Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1000-4.-5-5.9
t�-c 24" DIA COVER j • r'• '' 17-up I�-5 as ❑ o 0 0 00 Ico3 ® R�} 1M1�9. 1. 11 u 0 0 0 0 0 ❑ 0 n (4) 8" DIA KNOCKOUTS , b-IC- Ili y ti� z i0 u o 0 0 0 0 0 o a S{)E ' o o ❑ o 0 0 ❑ 0 o Cp 0 0 0 0 0 0 ❑ 0 6 1, yt3 yr" C C ❑ O C C ❑ 0 C ' APa 28 4''"��` 8'-0" DIA I c • d 1� b O l t' S5� I "MT" SERVICES T 17 _ CRY WELL �.. �7 I0-IZ CROSS SECTION V� r� Aga / y iZ-00 rlP-C NOT TO SCALE I _ rz wd51Ll�� .� S Low- ��J 0 L4 51 KNOCKOUT INLET AND Q OULET OPENINGS �, f 9 o � P\ S ,L Q�\ p: RIBS INS IDE-�� � 12n►-a PI PC 0 GI UI \Pp \ '�y- \ '\ \a��Q\ O\n1�g T \ \\\/� E��+��►�V�E_ \78e/\y1 3�Sy � 3Q(� IJo!1 ,Lt o ' E N �,% ti 1 _ tp moo o O �° CAST I D sV�-j� LflPN CONCRETE COVERS LA LOCKING CASTING TO GRAD FINIS TL1CT� Z � HED oo GRADE CHIMNEY N \ \ 1 I 4 x 4 12.6/12.6 GA. WIRE MESH NOTES: X 12" 6 x 6 6/6 GA. WIRE MESH �4„ 1. COORDINATE DISTANCES ARE MEASURED FROM U.S. COAST AND GEODETIC SURVEY TRIANGULATION �° feu INLET 3" VENT-Ji•. 3' VENT' OUTLET STATION "CHOCOMOUNT 2" 55 \ \ \ \ O 1� LIQUID LEVEL \ 1 4 OUTLET 1 0 CONTINUOUS HOT I ;• ASPHALT SEAL BN D rH 2. SITE IS IN THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, COUNTY OF a" SCHEDULE #40 /6" PVC SUFFOLK, TAX MAP 1000, SECTION 004, BLOCK 5, \ \ \ \ \ \\ z.a�I i/- brx�S �T v ` I 1 \� T INLET BAFFLE 60' GAS l LOT 5.9 \ \ \ \ / t 1 DEFLECTOR (. 1 . 3. . SITE IS TO BE SERVICED BY MUNICIPAL -WATER 1\ 8 =� ,_ 4„ L s•-8„ I �3„ - _ , __. . =AND. ON SITE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM IN CROSS SECTION COMPLIANCE WITH THE STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUFFOLK COUNTY \\ \ \ \ \ \\ \\ \\ \ \ \ \\ DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH \ \ 1000 GALLON 4. SITE IS IN R-120 ZONE \s \\ \\ \\ \ \\ �� -row�L >✓b s COMPARTMENT s t '�� SEPTIC TANK 5. OWNER. Mr. Samuel S. Polk\ \ \\\\ \\ \ zeta+� ,�c.s \ loco 7 �,�•�- \� j NOT To SCALE 485 Harris Road \ \\ \ \ \ \ I Bedford Hills, NY. 10458 W5 3 2,2)530-5352 i \ \ \ \ \ 6. BASE FOR LEVELS: NGVD 1929 (APPROXIMATE) \\o 7.-------36-------- EXISTING CONTOURS d'� TEST HOLE DATA SUr FOLK COY DEPAI;T�,ENT OF HEALTH SERVICES _—s i~iauppas:ge, flew APR K 120R This is to certify that,the P.- posed arrangetuen s for Yor: water supply and se ra ;�0-'41 for D in the with a to#ai of._..r, :..._lots o�4,� \ �\ \\ _ j %"re approvo oral the atove rate.These facilities must conform to 1.1AY 1 8 1992 10 'j r construction r3andards in effect at the time of construction. This Jjj � s approval s.:ali be valid only in the event said subdivision/devel- opment �� I plan is daffy filed v�.th the County Clerk��vithir�fi months of piAri�il° BoAzD +his date. Consent is hereby given for tine fiiirg of this map on which this endorsement appears in the Office of the County Clerk in accor- QO dance with provisions of the Pubiit Health Law and the Suffolk j'� 4 JOSEPH H.SAIER P.E. \\\\ v9>s bw J es � � I ; Ading Dirsetor,Division of Environments Quality \ \\ \ \ lg OF NF APPROVED BY k,r \ , A� \, �P�p H•S�90 7 op� PLANNING BOARD GN TOWN OF SOUTHOLD L-Z>- ' CN o(:o►40u►.l-1- DATE t s e_s t sL-d-LA t� v1 eu) 0- 0495 cop �J ! i L_� I. I- — so' SAND SV SC.A `C `G I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SUBDIVISION PLAT uJrc-I4, Gou�4 e-c-"r,GUT WAS MADE FROM AN ACTUAL SURVFY COMPLET D BY ME ON APRIL 30, 90 AND MONUMENTS ( Ik+ N PINS ) �p�L 3o tip ARE SET SH I 1.DD yj 1 d 9.kW'92. Richard H. Strouse New York Stite I P. L. S. No. 49521 4 � -. i SCOTT L. HARRIS PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennet Orlowski, Jr., Chairman ©� �` Supervisor George Ritchie Latham, Jr. ® Richard G. Ward r Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Mark S. McDonald P.O. Box 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Southold, New York 11971 Telephone.(516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823 May 19, 1992 Stephen L. Ham III Matthews & Ham 45 Hampton Road Southampton, New York 11968 RE: Minor Subdivision for Samuel S. Polk SCTM#1000-4-5-5. 9 Dear Mr. Ham: The following took place at a meeting of the Southold Town Planning Board on Monday, May 18, 1992: The final public hearing, which was held at 7:35 P.M. was closed. The following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, Samuel S. Polk, is the owner of the property known and designated as SCTM#1000-4-5-5. 9, located at Private Road on Fishers Island; and WHEREAS, this minor subdivision, to be known as Minor Subdivision for Samuel S. Polk, is for 2 lots on 4. 88 acres; and WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, (Article 8) , Part 617, declared itself Lead Agency and issued a 'Negative Declaration on December. 9, 1991; and WHEREAS, 'a final public hearing was closed on. said subdivision application at the Town hall, Southold, New York on May 18, 1992; and Page 2 Samuel S. Polk WHEREAS, all the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations of the Town of Southold have been met; and be it therefore, RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board approve and authorize the Chairman to endorse the final survey dated January 9, 1992. Enclosed please find a copy of the map which was endorsed by the Chairman. The mylar maps, which were also endorsed by the Chairman, must be picked up at this office and filed in the office of the County Clerk. Any plat not so filed or recorded within sixty ( 60) days of the date of final approval, shall become null and void. Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above. Very truly yours, Bennett Orlowski, J �vs Chairman Encl. cc: Victor Lessard, Principal Building Inspector Scott Russell, Assessors Office MATTHEWS & HAM .ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAWJ 45 HAMPTON ROAD SOUTHAMPTON,N.Y.11968 �'S ''� 516-283-2400 PHILIP B.MATTHEWS TELECOPIER 516-287-1076 STEPHEN L.HAM,Ea September 10, 1991 Planning Board Town of Southold Town Hall Main Road G� vL,y Southold, NY 11971 Re: Minor Subdivision of Samuel S. Polk; (SCTM # 1000-4-5-5.9) Dear Board Members: In connection with the referenced application for a minor subdivision, I have enclosed the following: 1. Copy of deed to Mr. Polk dated December 6, 1990. 2 . Form letter regarding drainage, roads, etc. 3 . Full Environmental Assessment Form, with Part I completed. 4 . Application for Approval of Plat. 5. Copy of Certificate of Occupancy covering the existing structure on the subject premises. 6. Our check to the Town of Southold in the amount of $2 , 000. 00. 7. Questionnaire, duly acknowledged. 8. Twelve prints of the Minor Subdivision Plan showing the proposed lots. . 9 . Authorization for me to act in connection with this Application on behalf of the owner, Samuel S. Polk. D Continued � 1 1991 F��ANNING BOARD r ' Planning Board September 10, 1991 Town of Southold Re: Polk Page 2 As you are aware, this application has some history. A similar application for minor subdivision approval creating these lots was submitted last fall on behalf of .the then owners, Isabel Leib and Theodore Danforth. After some discussions with the Town Attorney, that application was returned to me because the lots did not meet the new minimum area requirement' in this R-120 Zone District. Earlier this year, . based on the recent Court of Appeals decision in Ellington Construction Corp. v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 77 N.Y. 2d 114 (1990) , the Town took the position that the zoning requirements in effect when the FIDCO Map was initially approved were applicable to the lots shown on that Map. Since this site was approved for- two lots on the FIDCO Map and the two proposed lots met the minimum area requirement in effect when the Map was• originally approved, there was no longer any necessity to obtain variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Accordingly, I submitted an application in April on behalf of the new owner, Samuel Polk, only to have that application returned because the FIDCO Map had not been filed with the County. I understand that the FIDCO Map was re-approved and re- endorsed last evening and I have therefore been advised by your , staff that you will now consider the enclosed application. Please review the enclosed documents and notify me immediately if any further information or documentation will be required before this matter can be placed on the calendar. Very truly yours, A041-t-- bla-t-14 Step en L. Ham, III SLH:ja Enclosure D rs � �' QV SEP , 199 SOU 01 APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF PLAT To the Planning Board of the Town of Southold: The undersigned applicant hereby applies for (tentative) (final) approval of a subdivision plat in accordance with Article 16 of the Town La-%v and the Rules and Regulations of the Southold Towel Planning Board, and represents and states as follows: authorized agent of the 1. The applicant is the/owner of record of the land under application. (If the applicant is not the owner of record of the land under application, the applicant shall state his interest in said land under application.) 