means a business,including a partnership,in which the town �fficer or employee has even a partial ownership of(or
employment by) a corporation in which the town officer or employee owns more than 5% of the shares.
YES NO X
If you answered "YES",complete the balance of this form and date and sign where indicated.
Name of person employed by the Town of Southold
Title or position of that person
Describe the relationship between yourself(the applicant/agent/i-epresentative) and the town officer or employee.Either
check the appropriate line A) through D) and/or describe in the space provided.
The town officer or employee or his or her spouse,sibling,parent,or child is(check all that apply)
A)the owner of greater that 5% of the shares of the corporate stock of the applicant(when the applicant is a
corporation)
B)the legal or beneficial owner of any interest in a non-corporate entity(when the applicant is not a corporation)
Q an officer,director,partner,or employee of the applicant; or
D)the actual applicant
DESCRIPTION OF RELATIONSHIP
S - n
ubmitted this jc3] ay of
Signature
Print Name. CA e41
RECEIVED
APPLICANVOWNER Nov ��1 2017
TRANSACTIONAL DISCLOSURE FORM
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
aie 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
�Letion is necessary to avoid same.
YOUR NAME : &L,%g
(Last name,eirst name,(niddle initial,unless you zre applying in the name of someone else or other entity,such as a
company.If so,indicate the other person's or company's name.)
TYPE OF APPLICATION: (Check all that apply)
Tax grievance Building Permit X1,
Variance Trustee Permit M,
Change of Zone Coastal Erosion
Approval of Plat Mooring
Other(activity) Planning
Do you personally (or through your company,spouse,sibling, parent, or child) have a relationship with any officer
or employee of the Town of Southold? "Relationship" includes by blood, marriage, or business interest. "Business
interest" means a business, including a partnership, in which the town officer or employee has even a partial
ownership of(or employment by) a corporation in which the town officer or employee owns more than 5% of the
shares.
YES NO X,
If you answered"YES", complete the balance of this form and date and sign where indicated.
Name of person employed by the Town of Southold
Title or position of that person
Describe the relationship between yourself(the applicant/agent/representatiye) and the town officer or employee.
Either check the appropriate line A) through D) and/or describe in the space provided.
The town officer or employee or his or her spouse,sibling,parent,or child is(check all that apply)
A)the owner of greater that 5% of the shares of the corporate stock of the applicant(when the applicant is a
corporation)
B)the legal or beneficial owner of any interest in a non-corporate entity(when the applicant is not a corporation)
Q an officer,director,partner,or employee of the applievint; or
D)the actual applicant
DESCRIPTION OF RELATIONSHIP
Submitted this 1-5- day of—A19 V__,20 1-7
Signature
Print Name C"Wz A C
Town of Southold -1140
RECEIVED
LWRP CONSISTENCY ASSESSMENT FORM Nov 2017
A. INSTRUCTIONS ZONING BOARD OF APPEAL;
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. "E"xcept minor exempt actions including Building Pern?itS
and other n7inisterialpermits not located within the Coastal Erosion Hazard,4rea,
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 coasial 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
detennination that it is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the LWRP policy
standards and conditions, If an action cannot be certified as consistent with the LWRP policy
standards and conditions, it shall not be undertaken,
A copy of the LWRP is available in the following places: online at the Town of Southold's
website (southoldtown.northfork.net), the Board of Trustees Office, the Planning Department, all
local libraries and the Town Clerk's office.
B. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSED ACTION
SCTM# -4-
The Application has been submitted to (check appropriate response):
Town Board IE Planning Dept. E] Building Dept. )e2NI- Board of Trustees F11
Category of Town of Southold agency action (check appropriate response):
(a) Action undertaken directly by Town agency(e.g. capital
construction, planning activity, agency regulation, land transaction)
(b) Financial assistance (e.g. grant, loan, subsidy)
(c) Permit, approval, license, certification:
Nature and extent ofaction:
C0111r7Z0C7- _r�r O&V,60-IA16, IV/ OXAVgl_ Op.�VA-JV,4,VAL.*VP PARON&1445A,
"I
4,1C 7;L 1�11A,UWv)V 77W- &TPOreO 'e�e2 �V—Q5W-aW& 54425,e4yo
��:7rReSeqV 1-lAo�5 -3 dOV
rz�- z Z�64
�_Q �77C
A Y-*MC
H,Al&r,o -PYP7,62H , 4 470 A71-1-0cwep R 0 0 Z- alil
.e:rll
,,?5L
'714o Location of action: I -
RECEIVED
Site acreage:
2017
Present land use: CAA17— Z 077
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
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: ZW1 Z-Z- C
(b) Mailing address: :�-L 6 04,0461A Y, 0A1/7- 4 A
ylng'/e A/ �� Z/)A/a
(c) Telephone number: Area Code -7- ,4-7?-
(d) Application number, if any:
Will the action be directly undertaken, require funding, or approval by a state or federal agency?
YesEl NoX 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.
r�z —] No 7 Not Applicable
Lk,j Yes F
ZV'6 la� 7;yz V14 C4 M17- Z-67 1-9-012 14 J11W6
az A coA;o-A,1 6 0 c4 77o.,&
N" V6
,.es, —
RUV I&AV�-PO C7-VR-- "642
1A/ 4- a,o�A
Attach additional sheets if necessary
Policy 2. Protect and preserve historic and arch aeolo gical resources of the Town of Southold. See
LWRP Section III—Policies Pages 3 through 6 for evaluation criteria
Yes EF-1 No Not Applicable
0
C �01f! CY 04- 0 6 04 Z,
URCE2 aV M6 BA70
Attach additional sheets if necessary
Policy 3. Enhance visual quality and protect scenic resources throughout the Town dfE6AV$bDld. See
LWRP Section III-Policies Pages 6 through 7 for evaluation criteria -7)'4o
12-2 No [] Not Applicable NOY 2 A 2017
R Yes
OF APPEALS
UVI)OUP A107'45�7v ��
7Y #—JP 4 0=1VI-7- 77 C CIE
dt='198 o VL
.77VA�Y QU9
AV
==U'1V4V1A113 ,4 'V
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 1111-Policies Pages 8 through 16 for evaluation criteria
Yes E No 1�1 Not Applicable
de?2c geaF145P -Z-0 V—V 010-r- ME P OZ&2416
-PIAC'��P17-0 MAE 7V,-r- CA�fZ LIM!5 77�,W F
.P5�r- r &0 1
Al T--& v'-= leg"ltzp'4 C7 10/L� V21—*I-
0
4.1-ON6 7Z65 ZOU2,dL=A �PL
A-Volop eAklj WE(D5Z;P
- 141vy RA01-1dZU&
ttach 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 throuab 21 for-evaluation criteria
Yes 1:1 No
&ot Applicable
7W 1E e2QMQEV /?,f m5cE (ZI24z
7
2!5�p"e vow
A-4 12 1 yof I
4%E/--,/2774E a" -
Qn V U/19 ae-',4a5f
--.XA&E p.0/on!�;P!P
'?�- ('1C7Vzeo5 &65V 4-0 rAmr� Aoizzu6e
7-0 Z�Z�� 1RP4WcrA VA'zuesz
r5go Ror-CIZARZoe-= AREA-
Tt—tachaddit—ional 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.
NoX Not Applicable
P Yes E
U1111-Z Y100- /Vt/)
C 77- 11Y
Ve Za '/-F eMa�4�Z-Jy C
C01651YE0 I
'0:20—r)=
1� Z
Wo&M&
OP' 1054AD 0;2 PYIW6? MLoF,69.
,ge,olVAQ.
RECEIVED 71
NOW 2 1 P-017
Attach additional sheets if necessary
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Policy 7. Protect and improve air quality in the Town of Southold. See tWRP Section III — Policies
Pages 32 through 34 for evaluation criteria.
Yes 2 No 54 Not Applicable
e&IZ-4 AV07-
CZd�IV6 4�Ll
7C C ol",,Aor�
2,j*4Z:E CAVVjEgy_
7:V
Attach additional sheets i 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.
YesEl No Not Applicable
/ P A16 A44ZARPIoZE: WW7,F3 141VOZ-V40 /Al "�W
cr� r-14445ZIA ZZ a!5 J'04?22
440earML 601V, R E 1A/
PUBLIC COAST POLICIES
Policy 9. Provide for public access to, and recreational use of, coastal waters, public lands, and public
resources of the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section III—Policies; Pages 38 through 46 for evaluation
criteria.
Ye2 No [] Not Applicable
Z�7 � /-,r VA
EEOZZ 7�9 7)2,�5 AV 9E,�5 Z_11V
7
Attach additional sheets if necessary
WORKING COAST POLICIES
Policy 10. Protect Southold's water-dependent uses and promote siting of new water-dependent uses in
suitable locations. See LWRP Section in—Policies; Pages 47 through 56 for evaluation criteria.
Yes El No "�7 Not Applicable
JeN
P. I'n
R ErVED
Wiffiv, 69 12011
Attach additional sheets if necessary ZOWNG BeARf)Ot-APPEALS
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.
E� Yes 1:1 No 9 Not Applicable
7;V,,-*' &W P
,O�
O/V I—ZVIAI& "N&ZM5
P—C,E—r IAI Z, / J'1eZ&j1
Attach additional sheets if necessary
Policy 12. Protect agricultural lands in the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section III — Policies; Pages
'62 through 65 for evaluation criteria.
13 Yes No l'/Xl Not Applicable
A6V 2Vye42_ Re� IZ3 01V
Attach additional sheets if necessary
Policy 13. Promote appropriate use and development of energy and mineral resources. See LWRP
Section 111—Policies; Pages 65 through 68 for evaluation criteria.
XYes No ,��,' Not Applicable
/7
4_5 YW
MOW 454!5 5WZI 0172 107--d
Created on 5125105 11:20 AM
�0
RECEIVED
Board of Zoning Appeals pplication NOV 2-T 20v
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
AUTHORIZATION
(Where the Applicant is not the Owner)
YZ Rpt; ZZ C
"A -t �- —
residing at
(Print property owner's name) (Mailing Address)
do hereby authorize
,e5� 4.
(Agent)
to apply for variance(s) on my behalf from the
Southold Zoning Board of Appeals.
(Owner's Signa e)
(Print Owner's Name)
BOARD MEMBERS Southold Town Hall
Leslie Kanes Weisman,Chairperson SO 53095 Main Road's P.O.Box 1179
Eric Dantes Southold,NY 11971-0959
41 Office Location:
Gerard P.Goehringer CA Town Annex/First Floor,Capital One Bank
George Homing
54375 Main Road(at Youngs Avenue)
Kenneth Schneider Southold,NY 11971
-J\L�0 http://southoldtolmn.northfork.net
Rtcelvw ZONING BOAILD OF APPEALS RECEIVED
00V % TOWN OFSOUTHOLD PuL, 9'1#�a4/K
OCT 2 4 2016
ZC)%J1MG 50PIP't)of ppPEALS Tel.(631)765-1809 Fax(631)765-9064
Qouthold Town Clerk
FINDINGS,DELIBERATIO NS AND DETERMINATION
MEETING OF O,,C-T0BER 20,2016
Comparative ZBA Filb
ZBA FILE: Marc and Deirdre Sokol for Deer Fence- Only
NAME OF APPLICANT: 6992
PROPERTY LOCATION: 308 Park Avenue, Mattituck,NY SCTM 1000-123-7-7.3
SEQ U DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under consideration
in this application and determines that this review fall,s under the Type 11 category of the State's List of
Actions, without further steps under SEQRA.
SUFFOLK COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE: This application was referred as re q*uired under the
Suffolk County Administrative Code Sections A 14-14 to 23, and the Suffolk County Department of
Planning issued its reply dated Sept. 2, 2016, stating ffiat this application is considered a matter for local
determination as there appears to be no significant county-wide or inter-community impact.
LWRP DETERMINATION: This application was r6,ferred-for review under Chapter 268, Waterfront
Consistency review of the Town of Southold Town Code and the Local Waterfront Revitalization
Program (LWRP) Policy Standards. The LWRP Coordinator issued a recommendation dated Sept, 26
2016. Based upon the information provided on the LIWRP Consistency Assessment Form submitted, as
well as the records available, it is the LWRP Coordinittor's recommendation that the proposed action is
CONSISTENTwith LWR.P policy standards;-and there Core is CONSISTENT with the LWRP,
PROPERTY FACTSIDESCRIPTION.- The applicant's, property is a 84,979 sq. ft. flag lot parcel in the R-
40 zone. The northerly lot line measures 255,97 feet along an adjacent residential parcel. The easterly lot
line lies along a private right of way, owned by the applicant, measuring 20 feet wide and approximately
600 feet long, spanning the distance between Park Ave. and Peconic Bay, The southerly lot line abuts
Great Reconic Bay, and the westerly lot line measmes 242.77 feet along another residential parcel.
Because this waterfront property is also a flag, lot accessed by a private right of way, it is characterized as
'having two front yards, The property is improved with'a new single family dwelling, under construction,
with a proposed swimming pool, a pergola, and a hot tub as shown on the survey drawn by Nathan Taft
Corwin III, Land Surveyor, last revised October 3, 2016.
BASIS OF ARPLICATIQN: Request for Variances 11rom Article 111, Section 280-15; Article XXII,
Section 280-105C(3),, and the Building Inspector's Ju'ly 8, 2016, Notice of Disapproval based on an
application for building permit to construct accessory ;tructures and erect a deer fence, at; 1) proposed
(L40
Page 2,October 20,2016 RECEIVED
#6992,Sokol' NOV 2 R 2017
SCTM No, 1000-123-7-7,3
ZONIN6 BOARD OF APPEALS
additions located in other than the code required rear yard, 2) proposed deer fence located in other than
the code permitted side or rear yards,
RELIEF REQUESTED: The applicant requests a variance in order to construct an accessory swimming
pool, pergola, and hot tub within non-conforming side yard areas, and a second variance in order to
construot deer fencing along a front yard area where it.is not permitted by Code.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: This property was the subject of a two lot subdivision granted by prior
ZBA Appeal No. #2017, dated April 10, 1975 and priOr owner received variance relief from the Board to
install an in-ground swimming pool located in other than the rear yard by Appeal No, 4779 on March 2,
2000.
FINDINGS OF FAQ_r/_REAS0NS FOR BOARD ACTION:
The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on Oct, 6, 2016, at which time
written and oral evidence were presented. Based upon,all testimony, documentation, personal inspection
of the property and surrounding neighborhood, and other evidence, the Zoning Board finds the following
facts to be true and relevan't and makes the following findings:
1. Town Law .42 3)(b)(1). Grant of the variance for the non-oonforming side yard locations of the
proposed swimming pool, pergola, and hot tub will nol"produce an undesirable change in the character of
the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties.' The closest neighbor is West of the applicant's
prolierty, with a new house under construction several hund d fe t away from h applic t' hou
-ty is shielded from view by an ostablished hedgerow surrounding the parcel on all
The applicant's propei re e t e an s se.
sides except the waterfront. The applicant will extend the hedgerow to add to what already exists along
thewestern'lot line.
Grant of the variance for deer fencing constructed alonl) a front yard area will not produce an undesirable
change in the character of the neighborhood or a doti:iment to nearby properties. The proposed deer
fencing will be located about 300 feet away from Park Avenue, and will be positioned along the inside of
the hedgerows that surround the property on the north and West property lines, in order to diminish any
visual impact. The majority of the fencing along the water front property line is proposed at 4 feet in
height,- and the Proposed fencing along the easterly line is to be located along a private P,,O.W. owned by
the applicant, that permit�3 deeded beach access by foot only t6 three other homes,
2. Town Law _§267-b(3).(tJL2LThe benefit sought by the applicant for the construction 'of a swimming
Pool, pergola, and hot tub cannot be achieved b- some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other
than an area variance because Code requires the placement of'aocessory structures within a rear yard
location, The benefit Sought by the applicant for the construction of deer fencing in the front yard axea
cannot be achieved by Some method, feasible f6r the " plicant to 'pursue, other than an area variance
Up
because deer fencing in a frofit yard area is not allowed by code,
3. Town Law '267-b The variance granted herein for construction of a swimming pool,
pergola, and hot tub in side yard areas is mathematically substantial, representing 100% relief from the
code, However, due to the fact that this property has two front yards, and the location bf the driveway and
septic system, a rear location for theses accessory structures is not practical. The variance granted herein
for construction of deer fencing in a front yard area is mathematically substantial, representing 100%
Page 3, October 20,2016 RECEIVED
#6992,Sokol
SCTM No. 1000-123-7-7,3 NOV 2 a 201?
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
relief from the code. However, the fencing will beSetback a minimum of 300 feet from Park Ave, The
entire length of the deer fencing will be shielded from view by the hedgerow, existing and to be planted,
that will surround this property,
4. Town Law §267-I)f3 b
ML14A No evidence has !been submitted to suggest that a variance in this
residential community will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood, The applicant must comply with Chapter 236 of the Town's Storm Water Management
Code,
5. 3)(b)(5). The difficulty has bem self-created, The applicant purchased the parcel
after the Zoning Code was in effect and it is presu'�ned that the applicant had actual or constructive
knowledge of the limitations on the use of the parcel:under the Zoning Code in effect prior to or at the
time of purchase,
6. Lo Grant of the requested relief,is the minimum action necessary and adequate to
enable the applicant to enjoy the benefit of a swimmi ng pool, pergola, and hot tub located in side yard
areas, and deer fencing located in a front yard area, lNhile preserving and protecting the character of the
neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community.
RESOLUTION OF THE, BOARD: In considering all orthe above factors and applying the balancing test
under New York Town Law 267-B, motion was off6red by Member Homing, seconded by Member
Weisman (Chairperson), and duly carried, to
GRANT the variances as applied for, and shown on the survey drawn by Nathan Taft Corwin III, Land
Surveyor, last revised October 3, 2016 and architectural floor plan sheet No. A-1 as prepared by Mark
Schwartz, R,A. dated September 22, 2016
SUBJECT TO THE FOL&OWING cL
ONDIT
LQNS
1. The location of the pool, pergola, hot tub and deer fence are subject to approval by the Southold
Town Board of Trustees.
2. Pool meehanicals shall be placed in a sound deadming enclosure.
3, Drywell for pool de-watering shall be installed ar,d shown on the survey.
That the above conditions be written into the Building Inspector's Certificate of Occupancy, when issued.
Any deviationfrom the survey, site plan andlor architectural drawings cited in this decision will result in delays
andlor a possible denial by the Building Department of a bui�.dingpermit, and may require a new application and
public hearing before the Zoning Board OfAppeals,
Any deviation from the variance(s)granted herein as shown on the architectural drawings, site plan andlor survey
cited above, such as alterations, extensions, or demolitions, are not authorized under this application when
involving nonconformities under the zoning code, This action does not authorize or condone any current orfuture
use, setback or other feature of the sub/ect property that ipiay violate the Zoning Code, other than such uses,
setbacks and otherjeature3 as are expressly addressed in this action.
The Board reserves the right to substitute a similar design that is de minimis in nature for an alteration that does
not increase the degree of nonconformity,
Page 4, October 20,2016 RECEIVED
#6992,Sokol NOV 91 a 2017
SCTM No. 1000-123-7-7,3
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Pursuant to Chapter 28 0-146(B) of the Code of the Town of Southold any variance granted by the
Board of Apoeals shall become null and void whenc, a Certificate of Occupancy has not been
procured, and/or a subdivision map has not been ri Jed with the Suffolk County Clerk,within three
(3)years from the date such variance was granted.!� The Board of Appeals may, upon written
request prior to the date of expiration, grant an extension not to exceed three (3) consecutive one
(1)year terms,
Vote of the Board: Ayes:Members Weisman �Chairpersoilt), Dantes, Horning, Schneider (Member Goehringer not
present). This Resolution was duly adopted (4-0).
'V�
t��( "g�c-
Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chair-person
Approved for filing A,/ C�'//2016
00 PAIK AVENUE
o 14
RECEIVE
NOY 2.1 2017
Ln
ZONING 130ARD OF APPEALS
C�
SURVEY OF PROPERTY
SITUA TE
MATTITUCK
00
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK
S.C, TAX No. 1000-123-07-7.3
SCALE 1"=30'
FEBRUARY 11, 2014
PAY,P
'Ixt JUNE 17, 2015 STAKE PROpER6'T LINES
JUNE 15 20ili UPDAT
1111�13 DATE
INAL MAP
REVIEWED BY
S 9
EE DEC191ON#
T
U[ 'go
AREA f INAL MAP
(To TIE LE4 REVIEWED BY ZBA
EE DECISION#69TQ
DATED
CNETIFIED TO, __j
MARC S. SOKOL
DEIRDRE SOKOL
FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE SERVICES LLC
1.ELEVATIONS ARE REFERENCED TO N.A V D 1988 DATUM
EXISTING ELEVATIONS ARE SHOWN THUS�
EXISTING CONTOUR LINES ARE SHOWN THUS ----
mg
cl
N4O1'F0'RIS
11 9 ENSTSIN
rig
OeL
Fox iii� r,0 V. o
c'
Lcy�
U.-
10
15-ap
—ffo�- OCT-52016
'37 I—T I
I STORY FRAME HOVSE&G�R E .. AIR-1-WITS By.-�OL---
mc_—G A or
SI-
V-z
ki
%o E-DE S'E'o SSMSM:20EE"CO1051-1
A MO ME-
RIl.I E-
Ovi ek�'
I EYE-
,A- 00
- -----------
THE"'T... .SRIGHTS Or
'x,l My N
IT"E- A
'U" ExT.-E.
D A
E.. BY AW.WAOOM
E
---- ------
t4
'�'QC\J-b )D
v E'L'I -TO
—IIEACH AREA IGI�l Lpc No 50467
SEA HIG , OSET
\(DELGED RIGHTS-7 P OTHERS)
S 0 Nathan Taft Corwin Ill
U)
95.37'
- Land Surveyor
�13
W ---------- -- N(TI
11020, W PEI,
G,�?EA T pECONIC 9 (A PIT.SO-y.-S.boW,-,- St.pl.-- C-�--I-.,
Ult
_&A PHONE(631)727-2090 Fox(631)727-1727
OFFICES LOCATED AT P"LING AD RESS
, ,1566 11-R. I, -10
old.No--�"11947 '�-P.o'E-Y-11947
14-013
-1 (40
RECETVEI�
Nov % 12017
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Untitled Map egend
w7w
17 1505 Birdseye Rd
Write a description for your map.
M ,
-1 kiko
ZotgNG 130P'RD L)�ppPEALS
g
V
DE R ��NCE VI,
16
X B E
/*
A A
N NEW 6
EW 6
O�ER,FENC NEW 8'
ROOF DEER FENCE
TER E
0<
oq,.l e�. .....