2. The name of the subdivision is to be . ..Minor,Subdivision of Samuel,5,.,,Poly ,, . . ............. ........ ...... ........ . .. ....... .. . . .. .. .. .. .. .... ...... .. .. .... ... ........ ..... . 3. The entire land under application is described in Schedule "A" hereto annexed. (Copy of deed suggested.) 4. The land is held by the applicant under deeds recorded in Suffolk County Clerk's office as follows: Liber . ....11205 .. .. ..... . .. . Page . . . .. .. 127.. . . .. .. .. . On . January,.15.. . . .a .199;1 Liber . ...... .. ............ ... Page . . . .. .. . . .. .. .. .. .. .. . On . .... .. . . .... .. . . . . . . . . Liber . .. .... .. ..I.. .. .. ... . .. . Page . .. .. .. .. .. . . . . .. .. .. . On Liber . .. .. .. .. .. .. .... .... .. . Page . .. .. .. .. .. .. . . . . .. .. . On . .. .. .. .. .... .. . . . . .. . . ; Liber ..... .. .... ...... ....... Page . .. .. .. .. . . .. . . . . .. .. . On . . . .. .. . . . . .. .. . . . . . . .. ; as devised under the Last Will and Testament of . .. . . .. .. . . . . . . .. .. . . . . .... .. . . .. .. . ... oras distributee . .... .. .. .. ........ .. .. . . .. . . .. .. . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... ..... . ..... . ... . . . .. . . . . .. .. .... .. .. .. .. .. .................... . . . . . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. .. .. ..... .. ... .. .. .... ..... .. . 5. The area of the land is . .. ...4,$8 .. .. .. . acres. 6. All taxes which are liens on the'land at the (late hereof have been paid. cM*)pKX. .... . . .. .. . . . . . . .. .. .. . . .. .. . . .. .. .. .. .. .... . . . .. ... . . . . .. . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . .. .. . ... . .. .... . .. 7. The land is encumbered by . .:p? . one mortgage (�� T *;X4( as follows: (a) Mortgage recorded in Liber 16535 . . . . . . Page . . . . . . . . . . .. . in original amount of $. .300.,.Q00. .. . unpaid amount $ 30Q,000, , , ,, , , , , , ,, , held by .TN.Schroeder Bank & 7ciiq.t. .GOAipar1Y address . Qrle,State Street. Plaza, .New York, New. York ( n CR n lim nt Of . . . . . . . .. . . . . . Illlpaid amount $. . 1 ; address W % SOUTHOLD TOVIN PLANNING BOND D �__._ (C) Mortgage recorded in Liber . .. .. .. . . .. .. . Page . . . .. .. .. . . .... . in original amount Z� Z� Of ... .. .... . ... . unpaid amount $. .. . . . . ...*.... .. .. . . .. .. . held by . .. .. .... .. .. .. .... ... ..... .............. .. . address 8. There are no other encumbrances or liens against the land.@?w .... ...... .... ... . .. ... ... .. .... ........ .. ... .. .... . . .. . . .. .. . ... . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. .. .... .. .. .. .............. ..... . 9. The land lies in the following zoning use districts . .. .R-120 .. . . ...... ...... . . .... .. .. .. ..... . ..... .. .. .... .... .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. . .. .. . . .. . . .. . . .. .. . . .. .... ...... .. .... ...... ... ... .... . 10. No part of the land lies under water whether tide water, stream, pond water or otherwise.ye.Nrx . .... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... .. .. .... ... . . .. . . . . ..... .. .. . . .. . ....... .. . .. . . . ... . . . ... . 11. The applicant shall at his expense install all required public improvements. 12. The land (does) (d==4 lie in a Water District or Water Supply District. Name of Dis- trict, if within a District, is . . . . . .Fishers Island Water Works .. . . .. .. . . . . .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . . .. .. . ..... .... 13. Water mains will be laid by . ..existing . . . .. . . .. . . .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. . . .. .. . .. .. . .. .. . . . ... . .... . and (a) (no) charge will be made for installing said mains. 14. Electric lines and standards will be installed by existing . .... .. .... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. . .. .. .. .. ... . .. .. .. . . .. .. . . . . . . . .. . . . and (a) (no) charge will be made for installing said lines. 15. Ga's mains will be installed by . .. .. .NIA . .. . . and (a) (no) charge will be made.for installing .said mains.. 16. If streets shown on the plat are claimed by the applicant to be existing public streets in the Z, Suffolk County Highway system, annex Schedule "B" hereto, to show same. 17. If streets shown on the plat are claimed by the applicant to be existing public streets in the Town of Southold Highway system, annex Schedule "C" hereto to show same. 18. There are no existin,,T buildings or structures on the land which are not located and shown on the plat. 19. Where the plat shows proposed streets which are extensions of streets on adjoinin" sub- division maps heretofore filed, there are no reserve strips at the end of the streets on said Pxistin,-, inaps at their conjunctions with the proposed streets. 20. In the course of these proceedings, the applicant will offer proof of title as required by See. 335 of the Real, Property Law. 21. Sllbiliit:'a c6py' of proposed (Iced for lots showing all restrictions, covenants, etc. Annex Schedule "D)% 22. The applicant estimates that the cost of grading and required public improvements will be $. .... .... . as itemized in Schedule "E" hereto annexed and requests that the maturity of the Performance Bond be fixed at . .. .. .... . . . . . years. The Performance Bond will be written by a licensed surety company unless otherwise shown on Schedule "F". DATE .,April Zy 19 91 Samuel S. Polk .. . .. ... .. . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ....... . . ...... ... . (Name of Applicant) By . .. .4k. L.`. UL... . .. . . .. . (Signature and Title) Stephen L. Ham, III, authorized agent 45 Hampton Road, Southampton, NY 11968 . . . .. .. .. .. ...... .. .... .. . ..................... . (Address) STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF . ,, , SUFFOLK On the . .. . °� k14. .... . day of. .. .. ..Apvi 1, ,,, ,,,, , , , , ,, • , 1 19. 91.., before me personally came ,,,,$tepben.,L ,V$a.rrl,,III, ,, , • ,, ,, ,_ , ,, . , to ine known to be the.individual described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that . .he . . .. .. . executed the same. l~•BAN AU111 f NOTARY PUBLIC.State of New YQA .�� . L�. . . .. .. . . . No,52.491086 Notary Public � Qualffiod in Siif(n{fc'Courty _C tiission Exores Decatur 28, ISM y� STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF . .. .. .. . . .. .. .. . . .... .. .. .. . ss: On the . .. . ... .. .. . . . . . day . .. .. . . .. .. . of . . . . . .. .. . . . . .. 19. .. .. .. before me personally came • . • . . . . . . . ... . ... . to me known, who being by me duly sworn did de- pose and say that . .. .. .. .. ... resides at No. . .. .. .. .. . . .. .. . . . . .. . . .. .. .. .. . . ... .. ... . . . .. .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . that . .. . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. . is the . .. .. . .. .. of . . . .. ... . .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . .. . . .... . . . . .. .. . . .. .... . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . the corporation described in and which executed the foregoing instrument; that . .. .. . . . . . . . knows the seal of said corporation; that the seal affixed by order of the board of directors of said corporation. mid dint . . . . . . . . . . . . signed . .. . . .. .. . . . . . name thereto by like order. . . . . . . . .. .. . . .. .. .. . . . . . . . ... ... . . Notary Public FORM NO.4 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT Office of the Building Inspector Town Hail Southold, N.Y. Certificate Of Occupancy No. . Z.1.2357. .. . . .. . . Date . . . . March 14 , 1984, . . . . , . , . , 19 . . . THIS CERTIFIES that the building . . . . .One. .£amily. .dwall ins. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Location of Property East End, Road Chocomount, Hill , , , , , , , , , , , , ,k'iShers. z51and House No. Street Hamlet County Tax Map No. 1000 Section . .4 . . . . . . . . .Block . . .5 . . . . . . . . . . .Lot . . . .5 . . .. . . . . . . . Subdivision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Filed Map No. . . . . . . . .Lot No. . . . . . . . . . . . . . conforms substantially to the Application for Building Permit heretofore filed in this office dated May , , , , , , , , , , , , , 19 8 2. pursuant to which Building Permit No. A 15 0 0 Z . . . . . . . . . . . . . •datedMay. 21, , , , , , . . . 19 82. ,was issued, and conforms to all of the requirements of the applicable provisions of the law. The occupancy for which this certificate is issued is . . . . . . . . . construct one family dwelling amended to include deck. . . The certificate is issued to . ?s abe l Du Bo i s (owner,lessee or tenant) of the aforesaid building. Suffolk County Department of Health Approval . . .1,1-50.—.119. , , . . . . . . . . . , UNDERWRITERS CERTIFICATE NO. . . . . . . . . . 623930 . . . . . . , . . . . . Building Inspector Rev. 1181 ELSE 1991 TWIN K12 April ZZ., 1991 Southold Town Planning Board Town Hall Southold, New York 11971 Re: Minor Subdivision of Samuel S. Polk; s: SCTM # 1000-4-5-5.9 Gentlemen: The following statements are offered for your consideration in the review of the above-mentioned minor subdivision and its referral to the Suffolk County Planning Commission: (1) No grading, other than foundation excavation for a residential building is proposed. (2) No new roads are proposed and no changes will be made in the grades of the existing roads . (3) No new drainage structures or alteration of existing structures are proposed. Yours truly, �� cam,► �. �-f�,., �- Stephen L. Ham, III, authorized agent of Samuel S. Polk SEP 1 11991 APR 2 3 1991 SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD__1 PNLAJV, NI �Q I D r� T �1,v 0 , SOIJ. HOLD S .r FO,LI tee. , mY r Southold, N.Y. 11971 5EP 1 1 1991 (516) 765-1938 K SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD QUESTIONNAIRE TO BE COMPLETED AND SUBMITTED WITH YOUR APPLICATIONS FORMS TO THE PLANNING BOARD Please complete, sign and return to the Office of the Planning Board with your completed applications forms. If your answer- to any of the following questions is yes , please indicate these on your guaranteed survey or submit other appropriate evidence: 1. Are there any wetland grasses on this parcel? Yes No (Attached is a list of the wetland grasses defined by the Town Code, Chapter 97, for your reference) 2. Are there any other premises under your ownership abutting this parcel? Yes No 3. Are there any building permits pending on this parcel? Yes No 4. Are there any other applications pending concerning this property before any other department or agency? (Town , State; County, etc. ) Yes No 5. Is there any application pending before any other agency with regard to a different project on this parcel? Yes No 6. Was this property the subject of any prior application to the Planning Board? Yes No 7. Does this property have a valid certificat6 of occupancy, if yes please submit..a eopy of same Yes No I certify that the above statements are true and will be relied on by the Planning Board in considering this application. G4aw III April 22 , 1991 Signature df property owner or authorized agent date authorized agent • s' Attachment to questionnaire for:.-the Planning Board STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, ss : On the 2 day of April 1991, before me personally came Stephen L. Ham, III to me known to be the individual described in--and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same. t.JANE MIM 110TARY PUBUC,Stale of Hew Yotks No 52 4916M Notary Public Qualified in Suffolk County comission Expires Decsmfier 28, MP 9/ l I Samuel S. Polk 485 Harris' Road Bedford Hills, NY 10458 March (�, 1991 Planning Board " Town of Southold fl Uu U Main Road -� Southold, NY 11971 SEP 111991 .9" ' Re: Proposed Minor Subdivi on . SOUTHOLDTOV�N of Premises at Fishers s �NNINGBOARD (SCTM # 1000 - 4 - 5 - 5.9) Dear Sirs: Please be advised that Stephen L. Ham, III of Matthews & Ham, 45 Hampton Road, Southampton, New York, is authorized to act as my agent concerning all matters relating to the referenced minor subdivision of "Lot 3 Chocomount" on the Map of Fishers Island Development Corporation, including the execution by him of all documents and the taking by him of all other required actions on my behalf in connection with my application for such minor subdivision approval. Very truly yours, Samuel S. Polk ACKNOWLEDGMENT STATE OF NEW YORK ) ss. . COUNTY OF N Ew Y 0 R - ) On the 1 41• day of March 1991, before me personally came Samuel S. Polk, to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same. L1. _ Notary Public STEPHEN J.KORBEL = Notary Public,State o1 New York No.31-4948546 - QuardW in New York County = y Certificate Find in New York Commmon Expires March 20,190, ,A Standard N.Y.B.T.U.Form 8002. 7.77•70M—Bargain and Sate Deed. with Covenant against Grantor's Acts—lndividual or Corporation.(single sheet) CONSULT YOUR LAWYER BEFORE SIGNING THIS INSTRUMENT—THIS INSTRUMENT SHOULD BE USED BY LAWYERS ONLY. p THIS IIYD m e the �p da of , nineteen hundred and Ninet 7� y _ k� NOM BETWEEN I �B. LEIB A F/K/A ISABEL BRYAN DUBO Sl,y residing at (nno number) _off / Wolver Hollow Road, Oyster Bay, NY 11771, and THEODORE NELSON DANFORTH, JR., residing at 14 Horatio Street, Apt. 7-E, New York, NY 10014, party of the first part, and SAMUEL S. POLK, residing at 485 Harris Road, Bedford Hills, NY 10458, party of the second part, WTTNESSETH,that the party of the first part, in consideration of Ten Dollars and other valuable consideration paid by the party of the second part,does hereby grant and release unto the party of the second part, the heirs or successors and assigns of the party of the second part forever, ALL that certain plot, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon erected, situate, lying and being in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, State of New York, being District formerly a part of that portion of Fishers Island belonging to Fishers Island 1000 Development Corporation (which portion is hereinafter called the "Park") Section 4 lying to the east of Peninsula Road, said lot or parcel of land being bounded Block 5 and described on Schedule A attached hereto. Lot 5.9 aril SEP 1 1 1991 LANNIAG BOA APR 2 3 1991 TOGETHER with all right, title and interest, if any, of the party of the first part in and to any streets and roads abutting the above described premises to the center lines thereof; TOGETHER with the appurtenances and all the estate and rights of the party of the first part in and to said premises; TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the premises herein granted unto the party of the second part, the heirs or successors and assigns of the party of the second part forever. AND the party of the first part covenants that the party of the first part has not done OpqOffmcat anything whereby the said -premises have been encumbered in any way whatever, except as aforesaid. AND the party of the first part, in compliance with Section 13 of the Lien Law, covenants that the party oP the first part will receive the consideration for this conveyance and will hold the right to receive such consid- eration as a trust fund to be applied first for the purpose of paying the cost of the improvement and will apply the same first to the payment of the cost of the improvement before using any part of the total of the same for any other purpose. The word "party" shall be construed as if it read "parties" whenever the sense of this indenture so requires. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the party of the first part has duly executed this deed the day and year first above written. IN PRMEXC'I F: Wi ess t Isabel B. Leib / eodo a Nels�lon D forth, Jr. Witness 1.��� /�►ttZ y Leib and Danforth to Polk Schedule A Beginning at an iron pipe at the Westerly end of a road, said iron pipe being 110. 11 feet North of a point which is 177.41 feet West of a monument marking the United States Coast and Geodetic Survey Triangulation Station "CHOCOMOUNT 211; thence running South 720 52 ' 09" West 237.45 feet to an iron pipe; thence South 890 36' 20" West 165. 62 feet to an iron pipe; thence South 240 56 ' loll West 189.27 feet to an iron pipe; thence South '540 38 ' 30" East 645.14 feet to an iron pipe; thence North 00 47 ' 20" West 49.75 feet to an iron pipe; thence North 210 57 ' 50" East 120.25 feet to an iron pipe; thence due North 444.14 feet to a point on the Southeasterly line of said road, said point being at a point of curve to the right having a radius of 50.00 feet and the direction of whose radius at that point is North 740 29 , 32" West; thence running Southwestwardly and Northwestwardly, following the arc of said curve 140.82 feet to the point of beginning. BEING the premises acquired by the party of the first part by deed dated August 13, 1981, and recorded on September 18,. 1981, at Liber 9071, cp. 536, in the Office of the Clerk of Suffolk County. f STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF NASSAU =s: STATE OF NEW YORK, CJ;NTY NEW PORK �... On the /6$day of October 19 90 , before me On the Wl• _ day of 1990 , before rime 'personally came personally came ISABEL B. LEIB THEODORE NELSON DANFORTH, OR, to me known to be the individual described in and who to me known to be the individual described in and-who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that executed th foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that she . executed the same. he ex ted the same. t Notary Public Notary Publi COLTON P.V AC%.4W- Notary Public, state of Now TorR MAUREEN J.HIRSCH. No.30-9493250 Oval.in Nassau County NOTARY PUBLIC,State of New York Certificate filed 1n New York County N0.52-0778603 Cornm!solon Exptras June 30,19Y Qualified in Suffolk Coun Cimlmission Expires Dec.31Vl STATE OF NEW YORK,COUNTY OF ss: STATE OF NEW YORK. COUNTY OF SS: On the day of 19 , before me On the day of 19 , before me personally came personally came to me known, who, being by me duly sworn, did depose and the subscribing witness to the foregoing instrument, with say that he resides at No. whom I am personally acquainted, who, being by me duly sworn, did depose and say that he resides at No.. that he is the that he knows r of the corporation described in and which executed the foregoing instrument; that he to be the individual knows the seal of said corporation; that the seal affixed described in and who executed the foregoing instrument; to said instrument is such corporate seal; that it was so that he, said subscribing witness, was present and saw affixed by order of the board of directors of said corpora- execute the same; and that he, said witness, lion, and that he signed h name thereto by like order. at the same time subscribed'h name as witness thereto. 36argaiti anb Oak 32leeb District 1000 SECTION q WITH COVENANT AGAINST GRANTOR-S Acrs BLOCK 5 TITLE No. T1290-0711 (Ticor Title Guarantee) - LOT 5.9 ISABEL B. LEIB and COUNTY OR TOWN Suffolk.-Southold THEODORE NELSON DANFORTH, JR. TO SAMUM S. POLK Recorded At Request or The Title Guarantee Company RETURN BY MAIL TO: STANDARD FORM OF NEW YORK BOARD OF TITLE UNDERWRITERS Salmzel S. Polk, Esq. by Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy D TITLE GUARANTEE- New Chase Manhattan Plaza NEWYORK New York, NY ATICOR COMPANY Zip No.' 10005 W U W6 u. O z a aC O aC W O Au �Q W 6 N N , S 1- tu 14-16-2 (2/87)-7c ' A 617.21 SEAR Appendix A State Environmental Quality Review FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Purpose: The full EAF is designed to help applicants and agencies determine, in an orderly manner, whether a project or action may be significant. The question of whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer. Frequent- ly, there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasureable. It is also understood that those who determine significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may be technically expert in environmental analysis. In addition, many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affecting the question of significance. The full EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the determination process has been orderly, comprehensive in nature,yet flexible to allow introduction of information to fit a project or action. Full EAF Components: The full EAF is comprised of three parts: Part 1: Provides objective data and information about a given project and its site. By identifying basic project data, it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3. Part 2: Focuses on identifying the range of possible impacts that may occur from a project or action. It provides guidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to moderatt,o.�.., a�;otentially- large impact. The form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigate cf retuc�l. U .�.0 Part 3: If any impact in Part 2 is identified as potentially-large, then Part 3 is used v luate whether or notathe' impact is actually important. SE� �J ; 11 1991 M q p { .r.1-Lenj ITJ L DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE—Type 1 and Unlisfed'ActionsINIINGBOARp j Identify the Portions of EAF completed for this project: ❑ Part 1 El Part 2 ❑Part 3 Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts 1 and 2 and 3 if appropriate), and any other supporting information, and considering both the magitude and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined by the lead agency that: ❑ A. The project will not result in any large and important impact(s) and, therefore, is one which will not have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will be prepared. ❑ B. Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required, therefore a CONDITIONED negative declaration will be prepared.