-p-
LTAIC\�
Pm6Tovo \
'Af/
V�
NEW 15
DEER FENCE
N,>, Af-
T
/*
111ol
OOL
DEC A` NEW 8'
aw DEER FENCE
A, PEDESTRIAN
RY BRIDGE
EXISTING'
FR.HSE SEPTIC
1-1000 GAL.PRECAST SEPTIC TANK
1-8'0 X 12'DEEP LEACHING POOL GRAVEL
2-60 X 12'DEEP EXPANSION POOLS DRIVEVAY
NEW
DE E PROPOSED
NEW 8' WELL
DEE� FENCE
LOTCOVERAGE EN
ru
LOT AREA: 59,067 36 SF(1.356 ACRES) PMKIN
BUILDABLE AREA(LANDWARD OF CEHL LINE) 35,698 SF
MAX.LOT COVERAGE(20%OF BUILDABLE AREA)- 20%OF 35,698 SF=7,13 S 0*
TEST HOLEI
BUILDING COVERAGE' 6,028 SF NOTE: USE�MCDONALD
BRIDGE COVERAGE: 796 SF GEOSCIENCi 10/03/12
TOTAL COVERAGE: 6,824 SF(19.12%)WITHOU PIEWAY IN
(�SITTE P�L�AN T
T� E�
IELL—/ ;- :!��–WELL
;NER: PROJECT:
C A R L 0 S
Z A P A T A ORIENT HOUSE
S T U D 1 0 1505 BIRDSEYE ROAD
561 broad"y,4A/4B N�York,NY 10013 ORIENT NY1 1957
T 212 966 9292 F 212 966 9242
I*CEIVEU
41�
NOY
D A
(1)1505 Birdseye Rd. LIC
Taken Nov, 15,2017
�W Looking SW
"Low,
A_2 too
L
rz,
j
-7� (2)1505 Birdseye Rd.LLC
.15,2017
V I
Taken Nov
Looking NE
-1-1 t7
Jr
00"
IF
NLI
14
4j&'
nd
. ........... .....
OW
;4N.
Pit
Ok
741--
ZXI.
AA
AY
lot.:
%r'W.
40-
-06
40
ILI
IT
FVT-
__Nk
—79
:!jjjjjjj:jjjjjjj'jbbL.
,vvra�-'.
p
...... .....
00,I
74
.1 AM
Ji
.,ata.:��JL
1 J
jj.
i7
Zp.
AIML
4A
LIV
WS
OV. 4L,
-INN
Im,k
XI'
k0r
o 4r
gb
X'� JN
4,.P"
:7—
Z v'51
rki
IVA,
.ww
KIM
4Z.
Fto
AN,
74-
416�
15,4
wr
�0 A,
UN!"
.A7
77
-41
*V'S
All Aw
5t
A
NIL
14�
N
Wklffl
A."W
...04
xf. W4
Y.1
Al
JO
IS.
I FM W-M 0
BPI
fl
-14
%
X
1505 Birdseye Rd. LLC
ov.15, 2017
aken N
Looking ESE
OARD Of APPEALS
ZONING
W�
'i I W �115 i
(16)1505 Birdseye Rd. LLC
Taken Nov. 15,2017
Looking ENE
�4
:q
Vr�
.40
(17)1505 Birdseye Rd. LLC
Taken Nov. 15, 2017
Looking ENE
ARD C) *ALS
(MING BO
5
MY:
NOR
-70
(18)1505 Birdseye Rd. LLC
Zee Taken Nov.15,2017
Looking SE
1116 1
P,
(19)1505 Birdseye Rd. LLC
Taken Nov.15,2017
Looking East
ii4o
RECEIVEC
Nov 2 1 2017
NING BOARD OF APPIALS
(20)1505 Birdseye Rd.LLC
Taken Nov.15,2017
Looking SW
AM
lk
44
4-r-
f�
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD OROPERTY RECORD CARD
--b—IST.—SUB. LOT
?WNER STREET' VILLAGE
I >----� P, 1, � �q /\\Wj
AIA zp
5m w's e -Y77'-
ACR.
7�C
R kON E�j L
.7 S W TYPE OF BUILDING exi
y A c�w'i �-io 4 Ie L-r-N Z-D 2ze�!30r,Boo,')0,
.ES. SEAS. V31 FARM COMM. CB. MICS. Mkt. Value
IMP. TOTAL DATE REMARKS
�--�Q Q -z
r1> 0 W/
�r,,A,4y
I a%141 DI N —rex�YN,k Y�-e��C,�n I 50,0b�,r6se-,w UL4:1,gop a
AGE BUILDING CONDITION
NEW NORMAL' BELOW ABOVE
FARM Acre Value Per, Value
Acre
-illable FRONTAGE ON WATER
Voodiand FRONTAGE ON ROAD
Aeadowl-and DEPTH
louse Plot BULKHEAD
-oto I DOCK
FOL/r ea
ELIZABETH A.NEVILLE,MMC Town Hall,53095 Main Road
TOWN CLERK P.O.Box 1179
C*
Southold,New York 11971
REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS Fax(631)765-6145
MARRIAGE OFFICER Telephone(631)765-1800
RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER www.southoldtownny.gov
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
TO: Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals
FROM: Elizabeth A.Neville
DATED: November 29, 2017
RE: Zoning Appeal No. 7140
Transmitted herewith is Zoning Appeals No.-7140 for Zapata Associates Inc. for 1501
Birdseve Rd LLC-The Application to the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals. Also
enclosed is the Applicant's Project Description, Questionnaire, Agricultural Data Statement,
Short Environmental Assessment Form, Applicant/Owner Transactional Disclosure Forrn,
Agent/Representative Transactional Disclosure Form, LWRP Consistency Assessment Form,
Notices of Disapproval, Board of Zoning Appeals Application Authorization, Findings,
Deliberations and Determination Meeting of October 20, 2016, Copy of Survey, Google Earth
Map, Copy of Site Plan, Photos, Property Record Card, Site Plan Workpoint Setout, Survey, Site
Plans and Drawings.
RECEIPT *
Date: 11/29/17 Receipt#: 229813
Quantity Transactions Reference Subtotal
1 ZBA Application Fees 7140 $1,500.00
Total Paid: $1,500.00
Notes:
Payment Type Amount Paid By
CK#1560 $1,000.00 Zapata, Associates Inc.
CK#1562 $500.00 Zapata, Associates Inc
Southold Town Clerk's Office
53095 Main Road, PO Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Name: Zapata, Associates Inc.
520 Broadway
New York, NY 10012
Clerk ID: SABRINA Internal ID.7140
Debate over Nissequogue homeoiy�ers' proposal to build sea wall ... https://www.newsday.com/long-island/suffolk/nissequogue-seawall...
LONG ISLAND/SUFFOLK
Debate over Nisse-quogue
homeowners' proposal to build sea wall
The homeowners are seeking permits to build a barrier alongtheir waterfront property,but experts
say doing that could harm the coast.
N isseq uogue Vi I I age homeowners are seeki ng permits to
buildaseawall on Long IslandSound bluffs below their
house,left.Photo Credit:Google Maps
By Nicholas Spangler
nicholas.spangler@newsday.com 0 @spanglernewsday
Updated May2,2018 6:OOAM
A Nissequogue Village couple is seeking permits to build a'set of sea wails off Long Island Sound bluffs
i
below their home,but some local officials say the project would violate policies intended to protect the
region's shared coast.
Homeowners Gloria Trillo and Alan Stange,an employee of hedge f und Renaissance Technologies,
according to his Linkedin page, lost most of the bulkhead t'hat had protected their Triple Oak Lane
property in a January nor'easter.Without it,they have lost, 16 feet of land near the toe of the bluff and
I
up to five feet at the top,said Adon Austin,their engineer,i at a Nissequogue Village hearing last month.
I
He proposes to solve his clientsproblem by building two 213-toot tiered sea walls rising roughly 18
1
feet over the beach,buttressed by fill and three-ton boulders.
Bluffs like those in Nissequogue,which may reach more than 50 feet in height, protect settled areas
I
behind them and feed the beaches in f ront by their erosion.They are considered vital natural
i
protective features under New York State coastal management policies,which restrict building on or
next to them and provide for local and state review of building proposals in the area.
1 of 3 5/2/18, 12:46 PM
I
Debate over Nissequogue homeowners' prot)osal to build sea wall ... https.://www.newsday.com/long-island/suffolk/nissequogue-seawall...
Nevertheless,about a dozen out of 50 Nissequogue Village waterfront properties are armored,
worrying environmentalists who say the practice harms the coast and encourages neighbors to harden
their own properties.
Kaylee Engellenner,chairwoman of the Joint Coastal Management Commission,a local planning body
serving Nissequogue and Head of the Harbor,wrote that the project's potential to contribute to the
Ustarvation"and"accelerated erosion"of neighboring beaches,among other reasons, made it
inconsistent with policies adopted decades ago to guide development and preservation of the
waterf ront.
Glenn Gruder,an attorney for the homeowners,has appealed to the Nissequogue Village Board to
overturn those findings as it has done in some sea wall cases in the past.The board could vote on the
appeal as early as May 15.
But permission for Trillo and Stange's walls could be complicated by the precise location proposed for
the lower tier. Because it would be below the mean high water mark,according to plans submitted to
Smithtown Town,town officials say it would fall under town jurisdiction,which extends f rom that mark
into the Long Island Sound.
Town
Sign up for the Power on Trial newsletter
Get our insider's look and analysis of the key moments in the Mangano-Venditto trial.
Email address J Sign up
By dkWng slap.up.Yau agre-a to Our V—jKZCYP ic
OL-Y.
Planner David Flynn wrote in a March letter to New York State that the project would likely be
inconsistent with a number of town policies,not least because"the public has the right,as conveyed
f rom the King of England and held in trust by the State of New York and Town of Smithtown,to access
all land between the high water mark and low water mark of the Long Island Sound"
While Gruder disputes the town's jurisdiction, Nissequogue Mayor Richard Smith said it would be
"difficult"for him to permit the walls Gruder's clients have proposed."It's a simple doctrine that the
public has a right to traverse up to the high water mark:' he said.
2 of 3 5/2/18, 12:46 PM
Debate over Nissequogue homeowners' pr(------d to build sea wall ... https://www.ne--�-,�-y.com/long-island/suffolk/nissequogue-seawall...
By Nicholas Spangler
nicholas.spangler@newsday.com V @spanglernewsday
Nicholas Spangler covers the Town of Smithtown and has worked at Newsday since 2010.
3 of 3 5/2/18,12:46 PM
Amanda & Andrew Jordan
1105 Birdseye Road
Orient, NY 11957
April 3 0, 2018
Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson LJO
Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals
54375 Main Road RECERIED
P.O. Box 1179 hIA y
Southold,NY 11971 022018
Re: 1505 Birdseye Road, LLC Application for Variances ZOIVIrVG SOARI)OF:4PPEALS
ZBA File No. 7140
Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-17-1-4
Dear Chairperson Weisman and Board Members:
Our home is located at 1105 Birdseye Road, Orient,NY, which abuts the Applicant's
property to the south. We also own the 50 foot right of way along the easterly part of our
property which connects to Birdseye Road and serves as the access to the Applicant's property.
We are submitting this letter as a follow up to our letter dated February 16, 2018, and to continue
to voice our strenuous opposition to the multiple variances requested by the Applicant.
Since we submitted our letter dated February 16, 2018, we understand that the Southold
Town Trustees flagged the top of the bluff located on the Applicant's property, and they have
confirmed the finding of Robert Grover of GPI that the proposed location of the Applicant's
house is actually 36.7 feet from the top of the bluff, and not 50 feet as indicated in the
Applicant's application. As such, the Applicant is seeking a variance of 63.3 feet from the
Town Code's 100 foot setback requirements.
Since the Applicant can locate a sizable house, a pool, and pool deck 100 feet setback
from the top of the bluff, as demonstrated by Robert Grover (an environmental scientist) and
Mark Matthews (an architect), there is no reason for the Applicant to be requesting such a 63.3%
deviation from the Code. Likewise,there is no basis to allow the Applicant to erect an 8-foot
deer fence in its front yard, which, to our knowledge no neighbors maintain; nor is there any
valid reason why the Applicant requires a front yard setback variance.
Without question,the granting of such a substantial variance will produce an undesirable
change in the character of our neighborhood and will be a detriment to nearby properties,
including ours. This very dangerous precedent would encourage others seeking a better view of
the Sound to apply for similar variances in the future, including the vacant parcel immediately
adjacent to the east(SCTM 1000-17-2-11), and the vacant parcel two lots to the east (SCTM
1000-17-2-1.4). Such development very near the bluff will no doubt result in changes in
vegetation and soil structure and likely accelerate bluff recession.
Moreover, as an architect, the Applicant should understand and be bound by the Town
Code, and yet he chose to design a house merely 36.7 feet from the top of the bluff, despite his
ability to locate the house further south in a conforming location.
Therefore, we request that you deny the requested variances. We would appreciate your
including this letter of opposition in the record of this matter.
Ver
y truly yours,
Andrew Jorr Amanda Jordan
Twomey, Latharr,,- Ce(ebrating Our45th)lea r
MAILING ADDRESS,
Shea, Kelley, Dubin & Quartararo LLP Post Office Box 9398
Riverhead,New York 11901-9398
Attomeys at Law MAIN OFFICE-
Thomas A Twomey,Jr 33 West Second Street
(1945-2014) Riverhead,New York 11901-9398
Stephen B Latham
John F Shea,III Telephone:631.727.2180
Christopher D Kelley Facsimile:631.727.1767
David M.Dubin o www.suffolklaw.com
Jay P.Quartararo t
Peter M Mott mfinnegan@suffolklaw.com
Janice L Snead May 2, 2018
Anne Marie Ooodale Extension 265
Bryan C Van Cott- Direct Fax:63 1.727.1767
Kathryn Dallt VIA HAND DELWERY
Laura I.Dunathan
Lisa Clare Kombrink
Patrick B.Fife Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals
Martin D Finnegan.
Reza Ebrahimi Attention: Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson
Jeffrey W.Pagano
54375 Main Road 414?
Bryan J Drago P.O. Box 1179 -8
Bernadette E Tuthill
Craig H.Handler Southold,NY 11971
Alexandra Halsey-Storch
Melissa S Doris
Katerina Orinko Re: Application of for Variances
Lorraine Paceleo
Jessica M Klersy 1505 Birdseye Road,LLC
Terrence Russell ZBA File No. 7140
OF COUNSEL Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-17-1-4
Kevin M.Fox
Kelly E Kinirons
Karen A.Hoeg
PatriciaJ Russell Dear Chairperson Weisman and Board Members:
Jennifer P Nigro-
0 NY&LAIKARS This office represents John Josephson and Carolina Zapf, owners of the home
t LLM IN TAXAM N
NY&NJBAM
NY.NJ&PA BARS and properties located at 1515 Birdseye Road, 900 Birdseye Road and 700 Birdseye
Road, and identified on the Suffolk County Tax Map as 1000-17-2-1.11, 6.5 and 1.14,
respectively, which three properties are immediately adjacent to and directly south of
the property owned by 1505 Birdseye Road, LLC (the"Applicant") located at 1505
Birdseye Road (SCTM 1000-17-1-4) (the "Subject Parcel"). We submit this letter in
further opposition to the Applicant's request for increasingly substantial area variance
relief, and to address documents and comments submitted since the last public hearing
on March 1, 2018, which was adjourned after questions were raised regarding the
actual location of the top of bluff on the Subject Parcel.
It is apparent from the record that this Board requested comment from the
Board of Trustees and the Town Engineer's office regarding the location of the top of
the bluff on the Subject Premises. Trustee Jay Bredemeyer apparently flagged the top
of bluff at a location that is less than 37 feet from the proposed construction. His
OTHER OFFICE LOCATIONS markings were memorialized on a recently submitted survey and corroborated by the
20 Main Street Town Engineer's analysis of County LIDAR data. Although the Applicant has already
East Hampton,NY 11937
6313241200 conceded that his initial request for a 50 foot variance was substantial, it is clear that
51 Hill Street he now needs a variance of more than 63 feet from the required 100 foot setback to
Southampton,NY 11968 proceed with his proposed construction and the proposed location for the 6,028 square
631287.0090
490 Wheeler Road foot dwelling. As explained in more detail in our prior submission, including our
Suite 150
Hauppauge,NY 11788
631265 1414
56340 Main Road
P.O.Box 325
Southold,NY 11971
631.765 2300
Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson
May 2, 2018
Page 2
letter dated February 28, 2018 and its enclosures, relief of this magnitude is entirely contrary to
the precedent set by this Board in the Matter of Aliano v. Oliva case, a decision by this Board to
deny a 50-foot variance for a proposed 1,600 square foot house from the top of the bluff, that
was upheld by the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, and affirmed on appeal by the Appellate
Division, Second Department. For the reasons stated in those decisions, and those set forth
below, we once again submit that the Applicant's request for variances should be denied.
It is respectfully submitted that the comments offered by the Board of Trustees in their
April 13, 2018 memorandum to this Board do not come close to compelling the granting of the
very substantial variance relief requested by the Applicant. In that memorandum,Mike Domino
references a field inspection of the Subject Premises that occurred on April 11, 2018, an off the
record discussion that took place there between unidentified persons, and then reaches the
astonishing conclusion that the Trustees are satisfied that the proposed construction merely 36.7
feet from the top of bluff achieves their stated goals, which include "the need to preserve the
vegetation that stabilizes the bluff', and the"need to preserve the low lying area in the southeast
comer of the property".
It is inconceivable that the construction of a 6,028 square foot dwelling, surrounded by a
terrace,pool and pool deck almost entirely within the setback area protected by Section 280-116
of the Town Code, achieves the goal of preserving vegetation that stabilizes the bluff. To the
contrary,the clearing required to complete this massive construction project will decimate the
surrounding vegetation and undoubtedly enhance bluff erosion. (See ZBA's fitidings in Matter
of Aliano, which included that the proposed 1,600 square foot house 50 feet from the top of the
bluff would introduce impermeable surfaces and alter the soil structure causing "accelerated
recession"which could result in damages to the neighboring properties and to the proposed
dwelling.) Noticeably absent from the memorandum and the record is any explanation of how
this proposed construction will serve to achieve that goal. There is,however, ample evidence in
the record,proffered by Robert Grover, an environmental scientist, and Architect Mark
Matthews, that demonstrates that the Applicant can locate the house in a conforming location on
the property,without the need for any setback relief from this Board. Of course,by doing so
would indisputably preserve the vegetation that stabilizes the bluff.
The Trustees' memorandum also offers no explanation or substantiation for the alleged
need to preserve low lying area in the southeast comer of the property. That area is clearly
outside of the Trustees'jurisdiction(see, Town Code Section 275-3(C)), and, unlike bluffs, low
lying areas are not protected by express provisions of the Town's Wetland and Zoning Codes.
No explanation is given as to exactly why that area should be preserved. Surely,the vegetation
that lies seaward of that area is far more deserving of protection. The fact that construction in a
lower lying area may be inconvenient,more costly, or result in a less desirable view of the Long
Island Sound is certainly not ajustification to abandon the established setbacks in the Town
Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson
May 2, 2018
Page 3
Code. While the topography of the site may be constraining, those constraints existed when the
Applicant purchased the property. He was well aware of the physical characteristics of the
property when he purchased, and as such, any perceived hardship with landward construction is
entirely self-created. It certainly does not justify relief from the Town Code's required setbacks.
Mr. Josephson and Ms. Zapf also question the Trustees' unfounded conclusion in its
memorandum that the proposed structures "supports the intent [of] the Town Code". If they are
referring to Section 280-116 of the Town Zoning Code,the proposed construction adjacent to the
bluff is clearly contrary to the mandate that buildings and structures "shall be set back not fewer
than one hundred (100) feet from the top of such bluff'. Perhaps the Trustees are referring to the
Wetlands Code, the intent of which is stated in Section 275-3, and includes "the protection,
preservation,proper maintenance and use of its wetlands," and"prevention of damage to
structures and natural resources as a result of erosion; ... and the minimization of the impact of
new development,restoration and/or expansion on the resource area values listed above."
According to the record of this matter, there are no wetlands on or adjacent to the Subject
Premises, and it is patently clear that the construction proposed by the Applicant does not in any
way support the Town Board's legislative intent to protect against erosion and to minimize the
impact of new development when they adopted the Wetlands Code.
With respect to the letter from Kathleen Fallon to Michael Kimack, dated April 2, 2018,
which states at the outset that she "neither supports nor opposes the development,"Robert
Grover,the Director of Environmental and Coastal Sciences at Greenman—Pederson, Inc.,will
address it at the upcoming hearing. Enclosed is an outline of his testimony.
Our previous submission to the Board set forth our arguments regarding the Applicant's
inability to satisfy the standards for area variance relief set forth in Town Law Section 267-b.
Those arguments are even more compelling now that the Applicant requires an incredible 63.3%
deviation from the 100 foot setback from the top of bluff. The granting of such a very
substantial variance to allow the construction of a massive house and pool that would essentially
sit on the top of the bluff, with a front walkway that unnecessarily invades the established front
yard setback, and an unsightly 8-foot deer fence around the perimeter of the subject property,
will have an immediate, undesirable and adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood,the
neighbors' properties and the environment. It would also fly in the face of this Board's
established precedents to preserve the bluff, including its decision in Matter of Aliano v. Olivia.
In light of the fact that the perceived hardship is entirely self-created and the existence of
reasonable alternative locations to build his home,the variance relief requested by the Applicant
should be denied.
Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson
May 2, 2018
Page 4
Please submit this letter in the record of this matter. Thank you.
Respectfully submitted,
Martin D. Finnegan
MDF/jr
Enc.
cc: William Duff, Esq.
Michael Kimack, Esq.
Outline of Robert Grover
• Kathleen Fallon claims that the narrowness of the Long Island Sound limits wave energy
incident on the subject bluff.
• Fetch is 20 miles to the northwest. That is the main wind energy vector. That is plenty
of fetch to generate serious shoreline damaging waves.
• Most of the bluffs on the north shore are experiencing serious erosion.
• The beach is stable because the eroding bluff supplies sediment.
• It cannot be assumed that future erosion rates will be similar to recent rates. In fact, the
opposite is true.
• The large boulders on the beach are evidence of an eroding bluff.
• Kathleen Fallon misstated the annual rate of SLR by 20%based on USGS estimates.
• My top of bluff determination has been verified by the Town.
• A setback of only 37 feet from the bluff for new construction is highly inappropriate.
• Recent examples of bluff erosion on Long Island: Montauk this year, 15 feet in one
storm; Shelter Island (heavily vegetated and stable for 50+ years, also facing north with
much shorter fetch), 25 feet in one day during Sandy.
• Bluff erosion is catastrophic and non-recoverable.
• The inevitable bluff erosion will result in pressure to approve shoreline hardening if the
project is approved. Contrast Montauk and Shelter Island.
• Liquefaction danger not addressed.
• The low area of the property has no special environmental values, but the bluff certainly
does.
• Any concerns over moving closer to the low area can easily be addressed with
appropriate engineering best practices.
• Kathleen Fallon did not address appropriate setbacks for this large-scale project, and
there is no indication that she even reviewed the site plan.
• The introduction of impermeable surfaces within 37' of the bluff will change soil
structure and vegetation, and likely lead to damage to the bluff. Again, not addressed by
Ms. Fallon.
APPLICANT'S AND NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES
BIRDS EYE ROAD, ORIENT, NEW YORK
(2016 aerial)
Owner:VALENTINE & MATASSONI �Owner:VALENTINE
SCTM#: 1000-17-2-1.2 SCTM#: 1000-17-2-1.4
Address: 1525 Birds Eye Rd., Orient
Address: 1675 Birds Eye Rd., Orient
(IMPROVED)
(VACANT)
Owner: JOSEPHSON Owner: LAVECCHIA
-17-2-1.5
SCTM#: 1000-17-2-1.11 TM#: 1000
Address: 1515 Birds Eye Rd., Orient dress:908 Birds Eye Rd., Orient
(VACANT) PROVED)
Owner: JOSEPHSON &ZAPF
SCTM#: 1000-17-2-6.5
Owner: 1505 BIRDS EYE RD., LLC Address:900 Birds Eye Rd., Orient
(CARLOS ZAPATA) 4
SCTM#: 1000-17-1-4
Address: 1505 Birds Eye Rd., Orient
(VACANT)
r: INTERWELLEN PROPERTY
PARTNE S, LLC (JOSEPHSON)
SCTM#: 1000-17-2-1.14
Owner:DILORENZO Address: 700 Birds Eye Rd., Orient
SCTM#: 1000-17-1-3 (IMPROVED)
Address: 1207 Birds Eye Rd., Orient
(IMPROVED)
Owner:JORDAN
SCTM#: 1000-17-1-5
Address: 1105 Birds Eye Rd., Orient
-j!
(IMPROVED)
February 21, 2018 1:2,000
0 0.015 003 0 06 mi
Parcel Data
0 0.0175 0035 0 07 km
WebAppBuflder for ArcGIS
d)
0
(:,EHL
TOP OF
BLUFF
.16
TOTAL AREA: 1.556 ACRES TO THE TIE LINE
(ACCORDIN&TO THE SURVEY 5UBMITTEP BY
FECONIC SURVEYORS,F.C.MOST REENTLY
REVISED ON JANUARY 24,2015)
It
0
y
\j
1505 BIRP5EYE ROAP, ORIENT
Cefebrating Our45thYear
Twomey, Lathan,
MAILING ADDRESS:
Shea, Kelley, Dubin & Quartararo LLP Post Office Box 9398
Riverhead,New York 11901-9398
Attomeys at Law MAIN OFFICE
Thomas A Twomey,Jr 33 West Second Street
(1945-2014) Riverhead,New York 11901-9398
Stephen B Latham
John E Shea,III Telephone:631.727.2180
Christopher D Kelley Facsimile:631.727.067
David M Dubin o Februaxy 28, 2018 www.suffolklaw.com
JayP Quartararo t
Peter M Mott mfinnegan@suffolklaw.com
Janice L Snead VIA HAND DELIVERY
Anne Marie Goodale Extension 265
Bryan C Van Cott- Direct Fax:631.727.1767
Kathryn Dalli Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals
Laura 1.Dunathan
Lisa Clare Kombrink Attention: Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson
Patrick B Fife 54375 Main Road 0
Martin D Finnegan.
Reza Ebrahirm P.O. Box 1179 9
Jeffrey W.Pagano Southold,NY 11971
Bryan J.Drago
Bernadette E.Tuthill
Craig H Handier Re: Application of for Variances gqPEALS
Alexandra Halsey,Storch OA?,1D Of
Melissa S Doris 1505 Birdseye Road, LLC -10%1%G 13
Katermat Grinko ZBA File No. 7140
Lorraine Pacelco
Jessica M Klersy Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-17-1-4
Terrence Russell
OF C004SEL Dear Chairperson Weisman and Board Members:
Kevin M.Fox
Kelly E Kinirons
Karen A Hoeg This office represents John Josephson and Carolina Zapf, owners of the home
Patricia J.Russell
Jennifer P Nigro and properties located at 1515 Birdseye Road, 900 Birdseye Road and 700 Birdseye
I Ily"LA BAM Road, and identified on the Suffolk County Tax Map as 1000-17-2-1.11, 6.5 and 1.14,
t LLM IN TAXATI N
NY 6,NJ BAM
NY.NJ&PA BARS respectively, which three properties are immediately adjacent to and directly south of
the property owned by 1505 Birdseye Road, LLC (the"Applicant") located at 1505
Birdseye Road(SCTM 1000-17-1-4) (the "Subject Parcel"). Copies of the relevant
section of the tax map and an aerial photograph showing the Applicant's and
neighbors' properties are enclosed. We submit this letter in response and opposition
to the Applicant's request for multiple area variances, including a variance of fifty
(50) feet from the top of the bluff, a front yard setback variance to 41.7 feet, and a deer
fence located in the front yard.
BACKGROUNDFACTS
The application of the Applicant proposes to construct, among other things, a
6,028 square foot dwelling with a terrace, pool and pool deck within fifty (50) feet of
the top of the bluff, when Article XXII, Section 280-116 of the Southold Town Code
OTHER OMCE LOCATIONS requires a setback of"not fewer than one hundred (100) feet from the top of such
20 Main Street bluff'; a 796 square foot pedestrian entry bridge that is 41.7 feet from the front yard
East Hampton,NY 11937
6313241200 setback, when Southold Town Code Article IV, Section 280-18, Bulk Schedule
51 Hill Street requires a minimum front yard setback in this R-40 District of fifty (50) feet; and an 8-
Southampton,NY 11968 foot deer fence around the perimeter of the property, which is partially located in the
631.287 0090
490 Wheeler Road front yard, in violation of Article XXII, Section 280-105(C)(1). The application also
Suite 150 proposes to maximize allowable lot coverage with the proposed development.
Hauppauge,NY 11788
631.265 1414
56340 Main Road
P.O.Box 3 25
Southold,NY 11971
6317652300
Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson */10
February 27, 2018
Page 2
The Applicant's application acknowledges (i)that the fifty (50) percent deviation from
the Southold Town Code's bluff setback requirement"can be considered substantial"; (ii)that
the proposed dwelling "will be visible from the adjoining dwellings"; and (iii)that the alleged
difficulty was "self-created". The sole justification advanced by the Applicant for the fifty
percent deviation from the Code is that the Subject Parcel has a"low drainage basin on its
southern side". No justification is given for the Applicant's need for a 796 square foot bridge
within the front yard setback. The basis for the request for a front-yard deer fence and a deer
fence surrounding the perimeter of the property is that the Subject Parcel is a"deer haven".
The Applicant's lot size is 1.36 acres in an R-40 zone. It is submitted that there is a very
sizable building envelope with a footprint of 12,954 square feet that allows for a sizable house
and other improvements that would confonn in all respects to the Southold Town Code, and
therefore, the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood by granting the
requested variances clearly outweighs any benefit to the Applicant if these variances are granted.
See letter from Mark Matthews, AIA, and accompanying'exhibit. For the reasons and those set
forth below, it is respectfully submitted that the Applicant's request for variances should be
denied.
ARGUMENT
1. THE APPLICANT DOES NOT SATISFY THE STANDARD FOR AREA
VARIANCES.
It is unequivocal that the Applicant does not satisfy the standards for the relief requested.
New York State Town Law §267-b, in pertinent part,provides that the following five (5)
factors must be considered by a zoning board of appeals in its determination of whether to grant
an area variance:
(a) In making its determination, the zoning board of appeals shall take into consideration
the benefit to the applicant if the variance is granted, as weighed against the detriment to the
health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community by such grant. In making such
determination the board shall also consider:
(1) whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the
neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the
granting of the area variance;
(2) whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some
method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance;
Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson
February 27, 2018
Page 3
(3) whether the requested area variance is substantial;
(4) whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on
the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district;
and
(5) whether the alleged difficulty was self-created; which consideration
shall be relevant to the decision of the board of appeals, but shall not
necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance.
The Court of Appeals of the State of New York has confirmed that in determining an
application for an area variance, a zoning board must 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 area variance is granted. Sasso v. Osgood, 86 N.Y.2d 374
(1995). See also, Eccles v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Village of Irvington, 224 A.D.2d 525 (2d
Dep't 1996).
We submit that the Matter of Nicholas Aliano, which was determined by the Southold
Town Zoning Board of Appeals in a decision dated September 1, 2006 (Zoning Board File No.
5846), after which Mr. Aliano commenced an Article 78 proceeding brought in New York
Supreme Court, Suffolk County, and then filed an appeal in the Appellate Division, Second
Department, is dispositive of the Applicant's application presently before the Board. In Matter
of Aliano, Mr. Aliano applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold ("ZBA")
for an area variance permitting him to resume construction of a dwelling 50 feet from the edge of
the bluff, after the Town's Director of Code Enforcement issued a stop work order based on a
building permit that was mistakenly issued. The size of the proposed dwelling was
approximately 1,600 square feet, which, of course, is substantially smaller than the proposed
6,028 square foot dwelling in the present application. Among other things,the ZBA found that
the presence of new impermeable surfaces and the alteration of drainage and soil structure have
been responsible for"accelerated bluff recession" which could result in damage to the proposed
dwelling as well as to neighboring properties. In applying the balancing test under New York
Town Law §267-b, the ZBA concluded that the grant of the proposed variance would produce an
undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties; that
the variance requested was "too severe,"; that the proposed area variance to permit construction
within 50 feet of the top of the bluff(as in the present application) was "substantial"; and that the
difficulty was "self-created"because the design of the proposed plan was not in conformity with
the setback restrictions in the Code. Therefore, the ZBA denied the variance.
Mr. Aliano commenced an Article 78 petition in Supreme Court, Suffolk County,
alleging, among other things,that the ZBA's determination denying the area variance was
arbitrary and capricious. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the ZBA, and dismissed Mr.
Aliano's petition.
Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson
February 27, 2018
Page 4
Mr. Aliano next appealed to the Appellate Division, Second Department. In a decision
dated April 20, 2010,the Second Department held in favor of the ZBA after finding that there
was a rational basis for the ZBA's denial of Mr. Aliano's application for an area variance:
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 (citation omitted). Accordingly, the
Supreme Court properly, in effect, denied that branch of the
amended petition which was to annul the ZBA's
determination on the ground that it was arbitrary and
capricious (citation omitted).
Matter of Aliano v. Oliva, 72 A.D. 3d 944, 899 N.Y.S 2d. 330 (2d Dep't 2010). Copies of the
Second Department and Supreme Court decisions are enclosed.
The reasoning applied by the ZBA in the Matter of Aliano in denying the 50 foot setback
variance from the top of the bluff, along with the decisions by the Supreme Court and Second
Department upholding the ZBA's reasoning, should be applied to the present application in
denying the requested area variances.
The following is an analysis of the statutory factors as they apply to the subject
application.
A. The Variances Will Produce an Undesirable Change in the Character of the
Neighborhood and a Detriment to Nearby Properties.
A 50-foot deviation from the Code's 1 00-foot setback from the top of the bluff mandate
will create an undesirable change in thecharacter of the neighborhood and a detriment to nearby
properties. Notably, our research of the records in this neighborhood has not revealed any area
variance granted by the ZBA to build or renovate a home merely 50 feet setback from the top of
the bluff. Moreover, a variance of this magnitude will lead to erosion and the instability of the
bluff, accelerate bluff recession, inhibit the surrounding neighbors' views of Long Island Sound,
and will set a dangerous precedent for others who may seek similar variances in the future.
Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson
February 27, 2018
Page 5
Nataro v. DeChance' 149 A.D.3d 1081, 53 N.Y.S.3d 157, 2017 (2d Dep't 2017); Kearney v.
Village o Cold Spring Harbor Zoning Board of Appeals, 83 A.D.3d 711, 920 N.Y.S.2d 379 (2d
Dep't 2011).
Likewise, an area variance for a deer exclusion fence running along the width of the
Applicant's front yard will also create an undesirable change in the character of the
neighborhood. Currently, no other homes in the neighborhood have a deer exclusion fence in
their front yards. In fact, the neighborhood is entirely devoid of deer exclusion fencing. Such a
fence installed in the Applicant's front yard will create unsightly views and will degrade the
quaint and quintessential character of this beach community. Furthermore, granting this variance
would set a dangerous precedent for others to install deer exclusion fencing in their front yards.
Therefore, granting the requested variances will result in an undesirable change in the
character of the neighborhood and a detriment to the nearby properties.
B. The Applicant has Feasible Alternatives, Other Than the Requested Variances.
The benefits sought by the applicant can be achieved by another, feasible method, other
than the requested area variances. The subject parcel is 1.365 acres, or 59,067 square feet. The
proposed house and pedestrian entry bridge is a combined 6,824 square feet, or 19.12% of the
permitted lot coverage. As such,the Applicant has "feasible alternatives" in that there is ample
space to relocate the proposed house an additional 50 feet to the south. This would bring the
proposed house 100 feet from the top of the bluff and thereby in full compliance with the Code's
setback requirement.Nataro v. DeChance, 149 A.D.3d 1081, 53 N.Y.S.3d 157, 2017 (2d Dep't
2017). While the Applicant may be required to reduce the length of the proposed pool or terrace
if he designed a house in a conforming location, the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of
the community significantly outweighs any benefit sought by the Applicant.
Similarly,the Applicant's request for a front yard area variance can be obviated by
simply shortening the pedestrian entry bridge by 8.3 feet. The Applicant has provided no reason
why the current proposed length is necessary.
Simply put, the benefits sought by the Applicant can be achieved by other feasible
methods, other than the requested area variances.
C. The Area Variances Requested Are Substantial.
The Applicant seeks a 50% deviation from the Town Code's 1 00-foot bluff setback
requirement. By his own admission, the Applicant states in its application that the relief
sought"can be considered substantial." Moreover, in the Matter of Nicholas Aliano,this
Board denied a ZBA application for a 50-foot variance from the top of the bluff and a
Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson
February 27, 2018
Page 6
variance from the minimum front yard setback. In that application,this Board went through a
lengthy fact-finding process, holding three public hearings, at which written and oral
evidence was presented, after which this Board found that the variances requested were
"substantial." The Second Department affirmed that decision and held, in relevant part,that:
The ZBA 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
environmental conditions of the relevant neighborhood and produce an
undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood.
Likewise,the 50-foot variance from the top of the bluff in this case must also be declared
"substantial" and"self-created," and should therefore be denied. Aliano v. Olivia' 72 A.D.3d
944, 899,N.Y.S.2d 330 (2d Dep't 2010). See also Pecoraro v. Board of Appeals of Town of.
Hempstead, 2 N.Y.3d 608 (2004) (holding that it was not an abuse of discretion to deny an
application for an area variance on the basis of the substantiality of the variance weighed against
granting it where the variance sought would have allowed a 33.3% deficiency in lot area and a
27.3% deficiency in frontage width).
D. The 50-foot Variance From the 100-Foot Setback Would Have an Adverse
Impact on the Physical and Environmental Conditions in the Neighborhood.
The proposed area variances will have an adverse effect and impact on the physical and
environmental conditions in the neighborhood.
A 50-foot var'iance would bring the proposed house substantially closer to.Long Island
Sound. As in the Matter of Aliano, the presence of impermeable surfaces near the bluff, changes
in vegetation and soil structure, as well as septic system placement will likely accelerate the rate
of bluff recession that will negatively impact Long Island Sound and the neighboring properties.
E. The Applicant has no Hardship and any Purported Difficulty is Self-Created.
Lastly,the Applicant's purported difficulty was entirely self-created. A"seasoned real
estate professional" can, with reasonable diligence, easily determine the zoning laws applicable
to his property. Matter of McGlasson Realty, Inc v. Town of Patterson Board of Appeals, 234
A.D.2d 462, 651 N.Y.S.2d 131 (2d Dep't 1996). Moreover, it is well established that a purchaser
of property is chargeable with knowledge of the applicable zoning laws and is bound by them
Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson VA!O
February 27, 2018
Page 7
and by the facts and circumstances which can be learned by the exercise of reasonable diligence.
Matter of McGlasson Reafty, Inc v. Town of Patterson Board of Appeals, 234 A.D.2d 462, 651
N.Y.S.2d 131 (2d Dep't 1996). See also Keamey v. Village of Cold Spring Harbor Zoning Board
of Appeals, 83 A.D.3d 711, 920 N.Y.S.2d 379 (2d Dep't 2011).
Here, the Applicant is an architect, and, according to his website, is an"award winning,
master planning design(er)". See website page enclosed. He is chargeable with the knowledge
of the Town's applicable zoning laws and is bound by them. Quite simply, he chose to design a
plan that is not in conformity with the Code. He chose to design the proposed house well within
the I 00-foot bluff setback, despite his clear ability to place the house further south, in a location
that is in full compliance with the Code's setback requirement. Braunstein v. Board of Zoning
Appeals of the Town of Copake, 100 A.D.3d 1091, 952 N.Y.S.2d 857 (3d Dep't 2012). See
letter of Robert Grover. Likewise, for no legitimate purpose, the Applicant chose to extend the
pedestrian entry bridge into the 50-foot front-yard setback. Lastly, he chose to disregard the
Code's clear mandate that deer exclusion fences are "prohibited in or along the front yard of any
property."
Therefore,the Applicant has no hardship, any purported difficulty is entirely self-created,
and this application should be denied.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the analysis required by Town Law §267-b(3)(b) dictates a
finding that the detriment caused by a grant of the Applicant's requested variances to the
environment and nearby properties far outweighs any benefit to the Applicant, especially when
considering that the Applicant has feasible alternatives.
Therefore, it is respectfully requested that items numbered 1, 2 and 3 listed in the Public
Notice for the this application be denied in their entirety.
Res submitted,
g
M D. Finnegan
MDF/jr
Eric.
cc: William Duffy, Esq., Town Attorney
Michael Kimack, Esq.
ReWeions
,12-24-97
08-03-99
04-it-00
w N 382.582
T2:6 M2.582
03-1--01
05A7-01
10-17-02
1)2-25�15
03-25-15_
02-28-17
ISLAND
501,
JOSEPHSON PROPERTIES
SCTM## 1000-17-2-6.5, 1.11 AND 1.14 40 4t
L
60
UP
8.3
3.OA
1505 BIRDS EYE ROAD, LLC V. t 19
i.9A
(ZAPATA) PROPERTY vfik 6-2 m iWc)
2,OA
SCTM# 1000-17-1-4
20
7.1 1 1 154 \1 a 2-2A
j.4A -----
J4A
m 17
1 .2
3 Is
6 j.14 21.1A
2.7A. 22
21 2,7 W)
14 2 4A(c)
121
7- wis I.IA
44 12
Akc) 2
.1 - 7
5 V
3
10 4 e to 15 zat(c)
k 4.D
'.7p, R.25
"S*3-
go. 3 4
21
,,f2
C)
pw- 3-API 4 BA-)
143
to 9.2 to'
C'
d 14- 9i It
LL:
12,
CL
0
1_1�112 :158,762
L 's -11 SECTION NO
E (21) NOTICE COUNTY OF SUFFOLK CC, K TO�OF SOUTHOLD
Real Property Tax Service Ag( 010
G �ncyl y
DISTRIE.T...OF-Y 10.11-OF T.E �LLAGE OF
E Co—ty Center Rwemea 017 017
N SUFFXK COUNT'r T�~IS—BITEO Erd,N Y 11901
I—E
0 12.1 A(d) 12 IA —'e— WTHOUT—TIEN PERMIS�M OF TIE A 0 3 DISTRICT.0 1000
A—PROPE—T-SER—E AOS1 P 025
132 PROPERTYMAP
Carlos Zapata Studio Archinect 2/21/18,5:57 PM
Archinect 0 RAYA ANI—Presenting Zukak and Mahlala yesterday at the
Firms
Editorial&News RELATED NEWS&FEATURES S h ow a I I
Employment C 4 R L 1.) S NeWs News in -==n�
�4
E
Z P A T P a. _9 r (�ays,,T T,'e n�ro"'I the
magos.c rp p,
py, U,
Community
op
People
u,,f
Firms
Blogs
Forum Carlos Zapata
Work Updates Studio SELECTED WORKS
New York
Academia
Follow 14
About
Login/Join
Profile
�7'
Projects
A �4
People Chicago Bears Stadium JW Marriott Hotel Tumberry Ocean Club
Contact
Profile Admin. Viewing 3 out of 6 projects See all
inkoff I flag
FIRM BIO CONTACT
Carlos Zapata Studio is an award winning master planning, 520 Broadway,8th floor
architectural design,interior design and furniture design firm whose United States
projects range from professional sports arenas to airport concourses New York,100 12
to commercial high rises to private homes Working on projects
around the globe,CZS specializes in finding functional solutions to 2129669292
difficult programmatic issues,while maintaining a commitment to ED mkoff@)cz-studio corn
elegance and design excellence
Recent awards include 2015 award from CTBUH for the Bitexco % www cz-studio com
Financial Tower as one of the 50 most innovative buildings in the
world,CNN/com naming BFT as one of the 50 most iconic View full Contact details
skyscrapers in the world,consecutive Best Hotel of the Year awards
from the Robb Report Vietnam for the JW Marriott Hanoi,and both the
JW Marriott and the BFT were selected for inclusion in the 2014
Venice Biennale
Our current portfolio includes residential towers in Singapore and
Miami,a two-tower mixed use complex in Angola,the interior design
of a clubhouse for the first and only private golf club in St Andrews,
and a new modern residential complex in the heart of Quito's historic
district
PEOPLE
1R=
NOW 0
M-5
https://archinect.com/firms/cover/4241 01carlos-zapata-studlo Page 1 of 2
SHORTFORMORDPR INDEX No. 06-23694
SUPREIVIE COURT- STATE OF NEW YORK
IA.S. PART 33 - SUFFOLK COUNTY
PRESENT:
Hon. -THOMAS F.WHELAN MOTION DATE 10/3/06 N001)
Justice of the Supreme Cowl MOTION DATE 12/20/06 L#002)
ADJ.DATES ZL2�/07
Mot.Seq.#001 -Mot D
Mot Seq.W 002-Mot D
__x
In the i7an—er—of-t-h-e-A--p p^-l-i—ca—tio—a—of NICHOLAS SCHEYER&JELLENRC,ESQS.
ALIANo, Attys.For Petitioner
110 Lake Ave.So.
Petitioner, Nesconset,NY 11767
FoT an Order pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil SMITH,FINKELSTEIN,LUNDBERG
Practice law and Rules Attys.For Respondents
456 Griffing Ave.
-against- Riverhead,NY 11901
RUM D.OLIVA,Chairwoman,GERALD P.
GOEHRINGER,JAMES DINIZIO,JR.,
MICHAEL A.SIMON and LESLIE KANES
WEISMAN,constituting the ZONING BOAAD
OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
and the TOWN OF SOUTHOLD,
Respondents.