* ❑ C. The project may result in one or more large and important impacts that may have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a positive declaration will be prepared. * A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions Name of Action APR 23 /91 Name of Lead Agency Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer ( Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer(If different from responsible officer) Date PART 1—PROJECT INFuRMATION Prepared by Project Sponsor NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect on the environment. Please complete the entire form, Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be considered as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any addition information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. . It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve new studies, research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable,so indicate and specify each instance. NAME OF ACTION MINOR SUBDIVISION OF SAMUEL S . POLK LOCATION OF ACTION (Include Street Address, Municipality and County) Private Road off East End Road, Fishers Island, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York (SCTM # 1000-4— — NAME OF APPLICANT/SPONSOR BUSINESS TELEPHONE Samuel S. Polk ( 516) 283-2400 ADDRESS c/o Matthews & Ham, 4.5 Hampton Road CITY/PO STATE ZIP CODE Southampton TNY 11968 NAME OF OWNER(If different) BUSINESS TELEPHONE ADDRESS CITY/PO STATE ZIP CODE DESCRIPTION OF ACTION subdivision into two 2.44—acre lots of 4.88—acre parcel on which one single-family dwelling is presently located Please Complete Each Question—Indicate N.A. if not applicable A. Site Description Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas. 1. Present land use: ❑Urban ❑Industrial ❑Commercial ❑Residential (suburban) IXRural (non-farm) ❑Forest ❑Agriculture ❑Other 2. Total acreage of project area:" 4.88 acres. APPROXIMATE ACREAGE PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) _55 acres .55 acres Forested 4.16 acres 4 .16 acres Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) acres acres Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of ECL) acres acres Water Surface Area acres acres Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) acres acres Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces •17 acres .17 acres Other (Indicate type) acres acres 3. What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? sand — sand & gravel a. Soil drainage: MWell drained 100 % of site ❑Moderately well drained °o of site , ❑Poorly drained % of site b. If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4.of the NY Land Classification System? N/A acres. (See 1 NYCRR 370). 4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? ❑Yes MNo a. What is depth to bedrock? e. 600 ft. (in feet) 2 5. Approximate percentage of proposed pr t site with slopes: IN-10% 73.68 ; 010-15% K115%° or greater 26.32 % 6. Is project substantially contiguous to, or contain.,a building,.,site,..or district, listed on the State or the National Registers of Historic Places? El Yes [�No C '. Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? ❑Yes No 8. What is the depth of the water table? > 16 ft(in feet) 9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? MYes ❑No 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the,project area? CAYes ❑No 11. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? ❑Yes MNo According to J.M.O. Consulting Identify each species 12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations)_ ❑Yes ®No Describe 13. Is the project site presently used -by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? []Yes . ®No If yes, explain 14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? ❑Yes ❑No unknown 15. Streams within or contiguous to project area: N/A a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary N/A 16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: a. Name __ N/A b. Size (In acres) N/A 17. Is the site served by existing public utilities? IB]Yes ❑No a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? ®Yes ❑No b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? ❑Yes INNo 18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 304? ❑Yes ERNo 19. Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 617? MYes ❑No 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? ❑Yes ®No B. Project Description 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor 4.88 acres. b. Project acreage .to be developed: 0 acres initially; 0 acres ultimately. c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped 4.71 acres. (until construction, ifJany, takes place on d. project, o Length f ect, in miles: N/A (If a Lot 1) g P 1 appropriate) e. If the project is an' expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed N/A. %; f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing N/A ; proposed N/A g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour N/A (upon completion of project)? h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: One Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium Initially one \ Ultimately two i. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure N/A height; N/A width; N/A length. j. Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? 0 ft. 3 • 2. .How much natural r„u«rial (i.e., rock, earth, etc.) will be removed from the site? 0 tons/cubip yards. 3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed? ❑Yes ❑No ®N/A a. If yes, for what intender purpose is the site being reclaimed? b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? ❑Yes ❑No c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? ❑Yes ❑No 4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? 0 acres. 5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project? ❑Yes ®No 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction N/A months, (including demolition). 7. If multi-phased: N/A a. Total number of phases anticipated (number). b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 month year, (including demolition). c. Approximate completion date of final phase month year. d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? ❑Yes ❑No 8. Will blasting occur during construction? ❑Yes ❑No 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction 0 ; after project is complete 0 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project 0 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? ❑Yes ®No If yes, explain 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? ❑Yes IMNo a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) and amount b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged 13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? ❑Yes Q N o Type 14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? ❑Yes K]No Explain 15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? ❑Yes ®No 16. Will the project generate solid waste? ❑Yes MNo a. If yes, what is the amount per month tons b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? ❑Yes ❑No c. If yes, give name location d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? ❑Yes ❑No e. If Yes, explain 17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? ❑Yes ®No a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? tons/month. b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? years. 18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? ❑Yes MNo 19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? ❑Yes t3No 20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? ❑Yes ®No 21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? ❑Yes ®No If yes , indicate type(s) 22. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity N/A gallons/minute. 23. Total anticipated water usage per day N/A gallons/day:' E 24. Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? El Yes MNo If Yes, explain 4 25..Approvals Required: Submittal ' Type Date City, Town, Village Board ❑Yes 'XINo City, Town, Village Planning Board Eyes ❑No Minor Subdivision on Ap rp oval 4/22/91 City, Town-Zoning Board ❑Yes :Z7No City, County Health Department K]Yes ❑No Minor Subdivision Approval Bofter,Flanning Other Local Agencies ❑Yes KJNo plan approval) Other Regional Agencies ❑Yes nNo State Agencies ❑Yes 11No Federal Agencies ❑Yes K]No ' C. Zoning and Planning Information 1 . Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, indicate decision required: ❑zoning amendment ❑zoning variance ❑special use permit ®subdivision ❑site plan ❑new/revision of master plan ❑resource management plan ❑other 2. What is the zoning class ification(s)of the site? R-120 3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? two single family dwellings 4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? same 5. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? two single family dwellings C6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? IZYes []No 7. What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a '/4 mile radius of proposed action? residential; single family dwellings; R-120 8. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a '/a mile? I Yes ❑No 9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? two a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? 2.44 acres 10. Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? ❑Yes nNo 11 . Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police, fire protection)? ❑Yes K]NO a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? []Yes ❑No 12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? ❑Yes ®No a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? Dyes ❑No D. Informational Details Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid them. E. Verification certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge. ( Applicant/Sponsor Name Samuel S. Polk Date 4/22/91 Signature " L� , Title authorized agent Stephen Ham, III If the action is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment. 5 I: 2-PROJECT IMPACTS AND EIR MAGNITUDE Responsibility of Lead Agency General Information (Read Carefully) • In completing the form the reviewer should be guided by the question: Have my responses and determinations been reasonable? The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst. • Identifying that an impact will be potentially large (column 2) does not mean that it is also necessarily significant. Any large impact must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance. Identifying an impact in column 2 simply asks that it be looked at further. • The Examples provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of impacts and wherever possible the threshold of magnitude that would trigger a response in column 2. The examples are generally applicable throughout the State and for most situations. But, for any specific project or site other examples and/or lower thresholds may be appropriate for a Potential Large Impact response, thus requiring evaluation in Part 3. • The impacts of each project, on each site, in each locality, will vary. Therefore, the examples are illustrative and have been offered as guidance. They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each question. • The number of examples per question does not indicate the.importance of each question. • In identifying impacts, consider long term, short term and cumlative effects. Instructions (Read carefully) a. Answer each of the 19 questions in PART 2. Answer Yes if there will be any impact. b. Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers. c. If answering Yes to a question then check the appropriate box (column 1 or 2) to indicate the potential size of the impact. If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided, check column 2. If impact will occur but threshold is lower than example, check column 1. d. If reviewer has doubt about size of the impact then consider the impact as potentially large and proceed to PART 3. e. If a potentially large impact checked in column 2 can be mitigated by change(s) in the project to a small to moderate impact, also check the Yes box in column 3. A No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible. This must be explained in Part 3. 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be IMPACT ON LAND Moderate Large Mitigated By 1 . Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? Impact Impact Project Change ONO OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise per 100 ❑ ❑ ❑Yes El No foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10%. • Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No 3 feet. • Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No 3 feet of existing ground surface. • Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more ❑ ❑ ❑Yes El No than one phase or stage. • Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year. • Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Construction in a designated floodway. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • .Other impacts ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No 2. Will there be an effect tr. ...iy ur;.que or unusual land forms found on the site? (i,e., cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc.)❑NO DYES • Specific land forms: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No 6 - 1 2 3 IMPACT ON WATER Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By 3. Will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? Impact Impact Project Change (Under Articles 15, 24, 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law, ECL) ONO OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Developable area of site contains a protected water body. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a ❑ ❑ El Yes ❑No protected stream. • Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body. ❑ ❑ El Yes ❑No • Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No 4. Will proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? ❑NO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water ❑ ❑ El Yes ❑No or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. • Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area. ❑ ❑ El Yes []No • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No 5. Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? ONO OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will require a discharge permit. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No C • Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not ❑Yes ❑No have approval to serve proposed (project) action. • Proposed Action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45 ❑ ❑ ❑Yes El No gallons per minute pumping capacity. • Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water ❑ ❑ ❑Yes []No supply system. • Proposed Action will adversely affect groundwater. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No do not exist or have inadequate capacity. • Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per ❑ ❑ Dyes []No day. • Proposed Action will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No existing body of water to the exte;,t that there will be an obvious visual contrast to naturai conditions. • Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical ❑ El ❑Yes ❑No products greater than 1,100 gallons. • Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without water ❑ ❑ Dyes El No and/or sewer services: • Proposed Action locates commercial and/or industrial uses which may ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage facilities. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No 6. Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? ONO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action would change flood water flows. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No 7 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated •By Impact Impact Project Change ., • Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion. ❑ • Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Proposed Action will allow development in a designated floodway. ❑ ❑ El ❑No • Other impacts: ❑ ❑Yes ❑No ❑ ❑ Oyes ❑No IMPACT ON AIR 7. Will proposed action affect air quality? ONO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will induce 1,000 or more vehicle trips in any given ❑ hour. ❑ ❑Yes ONO • Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of ❑ refuse per hour. ❑ ❑Yes ❑No `} • Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. per hour or a ❑ heat source producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour. ❑ ❑Yes ❑No N_`7 • Proposed action will allow an increase in the amount of land committed ❑ to industrial use. ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Proposed action will allow an increase in the density of industrial ❑ development within existing industrial areas. El El Yes ❑No • Other impacts: l ❑ ❑ El Yes ❑No IMPACT ON-PLANTS AND ANIMALS �. Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered species? �., ONO. DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 ' Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federal ❑ list, using the site, over or near site or found on the site. ❑ ❑Yes ❑No ' Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. ❑ ' Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other ❑ ❑Yes ❑No than for agricultural purposes. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No ' Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No ' Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species? ONO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 I Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident or ❑ migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species. El No Proposed Action requires the removal of more than 10 acres ❑ of mature forest (over 100 years of age) or other locally important El El Yes ❑No" vegetation. IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES Will the Proposed Action affect agricultural land resources? Examples that would apply to column 2 ONO DYES The proposed action would sever, cross or limit access to agricultural land (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc.) ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No 8 f 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change • Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of ❑ ❑ ❑Yes []No agricultural land. • The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No of agricultural land or, if located in an Agricultutal District, more than 2.5 acres of agricultural land. • The proposed action.would disrupt or prevent installation of agricultural El El ❑Yes ❑No land management systems (e.g., subsurface drain lines, outlet ditches, strip cropping); or create a need for such measures (e.g. cause a farm field to drain poorly due to increased runoff) • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ []Yes ❑No IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 11 . Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources? ONO OYES (If necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section 617.21, Appendix B.) Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, whether man-made or natural. • Proposed land uses, or project components visible to users of ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource. • Project components that will result in the elimination or significant ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No screening of scenic views known to be important to the area. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12. Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, pre- historic or paleontological importance? ONO OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or National Register of historic places. • Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within the ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No project site. • Proposed Action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for ❑ ❑ El Yes ❑No archaeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ' ❑No IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 13. Will Proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? Examples that would apply to column 2 ONO ❑YES The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. ❑ ❑ El Yes ❑No • A major reduction of an open space important to the community. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No 9 IMPACT ON -i-nANSPORTATION 1 2LCan -3 14. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems. Small to Potential mpact Be z Moderate Large gated By ONO DYES Impact Impact t Change Examples that would apply to column 2 • Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. ❑ • Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems. El ❑Yes ❑No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No IMPACT ON ENERGY 15. Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply? ONO OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will cause a greater than 5% increase in the use of ❑ El ❑Yes ONO any form of energy -in the municipality. • Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of an energy ❑ x transmission or supply system to serve,more than 50 single or two family ❑ El Yes ❑No 3' residences or to serve a major commercial or industrial use. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS 16. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the Proposed Action? ONO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive ❑ facility. ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). ❑ ❑ \- ❑Yes ❑No I • Proposed Action will produce operating noise exceeding the local ❑ ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures. El ❑Yes ❑No ' Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a ❑ ❑ noise screen. ❑Yes ❑No Other impacts: ❑ ❑ El Yes ❑No IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 7. Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety? Examples that would apply to column 2 ONO DYES Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous ❑ ❑ substances(i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of ❑Yes ❑No accident or upset conditions, or there may' be a chronic low level discharge or emission. Proposed Action may result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" in any ❑ ❑ form i.e. toxic, ❑Yes ❑No ( poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc.) i Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquified natural ❑ El ❑Yes ❑No tias or other flammable liquids. i Proposed action may result in the excavation or other disturbance ❑ within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous El El Yes ❑NO waste. Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No 10 1 2 3 IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER Small to Potential Can Impact Be OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD Moderate Large Mitigated By 18. Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community? Impact Impact Project Change • ONO OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • The permanent population of the city, town or village in which the ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No project is located is likely to grow by more than 5%. • The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating services ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No will increase by more than'5% per year as a result of this project. • Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals. ❑ ❑ []Yes El No • Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land use. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No or areas of historic importance to the community. • Development will create a demand for additional community services ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No (e.g. schools, police and fire, etc.) • Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes El No • Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment. ❑ ❑ El Yes ❑No • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ El Yes ❑No 19. Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? ONO OYES If Any Action in Part 2 Is Identified as a Potential Large Impact or If You Cannot Determine the Magnitude of Impact, Proceed to Part 3 Part 3—EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS Responsibility of Lead Agency Part 3 must be prepared if one or more i'mpact(s) is considered .to be potentially large, even if the impact(s) may be mitigated. Instructions Discuss the following for each impact identified in Column 2 of Part 2: 1 . Briefly describe the impact. 2. Describe(if applicable)how the impact could be mitigated or reduced to a small to moderate impact by project change(s). 