__x
Upon the following papers numbered Ito 23 readonthis amended Arilcle2II)e0tion and motion to dismiss
.Amended Petition and supporting papers 1-6 _L Notice of Motion/Order to Show
Cause and supporting papers --7!!10 ;Nodce of Cross Motion and supporting papers -Answering
Affldavits and supporting papers ,Replying Affidavits and supporting papers 17-18: 19-21
Other- Notice of Petition I i_i6: ExhIbjts22_23 arid afto 1wating cottm!in stippoet mid append to 1
nlokio, it Is,
ORDERED that this amended petition(#001)for ajudgment pursuant to CPLRArticle 78 seeking,
among other things, an Order directing: (1)that petitioner is entitled to the reinstatement of a building
rza3i(having established a vested light in the construction of asin&le familydwelling;(2)thattheBuilding
rLment of the Town of Southold and the Town of Southold violated petitioner's civil rights pursuant
1983 of the USCA by issuing a stop work order;(3).1hat the actions of the Building Department of the
Town of S6uthold and the Town of Southold were arbitrary and capricious;(4)that this matter is ripe for
review;(5)that the Town of Southold be prevented from stoninggetitioner's continued construction under
the filed building plans;(6)that the actions of the Town o out old violated petitioner's procedural due
prooms underthe Fourteenth Amendment ofthe Constitution ofthe United States;(7)that the ZoningBoard
Aliano,v Town of Southold
Index No.06-23694
Page 2
of Appeals of the Town of Southold violated the Open Meetings Law of the State ofNew York-,(8)that the
deprivation of petitionees constitutionally protected rights was offloWly adopted and promulgated by
mimicipal officers;and(9)that the Town of Southold's actions were arbitrary,irrational and destructive of
petitioner's cognizableproperty interests,is granted only to the extent pending adetermination bythe Court
r �arding that branch of the petition that the Zoning Board of the Town of Southold violated the Open
egarl
Meetings Law ofthe State ofNew York,that giedeprivation ofpotidonees constitutionallyprotected rights
were officially adopted and promulgated by municipal officers shall be bold in abeyance pending the
submission ofthe respondents verified answer and return and in all other respects,is denied;and it is fbither
ORDERED that this motion(#002)by respondents seeking an Order pursuant to CPLR 7804(f)
dismissing the petition as same is barred by the statute of limitations and fails to state a cause of action,is
granted to the extent that the portions of the.p�fltion seeking an Order that petitioner is ontifled to the
reinstatement of abuilding perffiit;that the Building Department of the Town of Southold and the Town of
Southold violated petitioneris civil rights pursuant§1983 of the USCA by issuing a stop work ordF,that
the actions of the Building Department of the Town of Southold and the Town of Southold were arbitrary
and capricious;that this matter is ripe fbr review;that the Town of Southold be prevented from stoppig
pet'
ar'i
of S
Con
ORDERED that the respondents shall submit a verified answer and return within thirty(30)days
of the date herein;and it is further
ORDERED that the counsel for the petitioner and respondent shall each serve a copy of this Order
with Notice of Entry upon respective counsel within twenty-five(25)days of the date herein pursuant to
CPLR 2130(b)(1),(2)or(3)and thereafter file the affidavit of service with the Clerk of the Court.
-)This Article 78 petition was brought by thepotitioner upon the denial by the Southold Zoning Board
of?kppeals(hereinafter"Board")ofhis application for an area variance to construct a one familyhouse with
a full basement on a bluff overlookin*-the Long Wand Sound. The building permit was issued by the
Southold Town Board ofTrustees(hacinafter"frustees')on April 20,2005.ByJanuary5,2006,petitioner
had excavated the area and concrete footings and partial foundation walls were poured.
In his affidavit in support of the Article 78 petition,petitioner states that on the afternoon oflanuary
5,2006,the Town of Southold's Director of Code Enfbrcoznent�Edward Forester(hereinafter"Forostee)
appeared at the job site and conversed with his builder, John Dalton (hereinafter'Valton'). Forester
informed the builder that the Town of Southold(hereinafter 17own")issued the building permit by mistake;
that the building being constructed was not set back far enough for the bluff,that the issuance ofthe peTmit
�y the Town had been a ministerial error, that he was going to issue an ora] stop work order; that this
issuance of the oralstop work orderwas contested byhis agentat tbejob sitewho indicatedthat an oral stop
work order was ineffective to stop work;and that a Building DepartrnpV�employee called his agent at the
job site and informed him that because the Town made a mistake in issuing the pet7ni4 a stop work order
was being issued as Forester had stated.
Petitioner Ruther states that at the time�the building construction was appTved by the Department
of Environmental Conservation;that he had permits from the Coastal Erosion managemon�the Town's
Waste Water Disposal and the Suffolk CountyDepartment ofHealth;that he acquired vestedrights because
pnstiuction had already begun and that he had valid permits;that in an attempt to cooperate with the Town
in order to obtain the necessar-y variances,he was told that the Town would walk him through the variance
application process;and that in that regard,he hired an attorney to apply for a variance for a relaxation of
the set back requirement for the house from the bluff-,that during this time period before the first meeting
of the Board to hear his application,the chairperson of the Board came to the job site on an almost daily
basis to state to Dalton that she was not going to allow anything to be built on the site and ifit was,itwould
Aliano v Town of Southold
Index No.06-23694
Page 3
be over her dead body. The petition is gposed by respondents who move pursuant to CPI.R 7804(o for an
Order to dismiss the petition upon the o Jections;in point of]aNv that the petition is barred by the statute of
limitations and fails to state a cause of action.
The first hearing before the Board was on March 30,2006,then adjourned to April 27,2006,May
25,,2006 and again to June 7,2006. The parties stipulated that the Board would be granted additional time
past the statutorily required date under Town IAw § 267(a) to issue a decision regarding the variance
application by petitioner.
The Appellate Division,Second Department has restated the rules governing a motion to dismiss in
State ofNew York Y Grecco,21 AD3d 470, 800 NYS2d 214 f2d Dept 2005]). The Court's inquiry is
limited to determining whether,taking the allegations of the complaint as true and affording plaintiff the
benefit of every reasonable inference,plaintiff has stated a cause of action almnst one or more defendants
(seeParsi any Constr.Co.Inc.YClarkPattersonAssoa,P.C, AD3 NYS2d [2d
De t 200T Sirlin v Town of New Coale,35 AD3d 713,826 Nmd 676 D-d-6e-p—t M06];DuMea-y�v
ton HaIlApts.Co.,LLC, 14 AD3d 479,789 NYS2d 164[2d Dept 2005]). In applying the standard,the
Court expresses no opinion as to the truth or falsity of the allegations of the complaint or,consequently,as
to the conclusions plaintiffargues should bedrawn therefrom. On thoproceduralpostum,ofthe action,these
issues are not properly before the Court. On such a motion,the Cow's sole hiqairy is whether the facts
alleged in the complaint fit within any cognizable legal theory,not whether there is evidentiar or
ysupport f
the complaint(see Past Track Funding Corp.v Perrone, 19 AD3d 362,796 NYS2d 164[2d Dept 2005];
Paterno V CYC,LLC, 8 AD3d 544,778 NYS2d 700(2d Dept 2004];McGee v City ofRensselaer, 174
Misc2d 491, 663 NYS2d 949 [Sup Ct,Rensselaer County f9971;Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83,614
NYS2d 972[1994];Marone v M6rone,50 NY2d 481,429 NYS2d 592[1980 ;see also 511 West b2"d
Owners Corp.v JewuyerRealty Co.,98 NY2d 144,746 NYS2d 131[2002];Solvloffv Harriman Estates
Dev. Corp.,96 NY2d 409,729 NYS2d 425[2000]).
Thus,a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim maybe granted only if it appears certain that
under no possible circumstances would theslaintiff be entitled to relief(see LipsAy v Commonwealth
United Cor
,p.,55lF.2d887[2dCirl976]). ven if it�ppcars on the face of the plead�ngs that recovery is
very remote,the petition wiltwithstand the motion to dismiss as long the petitioner retains a possibility of
success(see Scheuer Y Rhodes,416 U.S 232,94 S.Ct. 1683,40 L.Ed 90[1974]),
On January 5,2006,through his emrloyces on thejob site,petitioner was verbally informed that the
Town was issuing a stop work order basec upon a building permit erroneously issued for thojob site. A
cop�of the stop work order was also nailed to a tree on the roperty(see affid Thomas W.Cramer Jan
22, 007)and mailed on January 5,2007 to the address listWon the tax bills for the subject property,wuhWIN
tax bills was subsequently questioned by Aliano. Therofte,petitioner had notice of the stop work order.
A challenge to�public official's act is governed bya four-mouth statute of limitations(CPRL217),
Which in this case,was that an appeal had to betaken on or before May 6,2007, Petitionees various claims
r1rinative relief based Upon his allegation that he had a vested right is without merit because of his
for a
failure,as an aggrieved party,to timely assert a claim in order to preserve that claim forjudicial review.
Statutes offfinitation are not to be disregarded by courts out ofa vague spripathy forpartieWar litigants(see
Carey v 14ternationalBbd of.Elee.Workers LocalPension Plan,201 .3d 44 f2d Cir 1999]);norare they
open to discretionary changes (see Arnold v Ma
yal Realty Co., 299 NY 57 1949]). The statute of
limitations generally begins to run at the time die cause of action accrues ans generally runs without
interruption, notwithstanding any present or subsequent disadvantage which aparty is laboring in the
prRsecution ofthe action(see 2B CarmodyWait 2dl§ 13:210, 13:332). Otherwise,the claim is deemed
waived and the courts will be precluded fforn consi ering the claim in an Article 78 proceeding under the
doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies,which,in the zoning context,requires a party to take an
appeal from an adverse zoning decision or interpretation to the zoning board of appeals(see CPLR 7803;
Aliano v Town of Southold
Index No.06-23694
Page 4
Town Law§267-a(4 N;Hays v Walrath,271 AD2d 744,705 NYS2d 441 [3d Dept 2000];Millar v Price,
267 AD2d 363,700 S2d 209 [2d De
%t 1999];Nautilus Landowners Corp. v Harbor Cammn.,232
AD2d 418,648 NYS2d 627[2d Dept 19 (];see e.g.Bu� olino P Board ofZoning A Appeals oflnc. Vil,
of Wes-ibury,230 AD2d 794,646 NYS2d 179 1 96);see also e.g.Trident Realty L.P.vPlanning
Bd.of Inc. Va of Eas
.�Hampton,248 AD2d 545,669 NYS2d 873 12dDept 1998];tv app dot 92 NY2d
8 12,680 NYS2d 905[1998]).
Petitioner never exhausted his administrative remedies by taking a timely administrative appeal to
the Board from the Town's issuance of a stop work order as required in order to bring an action under
Article 78(see Young Men's Christian Assn.v Rochever.Pure Waters Dist.,37 NY2d 371,372 NYS2d
633 [1975]; 12A Cannody-Wait 2d§78:54;2 NY-Zoning Law&Prac.§28:00. Under New York law
"one who objects to the act of an administrative ageneymust exhaust administrative remedies before being
permitted to litigate in a court of law"(WatergatellApa vBqffalo SewerAuth 46NY2d52,574NYS2d
82 1 r 19781 citation omitted-,Matter ofJordan's Partners v Goehrin er,204 Z2d 453,611 NYS2d 626
P2d Dept 1994 ;MaYter ofPadar Reahy Co.v Kkin,60 AD2d 533,4910 NYS2d 46 C V Dogt 197,1,accord
,dch v New�Ilbrk State Div.ofHous.&Comm unhy Renewal,287 AD2d 725,732 1 3 2d Dept
20011). 'The doctrine Airthers the statutory goal of relieving the courts of the burden ofdociding questions
entrusted to an agency,preventing prematurejudicial interference with the administrators efforts to develop
a co-ordinated,consistent and legally enforceable scheme of regulation"(Watergate H Apts.v Buffato
Sewer Auth., 46 NY2d 52,supra at 57)and the courts have manifested their unwillingness to become
zoning boards of appeal(see Board of Managers v Village of Westhampton Bch.,2000 WL 33911223
(EDNY 20001,judgement affd. 10 Fed Appx.28[2d Cir.N.Y.2001)). 1
The Board is vested with the authority to review the decisions of the building inspector(see Town
Law§267 a[5]). Petitioner did not appeal the determination ofthe building department. Petitioner having
failed to exhaust his administrative remedies,the issue ofvested rights cannot be reviewed bythis Court(see
Engert Y Phillips, 150 AD2d 752, 542 NYS2d 202 [2d Dept 1989]). Nor is thedoctrine of e4juitable
estoppel available to petitioner as a defense as petitioner was aware of the stop work order which was
sufficient to place hiih under a duty to make an inquiry and ascertain all of the relative facts prior to the
ox iration of the statute of limitations(see Gleason v Spota, 194 AD2d 764,599 NYS2d 297[2d Dept
IM);see also DeMille v Franklin Gen.Hasp., 107 AD2d 656,484 NYS2d 59 6[2d Dept 19851;affd 65
NY2d 728,492 NYS2d 29[1-985]).
Furthermore,petitioner also failed to demonstrate that an appeal to the Board would be futile and
be denied because of the Bom-d's unwillingness to hear an appeal or consider and weigh the facts of the
circumstances surroundinp the issuance ofthe stop work order(see Miller v Price,267 AD2d 3 3,su. ra,
Segalfa v Town ofAmenur,309 AD2d 742,765 NYS2d 256[2d D2pt2003];Bey4h vScufly, 43%2a
903,533 NYS2d 515[2d Dept 1988];P v Columbia-Greene Community CalL,99 AD2d 887,472
NYS2d 480 [3d Dept 1984]1 or that theMoard did not have the power to overrule the decision of the
Building Department.
, Although there is a limited exception to the situation which permits a petitioner to circumvent the
requirement fbr bringing a special roceeding pursuant to CPLR 7801 at seq. without exhausting all
administrative remedies,where the c?"allenge to state an action is based upon a cliim ofunconstitutionalfty
"this exception to the exhaustion rule is a limited one and the exception is'itselfsubject to qualification"I
(Dozier v New Bork Cl&, 130 AD2d 128,519 NYS2d 135[2d Dept 1987);see also Fichera V City ofNew
York,145 AD2d 482, 53 5 NYS2d 434 [2d Dept 1988]). 'Where there exists factual issues that may be
resolved by an administrative appeal,a petitioner may not circumvent the requirement that he exhaust all
administrative remedies by merely asserting that there are constitutional issues(see Fichem v Oy offew
York, 145 AD2d 482,supra;Dozkr v New Fork Ci&, 130 AD2d 128,supra).
Merely claiming a violation of due process or the inadequacy of a hearing,which is not the case
Aliano v Town of Southold
Index No.06-23694
Page 5
herein, is not sufficient to invoke the "constitutionality"exception. A petitioner claiming!his type of
constitutional violation is stillre
quired to exhaustall administrative remedies prior to commencirig a special
ing in Supreme Court(see Levine v Board ofEduc.of the City ofNew,York, 173 AD2d 619,570
Sw2dd200[2d Dept 1991);Beyah v Scully, 143 AD2d 903,supra;Dozier v New York Cfty, 130 AD2d
128,supra).
Petitioner was not denied due process because the Board was not required to.grant.him a hearing
regarding the issuance of the stop work order. Further the right to a hearing at any given time and in any
i i '
given situation is not one created bythe Constitutionbut rather,is created and definedbyeither state orlow
law(see Ckvdand Bit ofBdur- v Loudermille, 470 U.S.532, 105 S.Ct. 1487, 84 L. Ed. 494[1985];
Christopher v Phillips, 160 AD2d 1165, 554 NY82d 370[3d Dept 1990],app den 76 NY2d 706, 560
N1YS2dT988(1990]).
Petitionees claim that lie has acquired&'Wsted righf'(fee Lexstat 9-52D Zoning and Land Use
Controls§52D:02)in the permit is misplaced in fight of the Building Department's power to issue a stop
workor4er. The vested right doctrine only app4esrKen a court has determined that apermit was,revoked
illegally,that is,them was no basis or authority in law for the work under the permit to be revoked(see In
the Matter ofLawrence School Corp. v Morris, 167 AD2d 467,5452 NYS2d 707[2d Dept 1990]). The
"vested rights"doctrine is usually applied in a situation where a permit is revoked as the result of a zoning
change,which takes place after the permit is issued under the previously existing zoning laws(CJ.,Town of
Orangetown v Magee,88 NY2d 41,643 NYS2d 21 [199 ;Ellington Constr.Corp.,v Zoning Board of
�d —
Agpeals of the Inc. M of New Hempstead, 77 NY2d 114, 564 NYS2d 1001 (19901;Relchenbach v
idwardatSouthamplon,80 bfisc2d 1031,364 NYS2d 283[NY Sup.CL 1975 ud entaffd.48AD2d
909,372NYS2d985[2dDeptl975],appd/sm38NY2d9l2,383NYS2d757[i�176 ,ra%,pf&sm38NY2d
710,382 NYS2d 1030(1976]). The"vested rigbf'doctrine is applied to prevent a grave oss where there
is a change in the law such that the permit is no longer legal and cannot be used under the current law,or
where the permit is revoked without any legal authority(cf. Town ofOrangetown v Magee,88 NY2d 41,
supra;EllIngton Constr.Corp.v Zoning Board ofAppeals ofthe ine. P71,ofNew Hempstead,77 NY2d
I f4,supra).
There is no question that there was statutory authority to issue the stop work order and there was a
rational reason for the Building Department to issue the stop work order. Therefore,the"vested rights"
doctrine is inapplicable.A permit fbr a useprohibited by a valid zoning ordinance,regalation arrestri6don
is void and subject to revocation(see 8 McQaillin Mun.Copr. §25:153 [31 ed.). "A municipal permit
issued illegally or in violation of the law or under a mistake of fac4 confers no vested right or privilege on
the person to whom the permit has been issued and may be revoked notwithstanding that he mayhave acted
on The permit;any expenditures made in reliance u o such it is made at his peril"(Commonwealth
v Flynn,21 Pa.Commonwealth 264,269,344 A.5dn720[&'mmonwealth Court of Pennsylvania 1975];
see also Lamar Adv.ofPenn,LLC v Pleinan,9 AD3d 734,780 NYS2d 233[3d Dept 20041;12 N.Y.Jur.
2d Buildings§62). Neither the issuance of a permit nor the landowner's substantial improvements and
ex ditures,standing alone,will establish the right(see Steragass v Town Bd.of0arkstown,10 AD3d
343el"81 NYS2d 131 [2d Dept 2004]citation omitted). Thus,petitioner's claim of a"vested night"must
be ae2ed(see Village of Westhampton v Cayea,38 AD3d 760,835 NYS2d 582[2d Dept 2001)).
Without a vested rightietitioner does not have a claim for violation of due process or a taking
without compensation(accord 1coklokir vRoidla,24 AD3d 739,806NYS2d 700[2d Dept 2005];Apple
Food Vendors Assoc.v My o New York,168 Misc2d 483,638 NYS2d 540[Sup.Ct New York County
1995].affd 228 AD2d 282,64 NYS2d 216[1`D;Tt 1996],rapf dism 88 NY2d 1064,651 NYS2d 407
(1996].app den 89 NY2d 807,655 NYS2d 887[19 7]). There ore,that branch of the petition secking a
det on that the petitioner is entitled to the reinstatement of a buildin permit,having establisheda
vested right in the construction of a sin&le family dwelling;that the Southold Town Buflding Depsiftent
and the Town of Southold violated petitioner's civil rights pursuant§1983 of the USCA by issuffig a stop
Aliano v Town of Southold
ludex No.06-23694
Page 6
work order and indicating that there should be no further building under the issued work permit,that the
actionsbythe Southold TownBuildingDepartmentandtheTown ofSouthold were arbitraryand capricious;
that this matter is ripe for review;that the petitioner has established a protectable property interest exist in
that petitioner had a vested right under state law to develop the property,that the Town of Southold had
acted arbitrarily and capriciously in attempting to stop all work irii attempting to have the petitioner appear
before the Zone Board of Appeals of the Town of Southhold,which petitioner contends was a useless act;
that thebuilding permit be reinstated;that an injunction to prevent the Town of Southold from stoying the
petitioner from continuing construction under the filed building 4
�Ians; that the actions of the own of
Southold violated the FourteenthAmeadment ofthe Constitution o the United States in that the petitioner
was denied procedural due process,is denied.
Furthermore, that branch of the petition seelcing a declaration by the Court that the Town of
Southold's actions werem-bitrary,irrational and destructive-ofa cognizable propertyintm-estofthepeddoner
based upon the.issuance ofa stop work order,is also denied due to petitioner's failure to appeal the issuance,
of the stop work order pursuant to Town Law§267-a(5),
The relief pursuant to CPLR 3014 and 3 024,requested by the respondents,is denied as tic Court is
not empowered to grant such relie4 the Court being precluded from granting any relief which is not
contained in movant's"Notice of Motion!'or,as here,movant's Order To Show Cause(see CPLR 2214;
Northside Studios,Inc.v Treccagno14 262 AD2d 469,692 NYS2d 161(2d Dept 1999];Arriaga v Michael
Laub, Co.,233 AD2d 244,649 NYS2d 707[1'Dept 1996)).
Accordingly,the petition mid motion are decided as herein indicated. The respondents shaU have
thirty(30 days from the dated of this Order to submit a verified answer and return.This constitutes the
Order M decision of the Court.
DATED: QtQN
THqMAS F.WHELAM,J.S.
Allano v.Oliva,72 A.D.3d 944(201.,./-
899 N Y S 2d 330,2010 N.Y.Slip Op.03314
72 A.D-3d 944 West Headnotes(5)
Supreme Court,Appellate Division,
Second Depar-tment,New York.
[11 Health
In the Matter of Nicholas ALIANO,appellant, c9- Buildings,structures,and building
V. components
Ruth D.OLIVA,etc.,et al.,respondents. Property owner failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies with respect to his
April 20,2010. challenge to building inspector's stop work
Synopsis order, as required to obtain judicial review,
Background: Property owner commenced proceeding in an Article 78 proceeding, of determination
under Article 78, seeking review of a determination of of town's director of code enforcement
town's director of code enforcement confirming a building confirming the stop work order,where he did
inspector's stop work order.The Supreme Court, Suffolk not appeal issuance of the stop work order
County, Whelan, J., 2007 WL 2814551, granted in part within 60 days after it was filed. McKinney's
defendants' motion to dismiss. Owner appealed. The Town Law § 267-a(4), (5)(b); McKinney's
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 52 A.D.3d 507, 857 CPLR 7801.
N.Y.S.2d 914, dismissed the appeal for failure to state a 3 Cases that cite this headnote
cause of action, and for failure to exhaust administrative
remedies.After defendants answered remaining branches [2] Zoning and Planning
of the petition, the Supreme Court, Suffolk County' (t�- Exhaustion of administrative remedies;
entered judgment in favor of defendants.Owner appealed. primary jurisdiction
Property owner's failure to exhaust his
Holdings: The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, held administrative remedies with respect to his
that: challenge to building inspector's stop work
order did not foreclose judicial review, in
[1] owner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies proceeding under Article 78, of his separate
with respect to his challenge to the stop work order;but challenge to denial by town zoning board
of appeals of his application for an area
[2] owner's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies variance, where those challenges involved
with respect to his challenge to the stop work order did not different,and possibly inconsistent,remedies;
specifically, owner's application for an area
foreclose judicial review of his separate challenge to denial variance was an implicit concession that his
of his application for an area variance;and construction activities were not in compliance
[3] determination by town's zoning board of appeals to with applicable provisions of the zoning
deny owner's application for an area variance was not code, and that there was a rational basis
illegal, had a rational basis, and was not arbitrary and for issuance of the stop work order on
ground of noncompliance with the zoning
capricious. code.McKinney's CPLR 7801 et seq.
2 Cases that cite this headnote
Affirmed.
[31 Zoning and Planning
C;- Right to variance or exception,and
discretion
Zoning and Planning
WESTLAW @ 2018 Thomson Reuters, No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
Aliano v.Oliva,72 A.D.3d 944(20'.,�,
899 N.Y S.2d 330,2010 N.Y.Slip Op 03314
0- Variances and exceptions
Zoning and Planning Attorneys and Law Firms
co--- Illegality
Zoning and Planning **331 Scheyer & Jellenik, Nesconset, N.Y. (Richard L
C— Variances and exceptions Scheyer of counsel),for appellant.
Local zoning boards have broad discretion Smith, Finkelstein, Lundberg, Isler & Yakaboski, LLP,
in considering applications for variances, Riverhead, N.Y. (Frank A. Isler of counsel), for
and judicial review is limited to determining respondents.
whether the action taken by the board was
illegal,arbitrary,or an abuse of discretion. A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J., WILLIAM F. MASTRO,
2 Cases that cite this headnote ANITA R.FLORIO,and LEONARD B.AUSTIN,JJ.
Opinion
[41 Zoning and Planning *944 In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78,inter
0- Decisions of boards or officers in general alia, to review a determination of the Director of Code
Zoning and Planning Enforcement of the Town of Southold dated January 6,
�D- Decisions of boards or officers in general 2006, confirming a stop work order issued in connection
with construction on the petitioner's property, and a
Zoning and Planning determination of Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of
�&— Illegality Southold dated August 31, 2006, denying the petitioner's
The determination of a zoning board should application for an area variance, the petitioner appeals
be sustained upon judicial review if it is not from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County
illegal,has a rational basis,and is not arbitrary (Whelan, J.), entered February 10,2009,which,upon an
and capricious. order of the same court dated June 10, 2007, granting
2 Cases that cite this headnote those branches of the respondents' motion which were
pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) and 7804(o to dismiss, for
failure to state a cause of action and because the petitioner
[5] Zoning and Planning failed to exhaust available administrative remedies,those
,> Area variances in general branches of the amended petition which were to annul
Determination by town's zoning board of the determination dated January 6, 2006, to annul the
appeals to deny property owner's application determination dated August 31, 2006, on the grounds
for an area variance was not illegal, had that it deprived the petitioner of vested rights, deprived
a rational basis, and was not arbitrary him of property in the absence of due process, and
and capricious, where the board properly constituted an unconstitutional taking of private property
considered the relevant statutory factors, for a public purpose withoutjust compensation,to compel
and rationally concluded, based on evidence the reinstatement of a building permit, and to enjoin the
in the record, that variance sought was respondents from interfering with the construction work
substantial and self-created,and that granting and, in effect, denying that branch of the petition which
of the requested area variance would was to annul the determination dated August 31, 2006,
have an undue adverse impact on the on the ground that it was arbitrary and capricious, and
physical and environmental conditions of upon an order of the same court dated December 16,2008,
the relevant neighborhood and produce an denying those branches of the petition alleging violations
undesirable change in the character of the of Town Law§267 and the Open Meetings Law (Public
neighborhood.McKinney's Town Law§267— Officers Law art. 7), is in favor of the respondents and
b(3);McKinney's CPLR 7803(3). against him dismissing the proceeding.
1 Cases that cite this headnote **332 ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with
costs.
WESTLAW @ 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2
Aliano v.Oliva,72 A.D.3d 944(20-.,,�,,
N.'(. 2d 330,2010 N.Y.Slip Op 03314
*945 On November 4, 2005, the petitioner obtained a him of property in the absence of due process, and
building permit from the Town of Southold to construct constituted an unconstitutional taking of private property
a one-story house with a 42-foot setback on a bluff for a public purpose without just compensation, to
overlooking the Long Island Sound (hereinafter the compel the reinstatement of a building permit, *946
permit).The Town's Director of Code Enforcement issued and to enjoin the respondents from interfering with the
an oral stop work order on January 5,2006,and confirmed construction work. The Supreme Court, in effect, denied
that determination in writing on January 6, 2006, after that branch of the amended petition which was to annul
finding that the permit was mistakenly issued in violation the determination dated August 31, 2006, on the ground
of the local zoning ordinance, which requires a 100-foot that it was arbitrary and capricious. The Supreme Court
setback from the edge of the bluff. denied those branches of the respondents'motion which
were to dismiss those branches of the amended petition
The petitioner applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals of alleging violations of Town Law § 267 and the Open
the Town of Southold(hereinafter the ZBA)in February Meetings Law.
2006 for an area variance permitting him to resume
construction with a reduced setback. After a series of After the respondents answered the remaining branches
hearings which commenced in March 2006, and upon of the amended petition, the Supreme Court,in an order
the ZBA's receipt of additional written submissions, the dated December 16, 2008, denied those branches of the
ZBA denied the application for the area variance in a amended petition which alleged violations of Town Law§
determination dated August 31,2006. 267 and the Open Meetings Law.
The petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 On February 10, 2009, the Supreme Court entered
proceeding against the ZBA, its members, and the Town a judgment which, upon the orders dated June 10,
(hereinafter collectively the respondents) on September 2007, and December 16, 2008, was in favor of the
5, 2006. In an amended petition, the petitioner sought, respondents **333 and against the petitioner dismissing
inter alia, to annul the determination dated January 6, the proceeding.We affirm the judgment.
2006,confirming the stop work order,to compel the ZBA
to grant the application for an area variance, to annul [11 "It is hornbook law that one who objects to the
the ZBA's determination denying the area variance on act of an administrative agency must exhaust available
the grounds that the determination was arbitrary and administrative remedies before being permitted to litigate
capricious, that the ZBA and the Town violated the in a court of law" (Watergate II Apts. v. Buffalo Sewer
procedural requirements of Town Law§267 and the Open Auth., 46 N.Y.2d 52, 57, 412 N.Y.S.2d 821, 385 N.E.2d
Meetings Law (Public Officers Law art. 7) in denying 560;see Matter of Goldberg v. Incorporated Vil. of Roslyn
the variance application, and that the ZBA and other Estates, 61 A.D.3d 756, 877 N.Y.S.2d 199; Matter Of
Town officers officially adopted and promulgated a policy Lucas v. Village of Mamaroneck, 57 A.D.3d 786, 871
effecting the deprivation of his constitutional rights. N.Y.S.2d 207). In the case at bar, the petitioner was
required to appeal the issuance of the stop work order
The respondents moved to dismiss the amended petition to the ZBA within 60 days after the filing of the stop
on the grounds, inter alia, that the petitioner failed to work order on January 6, 2006 (see Town Law § 267-
exhaust his administrative remedies and that the amended a[4], [5] [b]; Code of Town of Southold § 280-146.A;
petition failed to state a cause of action. In an order § 280-153). However, although the petitioner applied
dated June 10, 2007, the Supreme Court granted those for a variance in February 2006 (see Code of Town
branches of the respondents'motion which were pursuant of Southold § 280-146.13), the record is devoid of any
to CPLR 3211(a) and 7804(o to dismiss, for failure evidence that he appealed the stop work order at any
to state a cause of action and because the petitioner time after it was issued.Consequently,the Supreme Court
failed to exhaust available administrative remedies, those properly determined that the petitioner failed to exhaust
branches of the amended petition which were to annul his administrative remedies with respect to his challenge
the determination dated January 6, 2006, to annul the to the stop work order, which extinguished his right to
determination dated August 31, 2006, on the grounds judicial review of that determination(see CPLR 7801;see
that it deprived the petitioner of vested rights, deprived Matter of Goldberg v. Incorporated Vil. of Roslyn Estates,
WESTLAW @ 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3
Aliano v.Oliva,72 A.D.3d 944(20.,,cl
J�L40
899 N.Y S 2d 330,2010 N.Y.Slip Op.03314
61 A.D.3d 756, 877 N.Y.S.2d 199; Matter of Lucas v. and is not arbitrary and capricious (see Matter of Sasso
Village of Mamaroneck, 57 A.D.3d 786, 871 N.Y.S.2d v. Osgood, 86 N.Y.2d 374, 384, 633 N.Y.S.2d 259, 657
207). Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly granted N.E.2d 254;Matter of Roberts v. Wright, 70 A.D.3d 1041,
that branch of the respondents' motion which was to 896 N.Y.S.2d 124;Matter of Gallo v Rosell, 52 A.D.3d at
dismiss, for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, 515, 859 N.Y.S.2d 675).
that branch of the petition as sought to annul the stop
work order. In determining whether to grant an application for an
area variance,a town's zoning board is required to engage
The Supreme Court properly granted those branches of in a balancing test weighing the benefit to the applicant
the respondents' motion which were to dismiss those against the detriment to the health, safety, and welfare
branches of the amended petition alleging a deprivation of of the neighborhood or community if the variance is
vested and *947 constitutional rights,and seeking related granted (see Town Law § 267-b [3]; see also Matter of
injunctive relief, since the allegations contained in those Roberts v. Wright, 70 A.D.3d 1041,896 N.Y.S.2d 124;cf.
branches of the amended petition,even if true,do not state Matter of Tsunis v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Inc. Vil. of
a cause of action (see generally Bower Assocs. v. Town Poquott, 59 A.D 3d 726, 727, 873 N.Y.S.2d 733; Matter
of Pleasant Valley, 2 N.Y.3d 617, 781 N.Y.S.2d 240, 814 of Gallo v. Rosell, 52 A.D.3d at 515, 859 N.Y.S.2d 675).
N.E.2d 410;cf. Town of Orangetown v. Magee, 88 N.Y.2d The zoning board must also consider whether: (1) an
41,643 N.Y.S.2d 21,665 N.E.2d 1061). undesirable change will be produced in the character of
the neighborhood,or a detriment to nearby properties will
[21 [31 14] The petitioner's failure to exhaust be created by the granting of the area variance, (2) the
administrative remedies in connection with his judicial benefit sought *948 by the applicant can be achieved by
challenge to the stop work order does not fo reclo se judicial some other method, other than an area variance,feasible
review of his separate challenge to the ZBA's denial of for the applicant to pursue,(3)the required area variance
his application for an area variance since those challenges is substantial, (4) the proposed variance will have an
involve different,and possibly inconsistent,remedies(see adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental
generally Matter of Level 3 Communications, LLC v. conditions in the neighborhood or district, and (5) the
DeBellis, 72 A.D.3d 164,895 N.Y.S.2d 110, 113[2d Dept. alleged difficulty was self-created (see Town Law§267-
2010]; Town of Orangetown v, Magee, 88 N.Y.2d 41, 643 b[3][b]; see also Matter of Roberts v. Wright, 70 A.D.3d
N.Y.S.2d 21, 665 N.E.2d 1061; compare Code of Town 1041, 896 N.Y.S.2d 124; Matter of Gallo v. Rosell, 52
of Southold§280-146.A with Code of Town of Southold A.D.3d at 515,859 N.Y.S.2d 675)
§280-146.11). Specifically,the petitioner's application for
an area variance constitutes an implicit concession that [51 Here,the ZBA's determination to deny the petitioner's
his construction activities were not in compliance with the application for an area variance was not illegal, had
applicable provisions of the zoning code, and that there a rational basis, and was not arbitrary and capricious,
was a rational basis for the issuance of the stop work order since the ZBA properly considered the relevant statutory
on the ground of noncompliance with the zoning code. factors, and rationally concluded, based on the evidence
With respect to the merits of the petitioner's challenge to in the record, that the variance sought was substantial
the ZBA's denial of his application for an area variance, and self-created, and that the granting of the requested
local zoning boards have broad discretion in considering area variance would have an undue adverse impact on
applications for variances, and judicial review is limited the physical and environmental conditions of the relevant
to determining whether the action taken by the board was neighborhood and produce an undesirable change in the
illegal, arbitrary, or an abuse of discretion (see Matter character of the neighborhood (see generally Matter of
of Pecoraro v. Board of Appeals of Town of Hempstead, Pecoraro v Board of Appeals of Town of Hempstead,
2 N.Y.3d 608, 613, 781 N.Y.S.2d 234, 814 N.E.2d 404; 2 N.Y.3d 608, 781 N.Y.S.2d 234, 814 N.E.2d 404).
**334 Matter of Ifrah v. Utschig, 98 N.Y.2d 304, 308, Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly, in effect,
746 N.Y.S.2d 667, 774 N.E.2d. 732; Matter of Gallo v. denied that branch of the amended petition which was to
Rosell, 52 A.D.3d 514, 515, 859 N.Y.S.2d 675). Thus, annul the ZBA's determination on the ground that it was
the determination of a zoning board should be sustained arbitrary and capricious(see CPLR 7803[3]
upon judicial review if it is not illegal,has a rational basis,
WESTLAW @ 2018 Thomson Reuters, No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 4
Aliano v.Oliva,72 A.D.3d 944
899 N Y.S 2d 330,2010 N.Y.Slip Op.03314
Furthermore,even if the ZBA violated the Open Meetings City of Glen Cove, 203 A.D.2d 362, 610 N.Y.S.2d 305;
Law when it denied the petitioner's variance application cf Matter of Wilson v. Board of Educ. Harborfields Cent,
on August 31, 2006, that determination was made after SchoolDist.,65 A.D.3d 1158,885 N.Y.S.2d 207,Iv. denied
a series of public meetings, and also after June 8, 2006, 13 N.Y.3d 714,2009 WL 4845148; Matter of Halperin v.
the agreed-upon date by which the petitioner and other City of New Rochelle, **335 24 A.D.3d 768, 777, 809
interested persons were permitted to submit additional N.Y.S.2d 98).
information for the ZBA's consideration.Accordingly,the The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit.
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 All Citations
or was affected by an error of law by virtue of a violation
of the Open Meetings Law (see Public Officers Law § 72 A.D.3d 944, 899 N.Y.S.2d 330, 2010 N.Y. Slip Op.
107[l]; Matter of Cipriano v. Board of Zoning Appeals of 03314
End of Document @ 2018 Thomson Reuters.No claim to original U S Government Works.
WESTLAW @ 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works, 5
February 26,2018
p,ECEIVED
VIA HAND DELIVERY FEB
Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals
Attention: Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson ZONING 130ARD OF APPEALS
54375 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold,NY 11971
Re: Application of for Variances
1505 Birdseye Road,LLC
ZBA File No. 7140
Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-17-1-4
Dear Chairperson Weisman and Board Members:
I am a licensed architect and the sole owner of Mark C. Matthews Architecture P.C.,which has
offices located at 54 Hampton Road, Southampton,NY. I have been an architect for the past 42 years,
and I have drafted plans for the construction of residential homes and accessory structures on the East
End of Long Island for the past 42 years. These plans include homes located on the Long Island waters
for over 80 projects.
My ffim has been hired by John Josephson,who owns properties on Birdseye Road, Orient,
adjacent to the property owned by 1505 Birdseye Road, LLC (the "Applicanf'). I have reviewed the
Applicant's application for several variances, including a variance of 50 feet from the top of the bluff to
construct a house,terrace,pool and pool deck; a variance to 41.7 feet from the front property line to
build a 796 square foot pedestrian entry bridge; and a variance for an 8-foot deer fence surrounding the
property, including in the front yard.
I have prepared a site plan for 1505 Birdseye Road, a copy of which is enclosed,which shows
that the Applicant has a buildable area in conformance in all respects with the Southold Town Code of
12,954 square feet. This"as of righf' area conforms to all of the Town Code's setback requirements,
including 100 feet front the top of the bluff and 5 0 feet from the front property line.
In my considered opinion,this buildable area can accommodate a 6,028 square foot dwelling,
terrace,pool and pool deck that would be located 100 feet from the top of the bluff and 50 feet from the
front property line. I also see no reason why the Applicant cannot install a pedestrian entry bridge that is
50 feet from the front property line.
Since there is more than adequate space to locate a very sizable house,pool,terrace and pool
deck that conforms in allfespects to the Town Code, I receommend that the Applicant's requested
variances be denied.
Sincerely,
Mark Ma
Y,
54 Hampton Road
J rl, 11cir
,2
Southampton, New York 11968
Tel- 631-283-5647 Fax: 631-283-8984
M A R K M A T T H E W S A R C H I T E C T
IVIARK C. MATTHEWS
0 42 Years of Business in Southampton 0 Member AIA
0 Over 300 Regional Projects a Licensed NY , FIL
0 Significant percentage of repeat and referral work
from client base
0 Rhode Island School of Design, Bach
Architecture 1971
PRACTICE AREAS
9 Residential Architecture
0 Retail Design
0 Permit Expediting Consultation
0 Sub Division Strategic Planning
a Waterfront Project Design
0 Furniture Design
PROJECT EXPERIENCE
Mark C. Matthews has been practicing in Southampton
and the vicinity for over a quarter of a century. Known
primarily for his residential work, his firm has been
retained to exercise their design and problem solving
skills in a range of areas which include the design of
retail space, commercial office design and waterfront
utilization. While the majority of the client base for the
firm has been from the private sector, local Community
Service organizations have looked to the firm- to
facilitate the design of such diverse edifices as church
steeples and club houses.
While Mark Matthews has provided professional
consulting services on projects in a variety of locations,
the firm's particular strength is its depth of experience
in the unique environment of the South Fork of Long
Island. More than half of the residential projects border
fragile wetlands areas or have to confront the particular
issues of a coastal environment. The concerns of
development impact, so close to local interest, are at
the forefront of this firm's design considerations. The
Firm's design solutions utilize materials and forms'
which conform to this waterfront landscape.
The scale of the projects undertaken by Mark
Matthews, reflect the breadth of his firm's experience.
The firm has undertaken multi residential complexes
along with the most minor renovations. Project
budgets have ranged from millions of dollars to the
most limited. State of the art technology has been
incorporated into structures constructed using age old
building techniques. Every aspect of residential design
has been part of this firm's practice.
j\lA
Ci
N
GEHL
TOPOF
BLUFF
0.
TOTAL AREA: 1 556 ACRES TO THE TIE LINE
(ACCORPIN6 TO THE SURVEY SUBMITTEP BY
PECONIC SURVEYORS,F r-M05T RFFNTLY
REVISED ON JANUARY 24.2015)
Ln
1505 BIRDBEYE ROAP, ORIENT
GPIEngineering Design I Planning I Construction Managert
VIA HAND DELIVERY -�Iqo
Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals RECENED
Attention: Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson
54375 Main Road FEB 9 8 2W
P.O. Box 1179
Southold,NY 11971 ZONING BOARD UP APP#AL§
Re: Application of for Variances
1505 Birdseye Road, LLC
ZBA File No. 7140
Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-17-1-4
Dear Chairperson Weisman and Board Members:
By way of background, I am the Vice-President and Director of Environmental and Coastal Sciences
at Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. (GPI), which is a firm with a staff of over 1,300 professionals, including
engineers,planners, scientists,technicians, and inspectors. I have been employed by GPI for over forty (40)
years as an Environmental Scientist specializing in coastal issues, which has included projects relating to
coastal management studies, tidal/fresh water wetlands, environmental impact investigations, and erosion
studies. I have conducted over three hundred (300) environmental evaluations, including well over fifty
(50) on the East End of Long Island. I have been a consultant for many municipalities on coastal studies,
including serving presently as the environmental consultant for the County of Suffolk on the Fire Island to
Montauk Project. In addition, I served as the Environmental Scientist on the Sebonack Golf Course in
Southampton,which included being responsible for preparing the environmental impact statement, habitat
inventory, natural resources plans, native habitat restoration plan, and water resources protection plan. A
copy of my resume is enclosed.
My firm has been retained by John Josephson, who owns properties located at 1515 Birdseye Road,
900 Birdseye Road and 700 Birdseye Road, adjacent to the property owned by 1505 Birdseye Road, LLC
(the "Applicant"). In this regard, I have reviewed the application of the Applicant for multiple variances in
order to construct (i) a 6,028 square foot dwelling with a terrace,pool and pool deck fifty (50) feet from the
top of the bluff, (ii) a 796 square foot pedestrian entry bridge that is 41.7 feet from the front property line;
and (ii) 8-foot deer fence around the perimeter of the property, part of which is located in the front yard.
On February 21, 2018, 1 conducted a site investigation of the property located at 1505 Birdseye
Road, Orient(the"Subject Premises"). The Subject Premises is a heavily vegetated vacant lot, which
contains extreme geological constraints, including steep slopes, swales and coastal bluffs. Because of these
extreme constraints, it is my professional opinion that this parcel is not suitable for any development. This
may be the reason why this property has never been developed.
If this property must be developed, there certainly is plenty of room on the Subject Premises for a
reasonably sized house and other improvements to be sited beyond the 1 00-foot bluff setback line as
required by the Southold Town Code, without encroaching on the swale. As such, there is no question that
the Applicant has feasible alternatives other than the requested variances. Locating a house and any other
Greenman-Pedersen, Inc 325 West Main Street Babylon, NY 11702 p 631-587-5060
An Equal Opportunity Employer
*16
improvements in a conforming location setback 100 feet from the bluff will require some grading and
possibly some retaining walls, however, the adverse impacts to neighboring properties and the bluff would
certainly be less than the impact if the requested variances are granted. I also see no basis for granting the
front property setback variance when the proposed pedestrian bridge can be moved 8.3 feet south to
conform to the Code.
Any clearance, soil disturbance, building construction and/or operation of heavy equipment within
the 1 00-foot bluff setback area certainly has the potential to destabilize the bluff,thereby producing an
unnecessary adverse impact to the enviromnental conditions of the Subject Premises and to the neighboring
properties, and would likely be a detriment to the neighboring properties. In an extreme case, not subject to
prediction, such activities could cause soil liquefaction, resulting in sudden, catastrophic, collapse of the
bluff. Moreover, introducing impermeable surfaces within the 100-foot bluff setback area will result in the
alteration of significant drainage on the Subject Premises, and will change the soil structure and vegetation
upon the Subject Premises, which will likely have the effect over time of damaging the bluff, resulting in
damages to the proposed dwelling and to the neighboring properties. In addition, although a deer fence may
appear innocuous,the installation of the necessary posts within the bluff setback will have a destabilizing
effect on the bluff.
During my site investigation, I observed that there was silt fence on the Subject Premises. A silt
fence is typically used for erosion and sediment control, especially where there is to be soil disturbance,
particularly near wetlands and waterways. Since, to my knowledge, no permits have been granted for soil
disturbance in this area, the presence of the silt fence is a mystery. A copy of the photograph that I took
during my site investigation of the Subject Premises, which shows the dense vegetation as well as the black
silt fence, is enclosed.
In sum, it is my professional opinion that there are no scientific reasons why the multiple variances
requested by the Applicant should be granted when the Applicant can site a reasonably sized house and
other improvements beyond the 1 00-foot bluff setback line in conformance with the Town Code, and when
by placing the proposed dwelling merely 50 feet from the top of the bluff would clearly result in a detriment
to the bluff and to nearby properties and have an adverse impact on the environmental conditions on the
Subject Premises and the neighboring properties. It is for these reasons that I recommend that the
Applicant's requested variances be denied.
Sincerely,
�6L4-rAL-��
Robert Grover
Vice President,
Director of Environmental and Coastal Sciences
4,100
Resume
Robert Grover
Director of Environmental. Sciences
Professional Profile
Mr. Grover provides hazard analysis, environmental designs, coastal flooding and
erosion evaluations, recommendations, and support for major projects in both the
----------
public and private sectors. He has a comprehensive grasp of legal, social, and
�EIDUCATIION:-
political considerations and their environmental ramifications. Mr. Grover has
,:-BS11972IEnVironth6ht6i-Sci�e�n&di,,
authored Flood Plain Land Use Regulations for the Town of East Hampton,Village of
Babylon and the Village of Lindenhurst. These municipalities have adopted these
regulations in order to comply with the Federal Emergency Management Agency
r YEAP�$WlaTH.'FIR' lik 46 (FEMA) requirements regarding Land Use and the use of Flood Insurance Rate
-T_OTA�YEARS�EXPERIENCE-.46,.,�
Maps (FIRM's). This experience at the local community level is very important in
conducting local coordination for large state projects. He has coordinated over 1,000
�,'COURSE WOR environmental regulatory permit proceedings with State and Federal Agencies.
i O�,�ourd��A,-�on�tr��tionSifetk A�_H64h
_,.� .�i --, , ��, '--16, , -,`_" 1--- On projects with NYCDOT, he has interpreted 100-year flood information obtained
T�aqyng,,,Course
from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to establish
�WA Tr6iftftis dd,FL
various flood events used in developing critical roadway and bridge elevations along
the Belt Parkway and other major routes. He established critical flood elevations at
?RO_FES I SIQNAL I,ONIS� - the Paerdegat Basin Bridge, Roosevelt Island Bridge and Coney Island Creek Bridge
I Am6i6 sociation,for th�.Advanc6imdnrof locations, and this information provided to NYCDOT engineers who utilized it in their
Science-_-_
determination of critical roadway and bridge elevations within the project corridor.
��6i6h`,OrhithbhjW�Woh
zC6a'�t6i,Ed6c�ti6n-,6hd,��S66ich'Fbuhdati6a.'-, in a project with the SCDPW, GPI is providing professional engineering services for
the Smith Point County Park Seawall Extension. Mr. Grover recently conducted a
Lohg1sland-south�Shdt6 Estuary Reseiv6,"
9unc#.i,, wave scour study in this area to determine wall height and dune requirements
N6W York S tate Omith.ologi,c.al"So6i V" necessary for the extension of an existing seawall in order to protect the Flight 800
boudt�,(ivy),W dei�eht'. I Memorial located at Smith Point Park in the Town of Brookhaven. He has been
_ptland§�Mahag
Woik,G responsible for a major portion of GPI's environmental impact statements and
Pup
A assessments,which includes noise abatement studies involving highway, airport and
construction noise, and has prepared over 250 environmental reports for major
highway and bridge projects, parks and recreation facilities, public buildings, solid
waste management facilities, and resource management plans. He is thoroughly
familiar with state-of-the-art methods of transportation noise evaluation using the
latest computer modeling techniques.
Mr. Grover is a noted authority on coastal environments. Mr. Grover has extensive
experience over the last 40 years relating to coastal management studies, w, etland
projects, sea level rise, environmental impact investigations and erosion studies. Mr.
J Grover is thoroughly familiar with state-of-the-art methods of environmental analysis
requiring specialized services such as surface and groundwater impact analysis and
transportation noise evaluation using the latest computer modeling techniques and
measurement equipment. He is also a member of the South Shore Estuary Council
d
and the Suffolk County Wetlands Management Work Group.
A well-known environmental expert, he serves on numerous organizational' boards
and committees, and delivers numerous lectures. For many years, he lectured on
Environmental Law lecture at Southampton College. He writes environmental articles
for periodicals, including a regular conservation column for an Audubon publication.
He was the recipient of the 2001 Conservation Award, presented by the Great South
Bay Audubon Society.
He is thoroughly familiar with state-of-the-art methods of environmental analysis requiring
speci
alized services such as wetland and special habitat mitigation; coastal processes
and erosion/sedimentation studies;and hydrogeologica and groundwater studies.
GPI
1\40
Project Experience
South Shore of Long Island, NY. Mr. Grover is currently serving as the consultant to Suffolk County on the Corps of Engineers plan to
restore and protect 83 miles of Atlantic Ocean shoreline. He is assisting/advising the County Dept. of Public Works on various
elements of the project including storm protection,tidal inlet management, sea level rise, beach nourishment, coastal process features,
breach and overwash response, endangered species and wetlands. Client:Suffolk County Dept.of Public Works
Engineering Assessment of Groins along the Sea Wall and Beach at Edgewater Park, Bronx, NY; 8/14-11/14. Senior
Environmental Scientist. This project involved developing a condition assessment report for the existing groin fields and sea wall that
lines the perimeter of the development's waterfront. Mr. Grover provided coastal processes analyses and recommendations for storm
protection and recreational beach restoration for this urban community protected by an aging seawall nearing the end of its useful life.
Various levels of storm protection were discussed, with maintenance of the coastal aesthetics being a priority, as well as options for
repairing a series of groins, piers, and access ramps. In this location, Superstorm Sandy exceed the projected FEMA 100-year flood,
and so the discussion included a wide range of hurricane protection scenarios. Client: Edgewater Park Owner's Cooperative
Overlook Beach Sand Placement Analysis, Babylon, NY; 7/13-8/13. Project Director. The project involved collecting elevation data
on Overlook Beach for an area approximately 1,000-ft- long by 600-ft-deep. This survey established the existing "post-Sandy"
topography of the beach. Client:Town of Babylon
Glacopelli vs. Strecker, Quogue, NY; 9/12. Project Director. This project involved the examination of shoreline and determination of
cause of shoreline alteration. This project also included expert testimony on causes of shoreline change. Client: Sinnreich Kosakof&
Messina, LLP
Sebonack Neck Private Golf Course Property, Southampton, NY. Environmental Scientist. This project involved an Environmental
Impact Statement, preliminary design, final design, construction documents, permitting and construction support for a new organic golf
course located on environmentally sensitive land abutting the Peconic Bay. Mr. Grover prepared complete EIS, habitat inventory,
Natural Resources Management Plans, wildlife inventory, native habitat restoration plan and water resources protection plan for 298-
acre waterfront property. Mr. Grover was responsible for creating a plan which preserved 80 acres of tidal and freshwater wetlands with
adequate buffers and runoff controls to ensure their protection. Work included scope determination, wetlands, endangered species,
Audubon certification assistance, irrigation analysis and coordination. Project included extensive mitigation and provision of public
benefits. Client: Sebonack Properties LLC
Long Island Expressway/Cross Island Parkway, Exits 29-32, Contract #13012553, Queens, NY. Environmental Scientist. This
$147-million project involved construction inspection services for the rehabilitation of the Long Island Expressway/Cross Island
Parkway(LIE/CIP) interchange.A key element of the project was the restoration of the original Alley Pond,which had become chocked
with sediment and covered with Phragmites. The plan included the construction of sediment basins and various BMP's and the
dredging of contaminated sediments and the Phragmites root mass from the pond. During construction, inspected by GPI, our
personnel were responsible for continuous turbidity monitoring for the protection of Alley Creek, a tributary of Little Neck Bay.
Responsibilities included providing technical assistance/construction support for erosion/sediment control and for the restoration of a
degraded urban pond/wetland system.The restoration included removal of invasive species and dredging to restore open water for use
by resident and wintering waterfowl and other wildlife. Client: New York State Dept.of Transportation
Smith Point County Park, Suffolk County, NY. Environmental Scientist. This project included an update of the Master Plan and the
design of a program and plans for the management of sediment. In response to a sediment budget disruption caused by Moriches Inlet,
GPI designed a multi-phased management plan. Phase I involved the dredging of 250,000 cu yds of sediment from an off-shore borrow
area for use as beach nourishment. Phase 11 involved the construction of ponds for storebird habitat, with the resulting 250,000 cu yds
of spoil being used as beach nourishment, as well. Phase III involves working with Federal Agencies to modify Moriches Inlet
maintenance practices. Several extensive Environmental Assessments were prepared. Client:Suffolk County Dept. of Public Works
Other projects include:
• Erosion/Hurricane Mitigation Studies, South Shore, LI
• NYS Tidal Wetlands Acquisition Program
• Santapogue Creek Environmental Studies, Babylon, NY
• Jones Beach Theater,Village of East Hampton, NY
• Bellport Wetlands Assessment, Bellport, NY
• Lattington Wetlands Investigations, Lattington, NY
• Hydrogeological Study,area surrounding the headwaters of Strong's Creek,Village of Lindenhurst, NY
• Lake Montauk Water Quality,Town of East Hampton, NY
GPI Page 2 1 Grover
• Utica Wetlands Mitigation, Brooklyn-Queens Expressway noise and air quality evaluations
• New Highway Environmental Impact Statement
• Glenridge Road Environmental Assessment and Wetland Investigation(NYS Dept.of Transportation)
• Udalis Cove Wetlands Assessment for the NYS DEC
• Fuel farm investigations and remedial action plans, Stewart Airport, NY
• Flood Plain Management Ordinance(Village of Babylon)
• Coastal Dynamics of the Town of Oyster Bay Beach (Town of Oyster Bay)
• Wetlands Mitigation &EIS for the Cohoes Arterial(NYS Dept. of Transportation)
• Periodic Erosion of Sand Barriers Gives Life to Coastal Ponds(published in National Fisherman)
Mr. Grover currently serves on the South Shore Estuary Reserve Council, which is empowered by State legislation to direct and
oversee a comprehensive management plan for the Long Island South Shore Estuary Complex.
Mr. Grover has also been responsible for a major portion of GPI's Environmental Impact Statements and Assessments and has
prepared over 100 environmental reports for coastal/marine development projects, parks and recreation facilities, solid waste
management facilities, highway and bridge projects and resource management plans.
Mr. Grover is thoroughly familiar with state-of-the-art methods of environmental analysis requiring specialized services such as the
following:
• Coastal processes and erosion/sedimentation studies.
• Wetland and special habitat mitigation.
• Hydrogeological and groundwater studies.
• Highway air quality assessments and models.
• Transportation noise evaluation using the latest computer modeling techniques.
Additionally, he is thoroughly knowledgeable in federal and state environmental laws and procedures as they relate to the Long Island
Environment.
Mr. Grover has written and published numerous technical documents relating to coastal processes and hydrology: A partial list
includes:
• Fire Island Inlet to Montauk Point, US Army Corps of Engineers
• Oak Beach Erosion Study,Town of Babylon, NY
• Report on Cedar Beach Dynamics,Town of Babylon, NY
• Tanner Park Shoreline Report,Town of Babylon, NY
• Erosion of Town Owned Property Report,Town of East Hampton, NY
• Report on Open Space: Dunes, County of Suffolk, NY
• Erosion of Georgica Beach,Village of East Hampton, NY
• Coastal Setback and Related Laws Report,Town of East Hampton, NY
• Report on Beach and Dune Erosion, Private Client
• Report on Erosion of Jones Beach, Private Client
• Report on Coastal Stability, Private Client
• Goldsmith Inlet Jetty Shoreline Impact Study, County of Suffolk, NY
Mr. Grover has also served as the Environmental Quality Review agent for the Village of Lindenhurst, New York. He has prepared flood
plain management, environmental quality review and community noise regulations for numerous local communities, and as a public
service, Mr.Grover has delivered more than a dozen lectures before citizen and conservation groups and on television and radio. He is
thoroughly familiar with current methods of environmental analysis requiring specialized services, including wetland and special habitat
mitigation,transportation noise evaluation using modern computer modeling techniques, highway air quality assessments and models,
coastal processes and erosion/sedimentation studies and hydrogeological and groundwater studies.
Honors/Citations
Guest Speaker at the"Save the Bays Workshop on Storm Water Runoff',sponsored by the Cornell Cooperative Extension(Marine
Program)and letter of citation from the Village of Rockville Centre for his efforts in the preparation of the SEQRA evaluation for the
proposed development of the north portion of the Village(reference: Mr. E.A.Yourch, Dep. Mayor)
CJPI Page 3 1 Grover
The f6flowing is a partial list of publications/technical documents relating to coastal process and hydrogeology,through the late 1980's:
Year Title Client
1973 Report-on Open Space: Dunes Town of East Hampton, NY
1974 Fire Island Inlet to Montauk Point US Army, Corps of Engineers
Long Island Beach Erosion
and Hurricane Project, Phase I
General Design Memorandum
1975 Tanner Park Beach Facility Town of Babylon, NY
1976 Report on Erosion of Jones Beach Private
1976 Feasibility Study for the Dredging of Back City of Annapolis, MD
Creek
1977 Erosion of Georgica Beach Village of East Hampton, NY
1977 Report on Beach and Dune Erosion at the Private
Property of Frank Wyman
1978 Oak Beach Erosion Study Town of Babylon, NY
1979 Hydrogeological Study,Area Surrounding the Village of Lindenhurst, NY
Headwaters of Strong's Creek
1979 Report on Subsurface Oil Spill at Scudder Copaigue School District, NY
Avenue School, Copaigue, NY
1979 Salinity Has Risen in Great South Bay But No
Published in National Fisherman
One Knows Why
1980 Report on Coastal Stability, Laurel, Purchase Private
Montauk, NY
1981 Tanner Park Shoreline Town of Babylon, NY
1981 Application of Spalding et.al., Special Permit Town of East Hampton, NY
For Timber Groin Field
1981 Report on the Erosion of Town Owned Town of East Hampton, NY
Property Between Captain Kidd's Path and
Block Island Sound
1981 Goldsmith Inlet Jetty Shoreline Impact Study County of Suffolk, NY
1982 Recommendations for Coastal Setback and Town of East Hampton, NY
Related Laws
1982 Lake Montauk Water Quality Town of East Hampton, NY
1982 Periodic Erosion of Sand Barriers Gives Published in National Fisherman
Life to Coastal Ponds
1982 Iron Pier Beach Town of Riverhead, NY
1982 Wetlands Mitigation/Cohoes New York State Arterial DOT
1982 Robbins Island Environmental Survey Suffolk County, NY
1983 Regulatory Coordination/Port Jefferson Ferry Private
Terminal
1983 Shellfish Management Component/ Town of Brookhaven, NY
Brookhaven Coastal Plan
1983 Speonk Jetty Erosion Study Suffolk County, NY
1983 Review of Three-mile Harbor Plan Town of East Hampton, NY
1983 Regulatory Coordination/Jones Beach Theater NYS Parks&Recreation
1983 Ronkonkoma Wetlands Survey and Assessment Suffolk County, NY
1984 Coastal Energy Impact Program Town of Brookhaven, NY
1984 Biostatistical Analysis of Shellfish Populations Town of Brookhaven, NY
1984 Glenridge Road Wetland Investigations New York State Dept.of Transportation
1984 Wetlands Assessment and Expert Testimony Private
Remsenburg, NY
1984 Utica Wetlands Mitigation Plan New York State DOT
GP1 Page 4 1 Grover
1984 Mayo Beach Shore Erosion Study Anne Arundel County, MD
1985 Santapogue Creek Environmental Study Town of Babylon, NY
1985 Feld Property Seawall Impact Study Private
1986 Coastal Dynamics,Town Ocean Beaches Town of Babylon, NY
1986 Environmental Survey,3500-acre Private
Private Island
1986 Coastal Dynamics of Town of Oyster Bay Beach Town of Oyster Bay, NY
1986 Swan Pond Wetlands Assessment County of Suffolk, NY
1986 Lattingtown Wetlands Investigations Village of Lattingtown, NY
1987 Flood Plain Management Ordinance Village of Lindenhurst, NY
1987 Bellport Wetlands Assessment New York State DEC
1987 Flood Plain Management Ordinance Village of Babylon, NY
1987 Udalis Cove Wetlands Assessment New York State DEC
1987 Moss Property Shoreline Processes Private
1978 Annual Biostatistical Analysis/Shellfish and Town of Babylon, NY
Predator Population
GPI Page 5 1 Grover
to
Ikk
A T"
&
wex;'73 t
O'e
3 F101— _v K'A
Z VA,
1-WRIT
Ali
4
ft V5
� % .
rqlaf�_ AV,T-- -
79
v
v ma
IVA 14,
N
si-
i fo
two
��l X710'
:m
Aift -Im i1w-A
Vol
IlkNq
'�AP i4v------
V
4AC
TS
4L
wk
4%4
r',r Awl
4 ,
-4W
OVL
qo
RECFI\(ED
Kenneth Piekarski FEB 2 9 7018
5 Clarendon Place ZOMING 130ARD OF ApPEALS
Scarsdale, NY 10583
February 26, 2018
Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson
Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals
54375 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Re: 1505 Birdseye Road, LLC
Application for Variances
ZBA File No. 7140
Suffolk County Tax Map No, 1000-17-1-4
Dear Chairperson Weisman:
I am writing this letter on behalf of my mother-in-law, Dorothe'a 'Di Lorenzo, who owns
the home located at 1207 Birdseye Road, Orient, NY, which is immediately to the west
and abuts the Applicant's property. My family is submitting this,letterto voice our
opposition to the Applicant's application requesting multiple va'r.iances.
Our family has owned our home since 1975, and, has enjoyed, a'mong other things, the
reasonably sized homes, the privacy offered by vegetation surrounding -neighboring
properties, the open views of the Long Island Sound, and the quaintness of the
neighborhood.
In reviewing the Applicant's application, the Applicant is proposing, among other things,
a building that is 6,028 square feet, a pool, a pool deck, and a,terrace that occupies
nearly the entire width of its property, along with a footbridge that is 796 square feet,
and an 8-foot deer fence, part of which is located in the front yard,. Significantly, the
Applicant has applied for variances to place the house merely 50 feet from the top of the
bluff when the Southold Town Code requires a 100-foot setback, and,a footbridge within
41.7 feet from the front yard setback when the Town�Code requires a 50-foot setback.
The only reason cited in the Applicant's application for these variances is,that the
property has a low drainage basin.on its southerly side. We firmly believe that this is not
an adequate basis for granting the requested variances.
I am enclosing a site plan that I prepared which shows the allowable, buildable envelope
in�conformance with the Southold Town Code. As can be seen from this plani, there is a
very substantial building envelope allowed by Code which presents a feasible alternative
to the Applicant's requested variances. Since,the Applicant can locate a sizable house
and other improvements in conformance with the 100-foot setback from the top of the
bluff and the 50-foot setback from the front property line, there is no basis to grant the
Applicant's variances. Moreover, we are extremely concerned'that granting this
Applicant's requested variances would set a Dangerous Precedent, enabling other
property owners to build within 50 feet of the top of the bluff. Such an outcome would
certainly have adverse impact on the environmental conditions in, our neighborhood, and
would be a detriment to the houses in,this neighborhood.
Furthermore, there are no 8-foot deer fences in this neighborhood, and, therefore, there
is no basis to allow the Applicant to erect an 8-foot deer fence in its front yard, which
would certainly be unsightly.
It is for these reasons that we strenuously oppose the Applicant's application for multiple
variances.
We would appreciate your filing this letter of opposition in the record of this matter, and
we thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Very truly yours,
'A----"�W.-1,-"I', -,-
Kenneth Piekarski
0
Ln
04
21
Dw
ow
LIP
EXI ING
FR.HSE SE
^7
10
MZ 10
25'-q' �<C
zmr,
C)E3 z
0-b
0 M
PROJECT: _0
m
m
ORIENT HOUSE
l.rin.5 RlRn.qFYF RnAn liz-A ri
RECEIVE[)
Pamela Valentine and Bill Matassoni FED 2 8 2018
1525 Birdseye Road SOARL)OFAPPEALS
Orient,NY 11957
February 20, 2018
Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson
Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals
54375 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold,NY 11971
Re: Application for Variances
1505 Birdseye Road,LLC
ZBA File No. 7140
Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-17-1-4
Dear Chairperson Weisman and Board Members:
We have lived at 1525 Birdseye Road(SCTM 1000-17-2-1.2)which is located to
the east of the Applicant's property for more than five years; we also own the adjacent
vacant property to the east of our home (SCTM 1000-17-2-1.4); and we have lived in the
village of Orient for almost thirty years. We have read the application for the Applicant's
proposed project at 1505 Birdseye Road and its requests for multiple variances. We
firmly believe that the application should be denied.
The Applicant proposes building on the highest elevation of its lot,thereby
substantially encroaching on the required setback from the bluff and the Coastal Erosion
Hazard Line. Such a proposal poses an enhanced threat to the health, safety and welfare
of neighboring persons and property. In addition to protecting the bluff,the bluff and
CEHL setbacks have a purpose, namely to reduce the likelihood of hazardous projectiles
causing damage in high winds. Wind speeds increase with elevation. The proposal,with
a sixty foot high building on elevation of twenty-six to twenty-eight feet, means that the
proposed structure would extend almost ninety feet above sea level while violating the
bluff and CEHL setback rules. The proposed project invites damage, injury and
destruction to neighboring homes and people. Given the substantial size and height of
the proposed construction, compliance with setback rules is mandated.
While the application states that the proposed dwelling will not have an adverse
effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions that presently exist,that
could not be further from the case. In fact,the historic character of this neighborhood
features discretely located, and relatively modest, if upscale,homes, none of whose
presence imposes a challenge to the enjoyment and appreciation of the surrounding
Soundfront locations or views of the others. In stark contrast,the proposed construction
would tower over and above and dominate the enclave unlike any existing construction.
It is entirely out of keeping with, and detrimental to,the historic character and charm of
140
our quaint seaside neighborhood. Its sheer size alone dictates the need to abide by all
setback rules. Although the proposed front yard setback is not as egregious as the
proposed very substantial encroachment beyond the required one hundred foot setback
from the bluff, because the proposed construction is of such imposing proportions and out
of character with the existing neighborhood, all setback rules must be observed and
honored.
The proposed construction equates to inserting a convention center front and
center into a quaint seaside area so as to disproportionately dominate an existing quiet
enclave to the detriment of current owners and their properties. The Applicant's stated
purpose is to construct a residential dwelling for the use and enjoyment of the Applicant
and his family. Surely,that can be accomplished while adhering to the setback rules
given the size of its lot. Abiding by setback rules protects neighboring properties, among
other events, in storms and winds. Downscaling this project would additionally help,
while not entirely cure, the extent to which the proposed construction is entirely at odds
with the character of the neighborhood.
The proposed deer fence extends well past the bluff and CEHL setbacks, such that
it, too,would pose a hazard to neighboring owners and properties in storms and winds,
and its placement near the bluff is likely to cause degradation to the bluff. The proposed
front yard 8-foot deer fence, along with the proposed deer fence along the side property
lines,would create an additional eyesore for all neighbors, again in a way that starkly
conflicts with the character of the neighborhood,to the detriment of current homeowners.
The proposed construction of a fence and beach path over and beyond the bluff
and CEHL setbacks causes further concern. The construction itself and maintenance of
the path and fence will surely erode the bluff.
For the foregoing reasons, the application for variances for the proposed project
and construction at 1505 Birdseye Road in Orient should be denied.
Thank you for allowing us to submit this letter, which we would appreciate your
filing in the record. Please note that we would have appeared at the public hearing on
March I to voice our opposition but we will be out of state.
Sincerely,
A P
U
"wv,
Pamela Valentine Bill assoni
ft2,r
RECEIVED
Amanda & Andrew Jordan FED 2 8
1105 Birdseye Road ZON11%E30ARD OF APPEALS
Orient, NY 11957
February 16, 2018
Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson
Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals
54375 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold,NY 11971
Re: 1505 Birdseye Road, LLC Application for Variances
Z]�A File No. 7140
Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-17-1-4
Dear Chairperson Weisman and Board Members:
Our home is located at 1105 Birdseye Road, Orient,NY, which abuts the Applicant's
property to the south. We also own the 50 foot right of way along the easterly part of our
property which connects to Birdseye Road and serves as the access to the Applicant's property.
We are submitting this letter to voice our strenuous opposition to the multiple variances
requested by the Applicant.
We purchased our home in October 2017 because, among other things,we were
impressed by the quaintness of the neighborhood, the privacy afforded by the vegetation on the
neighboring properties, and the open views of the Long Island Sound. In addition,we
appreciated the relatively modest sized houses on substantial properties. For us,this
neighborhood preserved the historic importance of Orient and struck a welcomed balance
between nature and the homes.
The Applicant's application proposes, among other things, a 6,028 square foot building
along with a pool, pool deck and terrace that spans nearly the entire width of the Applicant's
property Q.e.,to within 15 feet of its easterly property line and 20 feet of its westerly property
line), a 796 square foot bridge merely 41.7 feet from the front yard setback, a proposed 8-foot
deer fence partially located in the front yard, and a lot coverage exceeding 19%. Moreover,the
Applicant appears to have purposefully cited the house 50 feet from the top of the bluff, not
because he could not build a sizable house in accordance with the Southold Town Code's 100
foot setback requirement, but to enhance the height of the house and the Applicant's views of the
Sound. To our mind,these are not valid reasons for granting the requested variances.
We finnly believe that, if these variances are granted,they will enable the Applicant to
build a house and other improvements that will create an undesirable change in the character of
our neighborhood. In addition, granting the variances would set a dangerous precedent enabling
other houses to be built within 50 feet of the top of the bluff. Furthermore, since the Applicant
can locate a sizable house 100 feet setback from the top of the bluff,there is no reason for the
Applicant to be requesting such a fifty percent variance. Likewise,there is no basis to allow the
Applicant to erect an 8-foot deer fence in its front yard,which,to our knowledge no neighbors
maintain; nor is there any valid reason why the Applicant requires a front yard setback variance.
We are also concerned that the proposed variances will have an adverse affect on the physical
and environmental conditions, including greater potential for erosion and runoff issues, and
degradation of the bluff.'
Thank you for the opportunity to comment upon the referenced application. We would
appreciate your including this letter of opposition in the record of this matter.
VeV truly yours,
Andrew Jor an Amanda Jordan
1,eslie and Joseph I-aVecchia
9o8 Birdseye Road
Orient,NY 11957
February 16, 2018 7 (qo
Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson RECEIVED
Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals FEB
54375 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179 �0*'G BOARD
Southold, NY 11971
Re: Application for Variances
1505 Birdseye Road,, LLC
ZBA File No. 7140
Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-17-1-4
Dear Chairperson Weisman:
Our home is located at 9o8 Birdseye Road, Orient, NY(SCTM No. 1000-17-2-1-5),
southeast of the property owned by 1505 Birdseye Road, LLC,the Applicant. We
purchased our home in October 2012. We are filing this letter to oppose the Applicant's
request for several variances in its attempt to construct a house,terrace,pool,pool deck
and bridges that would occupy nearly the entire width of its property,that would cover
nearly 20%of its lot, and that would be merely 50 feet from the top of the bluff.
With respect to the Applicant's request for a setback variance Of 50 feet from the
top of the bluff,we do not see any basis for such request since the Applicant can clearly
locate a very sizable house on its property so that it complies with the loo foot setback
requirement in the Town Code. It seems clear to us that the Applicant's efforts in this
regard are an attempt to maximize its view and to build at a higher elevation,without
consideration of its neighbors'views and the problems that result with constructing near
the bluff, such as runoff, erosion and degradation of the beach. This request also does
not consider the very dangerous precedent that would be set if this variance is granted
that will allow others to build so close to the bluff.
With respect to the Applicant's request to erect an 8-foot deer fence that will be
partially located in the front yard,this is entirely out of character with the neighboring
lots,which do not have any deer fences, and we are very concerned with the erosion that
can occur by the installation and maintenance of such a fence, especially to the bluff.
With respect to the Applicanfs request for a front yard setback Of 41.7 feet when
50 feet is required, it seems to us that,with proper grading and other prudent
construction measures,the front walkway does not need to breach the 50 foot front yard
setback.
In sum.,we chose to live in this neighborhood because of the reasonably sized
homes in relation to the size of the properties, and because the neighboring property
owners have taken measures to protect and preserve the environment and their
neighbors'views. In contrast,the application submitted by this Applicant has not
considered the undesirable change that this project would cause to the character of our
neighborhood,it has not sought to construct the house without a request for substantial
variances, nor has the Applicant considered the adverse effect on the environmental
conditions in our neighborhood. The construction of a 6,028 square foot building, 796
square foot bridge and other improvements that cover a large part of the Applicant's
property will only serve to create further drainage, erosion and other issues.
Finally,it is our understanding that the Applicant is an architect. As such,he
should have understood when he purchased the property what could be built in
accordance with the Southold Town Code,and therefore, any alleged hardship is his
own doing.
Please file this letter of opposition in the record of this matter.
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit our comments.
Very truly yours,
CCLI�
S-Lejsliile�Z-La Pecch�ia Lseph LaVecchia
BOARD MEMBERS rjf S 0 Southold Town Hall
Leslie Kanes Weisman,Chairperson 53095 Main Road-P.O.Box 1179
Southold,NY 11971-0959
Patricia Acampora Office Location:
Eric Dantes Town Annex/First Floor,Capital One Bank
Gerard P.Goehringer 54375 Main Road(at Youngs Avenue)
Nicholas Planamento OWN, Southold,NY 11971
http://southoldtownny.gov
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Tel.(631)765-1809-Fax(631)765-9064
MEMORANDUM
To: Mark Terry, LWRP Coordinator
From: Leslie Weisman, Chairperson, Zoning Board of Appeals
Date: December 22, 2017
RE: LWRP Referral— 1505 Birdseye Road, LLC, Orient#7140
Mark,
Please see enclosed a revised site plan prepared by Andrew Pollock, Architect, P.C. received
on December 20, 2017 for your review.
Along with the submission, we received a letter from the applicant's representative, Michael
Kimack, Esq., indicating that revisions were the result of the NYSDEC comments.
Enclosures.
#0002199480
STATE OF NEW YORK)
)SS:
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK)
Karen Kine of Mattituck,in said county,being duly swom,says that she is Principal Clerk
of THE SUFFOLK TIMES , a weekly newspaper,published at Mattituck, in the Town of
Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, and that the Notice of which the annexed
is a printed copy, has been regularly published in said Newspaper once each week for I
weeks(s),successfully commencing on 04/26/2018
�/44-4��
Principal Clerk
Sworn to before me this day of 4
CHRISTINA VOLINSK 0
NOTARY PUBLIC-STAU OF NEW YORK
No 01VO6105050
Qualified in Suffolk County
My COMMISS1011 tiplibi Febrijoty 28.2020
TYPESET Wed Apr 18 13-28-00 EDT 2018
setback of 10 feet; 2) more than the code CHAIRPERSON
LEGAL NO'nCE permitted maximum lot coverage of 20%,-lo- BY Kim E.Fuentes
SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD cated at 440 South Lane(Adj to Orient Har- 54375 Main Road(Office Location)
OF APPEALS bor),East Marion,NY SCTM#1000-38-6-12 53095 Main Road(Mailing/USPS)
THURSDAY,MAY 3,2018 11:00 A.M.-LEFKARA HOLDINGS LLC PO Box 1179
PUBLIC HEARINGS #7158-Request for Variances from Article Southold,NY 11971-0959
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN,pursuant to XXII,Section 280-116A,Article XXIII,Sec- 2199480
Section 267 of the Town Law and Town Code tion 280-124, and the Building Inspector's
Chapter 280(Zoning),Town of Southold,the January 16,2018,Amended February 5,2018
following public hearings will be held by the Notice of Disapproval based on an applica-
SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF tion for a building permit to construct addi-
APPEALS at the Town Hall, 53095 Main tions and alterations to an existing single fam-
Road,PO Box 1179, Southold,New York ily dwelling and to construct new accessory
11971-0959,on THURSDAY,MAY 3,2018. structures,1)less than the code required 100
9:30 A.M.-KEVIN FOOTE#7127-(Ad- feet from the top of the bluff;2)more than the
joumed from February 1,2018)Request for code permitted maximum lot coverage of
Variances from Article III, Section 280-15, 20%;located at 1070 The Strand,(Adj to the
Article XXIII, Section 280-124, and the Long Island Sound) East Marion, NY.
Building Inspector's October 6,2017 Notice SCTM#1000-30-2-77
of Disapproval based on an application for a 11:15 A.M.-WILLIAM AND LORRAINE
building permit for additions and alterations MCINTOSH#7159-Request for a Variance
to an existing single family dwelling, con- from Article IV, Section 280-18, and the
struction of an accessory garage, and con- Building Inspector's November 30,2017 No-
struction of an accessory swimming pool;1) tice of Disapproval based on an application
additions and alterations to a single family for a building permit to construct additions
dwelling located less than the code required and alterations to an existing single family
minimum front yard setback of 35 feet, 2) dwelling,1)less than the code required mini-
proposed accessory garage located in other mum side yard setback of 15 feet,located at
than the code required rear yard,3)proposed 395 Holden Avenue Extension,Cutchogue,,
accessory swimming pool located in other NY SCTM#1000-103-13-31
than the code required rear yard,located at. 1:00 P.M. - TOU PATERA MOU, LLC,
780 Champlin Place, Greenport, NY NICK MOSHOURIS#7158-Request for a
SCTM#1000-34.-3-36.1. Variance from Article XXIII, Section
9:45 A.M.-TIMOTHY I AND NANCY 280-124, and the Building Inspector's De-
LEE HILL#7155-Request for a Variance cember 19,2017 Notice of Disapproval based
from Article XXIII,Section 280-124 and the on an application for a building permit to
Building Inspector's December 14,2017 No- legalize"as built"demolition and to construct
tice of Disapproval based on an application additions to a single family dwelling;1)less
for a building permit to legalize an"as built" than the code required minimum front yard
deck addition and to construct additions and setback of 35 feet, located at 295 Central
alterations to an existing single family Drive, Mattituck, NY SCTM#1000-106-3-
dwelling, 1) more than the code permitted 20
maximum lot coverage of 20%; located at- 1:15 P.M. - THOMAS SIMON AND
360 Oak Avenue, Southold, NY JEANNE SHANAHAN#7161-Request for
SCTM#1000-77-2-2. a Variance from Article III,Section 280-15,
10:00 A.M. 1505 BIRDSEYE ROAD, Article IV,280-19,and the Building Inspec-
LLC, 7140 (Adjourned from March 1, tor's December 4, 2017 Notice of Disap-
2018)Request for Variances from Article IV, proyal based on an application for a building
Section 280-18, Article XXII, Section permit to construct an in-ground swimming
280-105,Article XXII,Section 280-116,and pool, 1) located in other than the code re-
the Building Inspector's November 17 2017, quired rear yard,located at 1375 Greenway
Amended November 22,2017 Notice of Dis- East,Orient,NY SCTM#1000-15-1-13.
approval based on an application for a 1:30 P.M. - STEPHANIE L. TEICHER
building permit to construct a new single fam- #7138-(Adjourned from April 5,2018)Re-
ily dwelling and to erect deer fence at a height quest for Variances from Article XXII,Sec-
of 8 feet at, 1) proposed single family tion 280-116 A(l), Article XXIII, Section
dwelling located less than the code required 280-124� and the Building Inspector's No-
minimum front yard setback of 50 feet, 2) vember 15, 2017, amended November 20,
proposed dwelling located less than the code 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an ap-
required 100 feet from the top of the bluff,3) plication for a building permit to legalize"as-
proposed deer fence more than the code re- built"additions to an existing single family
qu ired maximum four(4)feet in height when dwelling, at, 1) located less than the code
located in the front yard, located at 1505 required 100 feet from the top of the bluff,2)
Birdseye Road, (Adj to the Long Island less than the code required minimum rear yard
Sound)Orient,NY SCTM#1000 17-1-4 setback of 50 feet-,located at- 6825 Nassau
10:30 A.M. - SARA LAM[M AND MAT- Point Road,(Adj to Little Peconic Bay)Cut-
THEW ASELTON#7156-Request for a chogue,NY SCTM#1 000 111-15-8 2
Variance from Article 111,Section 280-15 and The Board of Appeals will hear all persons
the Building Inspector's December 20,2017 or their representatives,desiring to be heard at
Notice of Disapproval based on an applica- each hearing,and/or desiring to submit writ-
tion for a building permit to construct an ac- ten statements before the conclusion of each
cessory in-ground swimming pool,1)located hearing Each hearing will
in other than the code required rear yard, not start earlier than designated above Files
located at 1045 Orchard Street,Orient,NY are available for review during regular busi-
SCTM#1000-25-2-20 22 ness hours and
10:45 A.M.-PETER PATINELLA#7157- prior to the day of the hearing If you have
Request for Variances from Article XXIII, questions,please contact our office at,(631)
Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's 765-1809, or by email KimF@
January 15,2018 Notice of Disapproval based southoldtownny gov
on an application for a building permit to Dated April 19,2018
construct additions and alterations to an exist- ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
ing single family dwelling, 1) located less LESLIE KANES WEISMAN,
than the code required minimum side yard
BOARD MEMBERS rjf S Southold Town Hall
Leslie Kanes Weisman,Chairperson 53095 Main Road-P.O.Box 1179
Southold,NY 11971-0959
Patricia Acampora Office Location:
Eric Dantes Town Annex/First Floor,Capital One Bank
Gerard P.Goehringer 54375 Main Road(at Youngs Avenue)
Nicholas Planamento Southold,NY 11971
http://southoldtownny.gov
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Tel.(631) 765-1809-Fax(631)765-9064
LEGAL NOTICE
SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
THURSDAY, MARCH 1, 2018
PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and Town Code
Chapter 280 (Zoning), Town of Southold, the following public hearing will be held by the
SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS at the Town Hall, 53095 Main Road,
Southold, New York 11971-0959, on THURSDAY, MARCH 1, 2018.
10:15 A.M. - 1505 BIRDSEYE ROAD, LLC, 7140 — Request for Variances from Article IV,
Section 280-18; Article XXII, Section 280-105; Article XXII, Section 280-116; and the
Building Inspector's November 17 2017, Amended November 22, 2017 Notice of
Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to construct a new single
family dwelling and to erect deer fence at a height of 8 feet at; 1) proposed single family
dwelling located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 50 feet; 2)
proposed dwelling located less than the code required 100 feet from the top of the bluff;
3) proposed deer fence more than the code required maximum four (4) feet in height
when located in the front yard, located at: 1505 Birdseye Road, (Adj. to the Long Island
Sound) Orient, NY. SCTM#1000 17-1-4.
The Board of Appeals will hear all persons, or their representatives, desiring to be heard
at each hearing, and/or desiring to submit written statements before the conclusion of
each hearing. Each hearing will not start earlier than designated above. Files are
available for review during regular business hours and prior to the day of the hearing. If
you have questions, please contact our office at (631) 765-1809, or by email:
kimf@southoldtownny.gov
Dated: February 15, 2018 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
LESLIE KANES WEISMAN, CHAIRPERSON
By: Kim E. Fuentes
54375 Main Road (Office Location)
53095 Main Road (Mailing/USPS)
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971-0959
Q02173680
STATE OF NEW YORK)
)SS:
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK)
Karen Kine of Mattituck,in said county,being duly sworn,says that she is Principal Clerk
of- THE SUFFOLK TIMES ' a weekly newspaper,published at Mattituck, in the Town of
Southold,County of Suffolk and State of New York, and that the Notice of which the annexed
is a printed copy, has been regularly published in said Newspaper once each week for 1
weeks(s),successfully commencing on 02/22/2018
Principal Clerk
Sworn to before me this day of
CHRISTINA VOLINSKI
NOTARY PUBLIC-STATE OF NEW YORK
No. 01V06105050
QuQlified in Suffolk County
MY COMM16110M 1110011 Nbfiiary 28,2020
TYPESET- Tue Feb 13 13-57 16 EST 2018
SCTM No. 100048-2-22.1 based on the non-conforming lot held in common own-
LEGAL NOTICE Building Inspector's October 4,2017 No- ership with the first lot at any time after
SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD tice of Disapproval, which states that a July 1,1983 and that non-conforming lots
OF APPEALS non-conforming lot shall merge with an shall merge until the total lot size conforms
THURSDAY,MARCH 1,2018 adjacent conforming or non-conforming to the current bulk schedule requirements
PUBLIC BEARINGS lot held in common ownership with the (minimum 40,000 sq.ft.in the R-40 Resi-
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN,pursuant to first lot at any time after July 1,1983 and dential Zoning District);located,at 6125
Section 267 of the Town Law and Town Code that non-conforming lots shall merge until County Route 48,Mattituck,NY. SCTM
Chapter 280(Zoning),Town of Southold,the the total lot size conforms to the current Nos.1000-139-3-49 and 1NO-139-3-50.
following public hearings will be held by the bulk schedule requirements (minimum The Board of Appeals will hear all persons
SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF 40,000 sq.ft in the R40 Residential Zon- or their representatives,desiring to beheard at
APPEALS at the Town Hall, 53095 Main ing District);located,at 360 Flint Street, each hearing,and/or desiring to submit writ-
Road,P.O. Box 1179, Southold,New York Greenport,NY.SCTM Nos.100048-2-22.1 ten statements before the conclusion of each
11971-0959, on THURSDA MARCH 1, and 100048-2-23. hearing. Each hearing will not start earlier
2018. 11:00 A.M. -JOANNA DIXON REIS- than designated above Files are available for
9:30 A.M.-SEVEN CATS INVESTMENT, MAN#7141—Request for a Variance from review during regular business hours and
LLC#7136—Request for Variances from Article XXIH, Section 280-124 and the prior to the day of the hearing If you have
Article III, Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's November 22,2017, questions,please contact our office at.(63 1)
Building Inspector's November 8, 2017, Notice of Disapproval based on an applica- 765-1809. or by email K1mF@
Notice of Disapproval based on an applica- tion for a building permit to construct ad- NOLitholdiownny gov
tion for a building permit to legalize an ditions and alterations to an existing single Dated February 15 2017
'4as-built"deck addition attached to a pre- family dwelling; at; 1)less than the code ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
existing single family dwelling;at;1)less required minimum front yard setback of LESLIE KANES WEISMAN,
than the code required minimum front 40 feet;located at:2360 North Sea Drive, CHAIRPERSON
yard setback of 35-feeqZ)less than the code Southold NY.SCTM#1000 54-5-1. BY:Kim E.Fuentes
required minimum side yard setback of 10 11:15 A.M. - JOSEPH RICHBURG 54375 Main Road(Office Location)
feet; located at: 145 Dickerson Street, #7142—Request for a Variance from Arti- 53095 Main Road(Mailing/USPS)
Peconic NY.SCTM#1000 67-3-11. cle XXIII, Section 280-124 and the PO.Box 1179
9:45 '�.M. - SV GRFENPORT LLC, Building Inspector's November 1, 2017, Southold, NY
(SOUNDVIEW) #7137 — Request for a Notice of Disapproval based on an applica- 11971-0959
Variance from Article XIEK,Section 280-85 tion for a building permit to construct a 2173680
J(4)and the Building Inspector's October deck addition to an existing single family
3,2017,Notice of Disapproval based on an dwelling;at;1)less than the code required
application for a building permit to install minimum side yard setback of 10 feet;lo-
a wall sign;at; 1)more than the code re- cated at:675 Sunset Lane,Greenport,NY.
quired maximum number of wall signs al- SCTM#1000 33-4-55.
lowed on subject premises; located at: 11:30 A.M. - KEVIN WHITROCK
58775 County Route 48,(Adj.to Long Is- #7143—Request for Variances from Article
land Sound)Greenport,NY.SCTM#1000 III,Section 280-15B and 280-15F,Article
44-2-20. XXIII,Section 280-124;and the Building
10:00 A.M.-STEPHANIE L,TEICHER Inspector's September 6,2017,Amended
#7138—Request for Variances from Article October 31, 2017 Notice of Disapproval
XXII,Section 280-116 A(1);Article XXIH, based on an application for a building per-
Section 280-124;and the Building Inspec- mit to demolish an existing single family
tor's November 15,2017,amended Novem- dwelling, construct a new single family
ber 20,2017 Notice of Disapproval based dwelling and a new accessory garage;at;1)
on an application for a building permit to proposed dwelling located less than the
legalize"as-built"additions to an existing code required minimum rear yard setback
single family dwelling; at; 1)located less of 50 feet;2)proposed dwelling located less
than the code required 100 feet from the than the code required minimum side yard
top of the bluff,2) less th'an the code re- setback of 15 feet; 3) proposed dwelling
quired minimum rear yard setback of 50 located less than the code required mini-
feet;located at:6825 Nassau Point Road, mum total side yard setback of 20 feet;4)
(Adj. to Little Peconic Bay) Cutchogne, proposed accessory garage located less
NY.SCTM#1000 111-15-8.2. than the code required minimum(2)side
10:15 A.M.-1505 BIRDSEYE ROAD yard setback(s) of 15 feet; at: 580 Terry
LLC,7140—Request for Variances from Path, Mottituck, (Adj. to Great Peconic
Article IV,Section 280-18; Article XXII, Bay),Mattituck,NY.SCTM#1000-123-6-
Section 280-105; Article XXII, Section 20.
280-116;and the Building Inspector's No- 1:00 P.M. - ELIZABETH BRANCH
vember 17 2017,Amended November 22, AND DAVID BRANCH#7144—Request
2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an for a Variance from Article XXIH,Section
application for a building permit to con- 280-IZ3A and the Building Inspector's Oc-
struct a new single family dwelling and to tober 25,2017,Notice of Disapproval based
erect deer fence at a height of 8 feet at;1) on an application for a building permit to
proposed single family dwelling located construct additions and alterations to an
less than the code required minimum front existing accessory guest cottage;at;1)the
yard setback of 50 feet; 2) proposed accessory guest cottage is not a permitted
dwelling located less than the code re- accessory use,at:5160 Indian Neck Lane
quired 100 feet from the top of the bluff-,3) (Adj.to Hog Neck Bay,Little Peconic Bay),
proposed deer fence more than the code Peconic,NY.SCTM#1000-98-4-23.
required maximum four(4)feet in height 1:15 P.M. - LEJON ENTERPRISES
when located in the front yard,located at: INC, L. HOEFFNER, CONTRACT
1505 Birdseye Road,(Adj.to the Long Is- VENDEE#7145—Request for a Waiver of
land Sound) Orient, NY. SCTM#1000 Merger petition under Article II,Section
17-1-4. 280-10A, to unmerge land identified as
10:30 A.M. - MONAY BELL AND SCTM No. 1000-139-3-49, which has
JAMES BRENNAN (BRYAN NICHOL- merged with SCTM No. 1000-139-3-50,
SON,AS CONTRACT VENDEE)#7139— based on the Building Inspector's Novem-
Request for a Waiver of Merger petition ber 28,2017 Notice of Disapproval,which
under Article 11,Section 280-10A,to on- states that a non-conforming lot shall
merge land identified as SCTM No. merge with an adjacent conforming or
1000-48-2-23 which has merged with
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SOUTHOLD,NEW YORK
AFFIDAVIT
OF
In the Matter of the Application of MAILINGS
zz C
(Name of Applicants)
SCTM Parcel# 1000- 11- 1 - 4
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
STATE OF NEW YORK
r/ residing at r
C1.1,4'., IeIN4 clz� 8 0,e /,0 4 7/ a4O NY
New York, being duly sworn, deposes and says that: ?71
On the 5-4 day of,,��,ff(J,4RY , 2WiF, I personally mailed at the United
' States Post Office in-SO VIN IOZ/-? New York, by CERTIFIED MAIL,
RETURNRECEIPT REQUESTED, a true copy of the attached Legal Notice in
Prepaid envelopes addressed to current property owners shown on the current assessment
roll verified from the official records on file with the (4 Assessors, or County Real
Property Office for every property which abuts and is across a public or private street,
or vehicular right-of-way of record, surrounding the applicant's property.
&,&e�azl- a
(Signature)
Sworn to before me this
day of 20
(Notary Public)
PLEASE list on the back of this Affidavit or on a sheet of paper,the lot numbers next
to the owner names and addresses for which notices were mailed. Thank you.
)0 z
-0 f ZA
7Z4 /VV, /
`7 01AI 0
Joe jv'�WAAW�
At-
P A/_57j) Al
v 05:1 ARIZ r.
Aly
IoO24
COMPLETE THIS SECTION WDELIVERY
SENDER COMPLkTE THIS SECTION
t
• Complete items 1,2,and 3. 0 Agent
• Print your name and address on the reverse X '��abA 0 Addressee
so that we can return the card to you. B. Recei d jb blecd,NamW)— C. Date of Delivery
. .1"
• Attach this card to the back of the mallpiece, 9
or on the front if space permits.
1. Article A;dre.sed to.' D. Is delivery address different from item 1? 11 Yes
If YES:�&ffife—�rodelive address below: No
%-; j -
5'DA/ ry
j-,911AI J-oseWV
Apr
v
1111111111 Jill 1111111111111111111 36 S e r�'1'66'��'Ty 13 Priority Mail ExpressO
u I
Adult St'net r------- 0 Registered MailT11
g
Adult signature Restricted Delivery [I Registered Mail Restricted
9590 9402 2472 6306 2670 05 ertified Mai(D 4 D:tl,.very
0 Certified Mai�Restricted Delivery m Receipt for
0 Collect on Delivery Merchandise
D Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery 0 Signature Confirmation�
2. Article Number(Transfer from service lahPf 0 Signature Confirmation
D Insured Mail Restricted Delivery
0001 5426 9363 El Insured Mail Restricted Delivery
.5 0640 Domestic Return Receipt
PS Form 3811,July 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9053
TION ON DELIVERY
COMPLETE THIS SEC
SENDER COMPLETE-THIS SECTION
• Complete items 1,2,and 3. A. 975 13 Agent
• Print your name and address on the reverse X 0 Addressee
so that we can return the card to you. B. Received by,4(Pnnted�NahYe-) 0. Date of Delivery
• Attach this card to the back of the mailplece,
or on the front if space permits. I ([ 0 P-e 4X
1. Article Addressed to: I—Pis delivery address different from item 1? 11 Yes
PORO 7M6A 0 If YES,enter delivery address below: 0 No
C44R,4W641 P64V
/Vv 165d
3. Service Type 0 Priority Mail Express@
0 Adult Signature 0 Registered MajIT14
IIIIIIIIIIII Jill 11111111111111111111 0 Adult Signature Restricted Delivery 0 Registered Mail Restricted!
9590 9402 2472 6306 2669 23 ��erhfied Mail@ 4eli.very
•Certified Mail Restricted Delivery Met rn Receipt for
•Collect on Delivery erchandise
•Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery D Signature Confirmation
2. Article Number(Transfqr from service labeT)— 0 Insured Mail 0 Signature Confirmation
1 0 Insured Mail Restricted Delivery Restricted Delivery
015 0640 0001 5426 9349 1 1 (over$500)
Domestic Return Receipt
PS Form 3811,July 2015 P 3N 7530-02-000-9053
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 41-1( 40
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SOUTHOLD,NEW YORK jv�;- 6"selz
AFFIDAVIT
OF
In the Matter of the Application of POSTING
z!ny-!5-- g/,PP-WM
Name of Applicants)
Regarding Posting of Sign upon
Applicant's Land Identified as
SCTM Parcel #1000- 1.7- 1
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK)
STATE OF NEW YORK)
I, /4;�"Ve residing at 7
f7
/New York, being duly sworn, depose and say that:
On the day of 15�64�W 2016, 1 personally placed the Town's
Official Poster, with the date of hearing and nature of my application noted thereon,
securely upon my property, located ten(10) feet or closer from the street or right-of-
way (driveway entrance)-facing the street or facing each street or right-of-way entrance,*
and that
I hereby confirm that the Poster has remained in place for seven (7) days prior to the
date of the subject hearing date, which hearing date was shown to be 1",VQX14 ZV100
�,&�la,�ee
(Signature)
Sworn to before me this
20-�'DayofFebrLwL�i 201&
TRACEY L. DWYER
NOTARY PUBLIC,STATE OF NEW YORK
NO.01 DW6306900
QUALIFIED IN SUFFOLK COUNTY
(Nc&ffy Public) COMMISSION EXPIRES JUNE 30,2-QL$
near the entrance or driveway entrance of my property, as the area most visible to passerby.
J
U
Lr,
M.
a
Er M
R Z Er W,
"14 Y
en 011fl L11q5
�,MEIIYL�
Lp a L
j�� �j= Up iF C�
ru ��5 L
Certified Mail Fee $3.45 f 971 ru Certified Mail Fee
$ $3.4 5 0971
Ln $ $2-7-
U,
Extra Services&Fees(cleclbox, OLD i Lr) $
.turn Receipt(h: copy) $ $2 2
7 $ We"
0 Return Receipt(hardcopy) Extra Services&Fees(check box,color as
ri
E3 [I Return Receipt(electronic) $ *4 Postmark rzi El Return Receipt(hardcopy) $
1:3 ElCartified Mall Restricted Delivery $ M E]Return Receipt(electronic) $ Pos
$0 00 Here E3 E]Certified Mall Restricted D livery
C3 [I Adult Signature Required $ $G-AA CO F8-5 V,8 -4 M quired a
[]Adult Signature Restricted Delivery [:]Adult Signature Re
M �-O—stage []Adult Signature Restricted Dellven
C3 Postage
$ 1 $0.50
r-3 Total Postage and Fees 2 $
$6.70 r-3 Total Postage and Ff?.7 0
Ln $
r9 Sent To - Ln $
C3 WAI wrm� rq S tT(
SiFjOifi, A�FN--iTFgUi 0. ---------------------- IZ-3 MWOW Se- -------------
S AWF 42T --- ---------
treat arid
C
ty,State,21A+40 00mv
IV
Er
M
Er
SCARSDAEE Y—MLI 10583
W (5ertified Mail Fee
�:J- $3.45 0971
Ln, $ it') '7r, 1,4y 1., 02
Extra Services&Fees(check box,a
rq El Return Receipt(hardcopy)
r3 E]Return Receipt(electronic) , $ in-nn Post#
C3 0 Certified Mall Restricted Delivery $ 1
1--3 []Adult Signature Required d,<-3
E]Adult Signature Restricted Delivery I
C3 Postage
$
C3 Total Postage and Fees
$ $6.70
Ln Sent To
Fjj51-PnddA w No-----191 ----------
Q�---------------
------ - ----- --- )---------
e 11C
M.
'Ichael A. Kimack, Esq.
U.S. POSTAGE
Attorney at Law
SOUTHOLD, NY
11971
P.O.Box 1047 FEB 05, 18
Southold,N.Y.11971 AMOUNT
7015 0640 0001 5426 9356 10():) 111111111111 $6.70
11957 R2305K1 33607-02
01AI 6
041
F,
0 elZ:A17) N. Y 1195--7
I �s 4v� �� 'WMED
N ME SC
NOTIFY SE 00 NDE 1 A! C Z s-
O'CgERL-1—19niR N"D E-K 0 F N F: A—D D F Eus s
AQUINO
1710 N SAVIEW RD EXTENTION
SOUTHICILD FNfY 1193-7
RET
11 hH
4 Ti F HEAR1 ,4G
U (M� E U
"he following application will be heard by the Southold Town
Board of Appeals at Town Hall , 53095 Main Road, Southold:
E
NAME . 1505 BIRDSEYE ROAD , LLC
# 7140
ZCTM # mm I 000= 1 7= 1 =4
ARIANCE : BLUFF & YARD SETBACK FOR
DWELLING & LOCATION OF FENCE
A
VEQUESTm NEW DWELLING & DEER FENCE
E
1: ATEE THURS . , MARCH 1 , 2018 10 : 15AM
you are interested in this project, you may review the file(s) prior to the
earing during normal business days between 8 AM and 3 PM. ZONING
BOARD OF APPEALS-TOWN OF SOUTHOLD (631 ) 765-1809
ONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MAILING ADDRESS and PLACE OF HEARINGS: 53095 Main Road, Town Hall Building,
P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959
(631) 765-1809 Fax 765-9064
LOCATION OF ZBA OFFICE: Town Hall Annex at North Fork Bank Building, 1st Floor
54375 Main Road and Youngs Avenue, Southold
website: hU://southtown.nortlifork.net
February 5, 2018
Re: Town Code Chapter 55 -Public Notices for Thursday, March 1, 2018
Hearing
Dear Sir or Madam:
Please find enclosed a copy of the Legal Notice describing your recent application. The Notice
will be published in the next issue of The Suffolk Times.
1) Before February 12 th
Please send the enclosed Legal Notice, with both a Cover Letter including your telephone
number and a copy of your Survey or Site Plan (filed with this application) which shows the
new construction area or other request, by CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT
REQUESTED, to all owners of property (tax map with property numbers enclosed), vacant or
improved, which abuts and any property which is across from any public or private street.
Use the current owner name and addresses shown on the assessment rolls maintained by the
Southold Town Assessors' Office, or Real Property Office at the County Center, Riverhead'. If
you know of another address for a neighbor, you may want to send the notice to that address as
well. If any letter is returned to you undeliverable, you are requested to make other attempts to
obtain a mailing address or to deliver the letter to the current owner, to the best of your ability,
and to confirm how arrangements were made in either a written statement, or during the
hearing, providing the returned letter to us as soon as possible;
AND not, later than February 20th: Please either mail or deliver to our office your Affidavit of
Mailing (form enclosed) with parcel numbers, names and addresses noted, along with the
green/white receipts postmarked by the Post Office. When the green signature cards are
returned to you later by the Post Office, please mail or deliver them to us before the scheduled
hearing. If any envelope is returned "undeliverable", please advise this office as soon as
possible. If any signature card is not returned, please advise the Board during the hearing and
provide the card (when available). These will be kept in the permanent record as proof of all
Notices.
2) Not Later February 21st: Please make arrangements to place the enclosed Poster on a
signboard such as cardboard, plywood or other material, posting it at the subject property seven
(7) days (or more) prior to hearing. (it is the applicant/agents responsibility to maintain sign
until Public Hearing) Securely place the sign on your property facing the street, not more than
10 feet from the front property line bordering the street. If you border more than one street or
roadway, an extra sign is supplied for posting on both front yards. Please deliver or mail your
Affidavit of Posting for receipt by our office before February 27, 2018.
If you are not able to meet the deadlines stated in this letter, please contact us promptly. Thank
you for your cooperation. (PLEASE DISPLAY YOUR HOUSE NUMBER ALWAYS).
Very truly yours,
Zoning Appeals Board and Staff
Ends.
BOARD MEMBERS �,rjf so Southold Town Hall
Leslie Kanes Weisman,Chairperson 53095 Main Road-P.O.Box 1179
Southold,NY 11971-0959
Patricia Acampora Office Location:
Eric Dantes Town Annex/First Floor,Capital One Bank
Gerard P.Goehringer 54375 Main Road(at Youngs Avenue)
Nicholas Planamento Southold,NY 11971
cou
http://southoldtownny.gov
EC E VE51
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS _nni
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD NOV 2 8 2017
Tel.(631) 765-1809-Fax(631)765-9064 EE I
Southold Town
November 28, 2017 L_ Planning Board
Mark Terry, Principal Planner
L)AW Coordinator
Planning Board Office
Town of Southold
Town Hall Annex
Southold, NY 11971
Re: ZBA File Ref. No. # 7140 1505 Birdseye Rd., LLC
Dear Mark:
We have received an application to construct a new single family dwelling and a deer
fence. A copy of the Building Inspector's Notice of Disapproval under Chapter 280
(Zoning Code), and survey map, project description form,-are attached for your reference.
Your written evaluation with recommendations for this proposal, as required under the
Code procedures of LWRP Section 268-51) is requested within 30 days of receipt of this
letter.
Thank you.
--Very truly–y-ours—
Leslie K. Weisman
Chairperson
By:
BOARD MEMBERS SO Southold Town Hall
53095 Main Road-P.O.Box 1179
Leslie Kanes Weisman,Chairperson Southold,NY 11971-0959
Patricia Acampora Office Location:
Eric Dantes Town Annex/First Floor,Capital One Bank
Gerard P.Goehringer 54375 Main Road(at Youngs Avenue)
Nicholas Planamento cou Southold,NY 11971
http://southoldtownny.gov
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
TOVVN OF SOUTHOLD
Tel.(631)765-1809 *Fax(631)765-9064
November 28, 2017
Suffolk County Soil and Water
Conservation District
Attn: Corey Humphrey
423 Griffing Ave.,
Suite 110
Riverhead, New York 11 go 1
Re: ZBA # 7140 1505 Birdseye Rd., LLC
Dear Sir or Madam:
We have received an application for a project adjacent to a waterway,
shown on the enclosed site map. The hearing on this application is
expected to be held in approximately 3 weeks.
Enclosed is a copy of the site map, together with the application and a
copy of the area map. May we ask for your assistance in an evaluation
and recommendations for this proposal.
Thank you for your assistance.
Very truly yours,
Leslie K. Weisman
Chairperson
By:
Encls.
BOARD MEMBERS *rif SO Southold Town Hall
Leslie Kanes Weisman,Chairperson o- 53095 Main Road-P.O. Box 1179
Southold,NY 11971-0959
Patricia Acampora Office Location:
Eric Dantes Town Annex/First Floor,Capital One Bank
Gerard P.Goehringer 54375 Main Road(at Youngs Avenue)
Nicholas Planamento Cou T1 Southold,NY 11971
http://southoldtownny.gov
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Tel.(631)765-1809-Fax(631)765-9064
MEMO
TO: ENGINEERING
FROM: Leslie K. Weisman, ZBA Chairperson
DATE: November 28, 2017
SUBJECT: Request for Comments ZBA# 7140 1505 Birdseye Rd., LLC (1000-17-1-
4)
The ZBA is reviewing the following application. Enclosed are copies of Building
Department's Notice of Disapproval, ZBA application, current map on file. Your review
and comments are requested at this time.
The file is available for review of additional documentation at your convenience for
reference if needed.
APPLICANT TAX# ZBA# HEARING CODE DATE OF PREPARER
ZONE DATE SECTION STAMPED OF
DIST SURVERY/SITE SURVEY/SITE
PLAN PLAN
1505 1000- 7140 March 1, Art. XXI I Sec Nov. 16, 2017 Andrew
Birdseye Rd., 17-1-4 2018 280-116 & Pollock
LLC 105 Architect, PC
Art IV Sec
280-18
Your comments are requested 1 week prior to hearing date.
Thank you.
Encls.
4 6
BOARD MEMBERS r Southold Town Hall
Leslie Kanes Weisman,Chairperson jf S 53095 Main Road-P.O.Box 1179
Southold,NY 11971-0959
Patricia Acampora Office Location:
Eric Dantes CA Town Annex/First Floor,Capital One Bank
Gerard P.Goehringer
Q, 54375 Main Road(at Youngs Avenue)
Nicholas Planamento coum Southold,NY 11971
http://southoldtownny.gov
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Tel.(631)765-1809-Fax(631)765-9064
November 28, 2017
Ms. Sarah Lansdale, Director
Suffolk County Department of Planning
P.O. Box 6100
Hauppauge, NY 11788-0099
Dear Ms. Lansdale :
Please find enclosed the following application with related documents for review
pursuant to Article XIV of the Suffolk County Administrative Code:
ZBA File # 7140 Owner/Applicant : 1505 BIRDSEYE RD., LLC
Action Requested: Construct a new single family dwelling and a deer fence.
Within 500 feet of: ( ) State or County Road
(X) Waterway (Bay, Sound, or Estuary)
Boundary of Existing or Proposed County, State, Federal land.
Boundary of Agricultural District
Boundary of any Village or Town
If any other information is needed, please do not hesitate to call us. Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Leslie K. Weisman
ZBA Chairperson
B
Encls.
�2'72qF�
9�
tv
2920 SqF-
ft
2'340 S
ci I
3740 SqF 131900
1 131050 SqF
W2 74 �q F)
-1110
2'0 '520 Sq
4/260 Sq
5'620 Sql ,
low
' 11 '380SqF -74 #&.mom
210$0 SqF]
A 2700 S F t I �31850 SqF
3340 SqF
Sq
2'860 SqFw, f,
31000 Sq im�p
F
3'3OeSqF
N
(90
SURVEY OF PROPERTY
A T ORIENT
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SUFFOLK COUNTY, MY
1000-17-01-04
SCALK 40'
Zone Line OCTOBER 17, 2012
4 NOVEMBER 30, 2012(REVISION)
06 ;6 JANUARY 2. 2013(ADDITIONS)
0
-0 TO
;R
4 RECEIVED
I, y2n,
%A NOV 2�1 2011
32 r/
d'
"00. ZONIN(c;BOARD OF APPEALS
k LARGE R
kcR
2
26
20'
FR.HSE OP
0 01,
0
UTIL A
POLE Cd
20
0"L S6-16
7EST HOLE DATA
WELL McDONALD GE0SaEYCE
10103112
EL 21.91
PALE BROW SAWY SLT ML
W7H GRAVn IN LAMRS
21'WA7E?IN PALE BROW SILrY ML
WA7ER,1NHROwaAXEYSAND SC
if.
SEPTIC 110'+ WA M?IN BROW RNE 70 COARSE SAND SP
110%.
NOTE: WAM?EYCOUN7ERM f8' BELOW SURFACE
0^
-*I,
.0.
MONUMENT
CEHL from CEHAM Photo 48
Flood Zone lines from FIRM 36103CO064H
and actual conlours,
�c
ELEVA77ONS AND CONTOUR LINES ARE REFERENCED To NAM. ILL.0
T
-1.-556-'.A0WE5 TO 12'LINg' '
AREA�:� oe
I am familiar with the STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL
AND CONSMUC77ON OF SUBSURFACE SEWAGE
DISPOSAL SYS7EMS FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES
and will abide by the conditions set forth therein and on the
permit to construct.
The location of wells and cesspools shown hereon are
from fleld observations and or from data obtained f
rom others.
ANY AL7ERA77ON OR ADDI77ON TO WIS SURWY IS A WOLA77ON
"N�
OF SEC770M 7209 OF THE NEW YORK SrA TIE EDUCA 7701V LAW MAJOV 0 "').S. 1C. NO. 49618
EXCEPr AS PER 5EC`77ON 7209-SUBDIWSION 2 ALL CER77RCA77ONS ROA.D 0
HEREON ARE VAUD FOR 7HIS MAP AND COPIES THEREOF,OAILY W R. —,,' P, /
SAID MAP OR COPIES BEAR 7HE IMPRESSED SEAL OF THE SURVMR (631) *%, 765-1797
*HOSE MGNA TURE APPEARS HEREON. P.0. BOX 4"Xl�e
1230 rr�RAWWM T 12
SOU774OLD, MY 11971 0
fro"V7,
----------
4L
Model Dimensions
24 x 44 inch
c-
kECEIVEE:
X.
Nov 2 12017
0
V ZONING DOARD OF i IPPEALS,
oe
88"
2 lj�,�
10 20
04
U-)Ioc)
4 '0'
10�'
/* 1 0
100e
4*
0(' ------- -I
%l< R 0
C14
xX
A
Ln
C\R 04
20 PHOTOVOLTAIC�R06V
22
x
24
26
2,
LCM0
0 L0
)w
TE�R_,
DW
"POO
w
—100 00L-
0
E
2
I W
-, X,/Q� I -- LP 1z'
11044�?- E
0,
-C4
cl)
EXISTING
FR.HSE SEPT C
21
V -100
GRAV
2 DRIV WAY
2
0c)
10
0
W
0,9,0
------ SITE PLAN
(71� WORKPOINT SETOUT
2 5'—4Z SCALE 1/32" l'—O"
2 8
13'-5 0 10'-11511
2 8
DESIGNER: PROJECT: DRAWING TITLE: JOB NO: 1705
DATE: NOV. 15.2017
C A R L 0 S SITE PLAN SCALE: 1/3Z'=l'-O"
Z A P A T A ORIENT HOUSE WORKPOINT SETOUT SHEET NO.:
S T U D 1 0 1505 BIRDSEYE ROAD
561 broadway,4A/4B New York,NY 10013 ORIENT NY1 1957 As I 00s
LT 212.966.9292 F 212.966.9242
OFFICE LOCATION: AIAILING ADDRESS:
Town Hall Annex �Sjf so P.O.Box 1179
54375 State Road Route 25 Southold,NY 11971
(cor.Main Rd. &Youngs Ave.)
Southold, NY Telephone: 631765-1809
http://southoldtownny.gov
01
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Town of Southold
June 27, 2018
Michael Kimack
P.O. Box 1047
Southold,NY 11971
Re: ZBA Appeal No. 7140
1505 Birdsey Road, LLC
1505 Birdsey Road, Orient
SCTM No. 1000-17-1-4
Dear Mr. Kimack;
Enclosed is a copy of the Zoning Board's June 21, 2018 determination filed today with the
Town Clerk regarding your application.
Sincerely,
im E. Fuentes
Board Assistant
Encl.
cc: Building Department
-7/40
P4, LLjC—
ISLAND
—oo Ts L 40 4f
.0 .60
3.OA
At-
62 UA(c) 15 X
a 9.9. ((VI I I
20A
AA(
N,
5
22- 71 m '5 4 a
(Q 2� sisvd i 4A 1 .4.
A Im ,
cm 17
1 .2 17 z
4
2A 4� 16
1.14 21.1A
23A
pq C)
12-1 13.1 14
",6 1.1A
31
7
91
"6'
9
6
A 4 a 1.1A to Is
0
A'111, 25
6 A
3.3 j9
.9
A'
PWV1Ok
7 4
Taso
X,
Vr
Aa
9
Lc
(WDERWAiM
L4�O)
NOTICE cou:
(21)
OR Real Prc'
NO
—------ DISTRIBUTIONOFANYPC
c�— —L-— A U"" 40 SUFFOLK COUNTY TAX MAP:.PR..0ETE. County
121A(d).,IZlA
WITHOUT V�RITTEN PERMISSION OF THE m
AW V'-- REAL PROPERTY TAX SERVICEAGENCY