3. Based on the information available, decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is-'important. To answer the question of importance, consider: • The probability of the impact occurring • The duration of the impact • Its irreversibility, including permanently lost resources of value • Whether the impact can or will be controlled • The regional consequence of the impact • Its potential divergence from local needs and goals • Whether known objections to the project relate to this impact. — (Continue on attachments) 11 J 14.14.11 ( .'87)-9c 617.21 SEQR • Appendix B State Environmental Quality Review Visual EAE Addendum This form may be used to provide additional information relating to Question 11 of Part 2 of the Full EAF. (To be completed by Lead Agency) Distance Between Visibility Project and Resource (in Miles) 1. Would the project be visible from: 0-1/4 1/4-'/2 1/2-3 3-5 5+ • A parcel of land which is dedicated to and available ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ to the public for the use, enjoyment and appreciation of natural or man-made scenic qualities? • An overlook or parcel, of land dedicated to public ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ observation, enjoyment and appreciation of natural or man-made scenic qualities? • A site or structure listed on the National or State ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Registers of Historic Places? • State Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ • The State Forest Preserve? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ • National Wildlife Refuges and state game refuges? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ • National Natural Landmarks and other outstanding ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ natural features? • National Park Service lands? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ • Rivers designated as National or State Wild, Scenic ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ or Recreational? • Any transportation corridor of high exposure, such ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ as part of the Interstate System, or Amtrak? • A governmentally established or designated interstate ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ or inter-county foot trail, or one formally proposed for establishment or designation? • A site, area, lake, reservoir or highway designated as ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ scenic? • Municipal park, or designated open space? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ • County road? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ • State? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ • Local road? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 2.. Is the visibility of the project seasonal?(i.e., screeried by summer foliage, but visible during other seasons) ❑Yes El No 3. Are any of the resources checked in question I used by the public during the time of year during which the project will be visible? ❑Yes ❑No 1 . DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING VISUAL ENVIRONMENT 4. From each item checked in question 1, check those which generally describe the surrounding environment. Within *'/a mile *1 mile Essentially undeveloped ❑ ❑ Forested ❑ ❑ Agricultural ❑ ❑ Suburban residential ❑ ❑ Industrial ❑ ❑ Commercial ❑ ❑ Urban ❑. ❑ River, Lake, Pond ❑ ❑ Cliffs, Overlooks ❑ ❑ Designated Open Space ❑ ❑ Flat ❑ ❑ Hilly ❑ ❑ Mountainous ❑ ❑ Other ❑ ❑ NOTE: add attachments as needed 5. Are there visually similar projects within: *'/z mile ❑Yes ❑No *1 miles El Yes ❑No *2 miles ❑Yes ❑No *3 miles ❑Yes ❑No * Distance from project site are provided for assistance. Substitute other distances as appropriate. EXPOSURE 6. The annual number of viewers likely to observe the proposed project is NOTE: When user data is unavailable or unknown, use best estimate. CONTEXT 7. The situation or activity in which the viewers are engaged while viewing the proposed action is FREQUENCY Holidays/ Activity Daily Weekly Weekends Seasonally Travel to and from work ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Involved in recreational activities ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Routine travel by residents ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ At a residence ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ At worksite ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Other ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ E 2 LEGAL 115 I Town of Southold PUBLISHER'S CERTIFICATE Notice of Public Hearing NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN 11 that pursuant to Section 276 of i the Town Law,a public hearing will be held by the Southold Town Planning Board, at the! Town Hall, Main Road, South- old, New York in said town on the 18th day of May 1992 on the 1 question of the following: .State of Connecticut 7:35 P.M. Final approval for the minor subdivision for Samuel S.Polk on Fishers Island,in the County of New London, SS. New London Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and the State of New York. Suffolk County Tax Map Number.1000-4-5-5-.9. The property is bordered'on On this day Of the north by land now or for- 1 Rth y May merly of Bard E. Bunaes, by land now or formerly of William L.Husser,and by a Road turn- a-round; on the east by land A.D. 19 personally appeared before the undersigned, now or formerly of Fishers Is- land Water Works Corp,and by and now or formerly of Robert W. Nelson; on the south and. west.by Fishers Island Devel- a Notary Public, within and for said County and State, opment Corp. Any person desiring to be heard on the above matter should appear at the time and place specified. J.L. Zielinski, Legal Adv. Clerk Dated:May 5,1992 By Order of the Southold Town Planning Board Bennett Orlowski,Jr. of THE DAY, a daily Chairman; newspaper published at New London, County of New London, State of Connecticut, who 'being duly-'sworn, states on oath, that the Order of Notice in the case of Legal Adv. #115 a. true copy of which is hereunto annexed, was published in said newspaper in its issues of the 11 th days of May A. D. 19 92 FWN Subscribed and sworn before me this 18th EPLANNING day of May A. D. 19 92. Notary Public. MATTHEWS & HAM ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW A16 45 HAMPTON ROAD SOUTHAMPTON,N.Y.11968 516-283-2400 PHILIP B.MATTHEWS TELECOPIER 516-287-1076 STEPHEN L.HAM,III June 2, 1992 Planning Board Town of Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Minor Subdivision for Samuel S. Polk (SCTM # 1000-4-5-5.9) Dear Board Members: Please be advised that the final Minor Subdivision Map for Samuel S. Polk relating to the referenced premises at Fishers Island was filed with the Office of the Suffolk County Clerk on May 22 , 1992 as Map No. 9223, thereby fulfilling the condition to your approval granted on May 18, 1992 . Enclosed for your records is a copy of the filing receipt. Very truly yours, Stephen L. Ham, III SLH:ja Enclosure FjjL:jUN 31992OLD TOWNING BOARD ----- ------------ - _« f r t i t' 3 I F -SUFF,O.LK :COUNTY MAP DEPT 51825 N - ; o. a 19 y _ ' „NAME �f HOW PAID .a MAIL PICK UP O CHK OFF CHRG CHu4acE R.A. ••'COPIES :D E S C R I P T 10 N CODE FEE �r 'FILE TOWN BOOK 'PAGE .00 .av%� .. S „ .. .c c r �, Y 3 y �t 1.4 r ♦ f { � - i +--1 � - 1 +.^ a 1 �, •s s,,�. ,�h'?'t 1}. Mf .y `}x 4 R f�J f Y r�rC-r. ` F�.,�� �� ��x„ .�'..�i�c;; ;•.+T M µy�...,�T� fS'3-,���'1�.�`fe c,3�'P.,�.s:e },�,,.*{f'�i ,2�u 3T � y1��x�t ,t�. ��'i., �r,�'t��`7Fi f Wes. N a z '-§'S.rrR 4 .� ..'' a �{ r t - T7 "- t..•�- �+�� ya.�.� 4. � w a- - 4 yf ` as ! ':4 r.:n ...y t '?S r S s. o ,t , �t t - r t -4l •��}��' i v F� i �.' r c,� , .Y Y`xfi '' v-... c r Y.r Fay'^ wt 3 ?"s9 .,a �' rYT l$. ti,sc S S. I s t4m4 � y. - ) z 1.J ,� �� � r-ra� >.e. ,- 'h\_ ,y�a •s 4 r n. X r .I992 JuNy SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD PHONE: 852-2000 SUFFOLK COUNT Y CLERK'S OFFICE Edward P. RgmainP, . COUNTY CLERK A1VFR1IEA1,, NEW YORK 11901 own of Southold Assessor Town of Southold Planning Board Chief Deputy County'Treasurer To Whom This May Concern: The Subdivision Map of : Was Filed , Filed Number , ( a- a 3 A}.stract Number , I �i °� 'S Township , Southold ir(S ke, Owner: Very truly yours, County Clerk Map Department Form No..4 9 u-ur.alma 1 MATTHEWS & HAM ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW /��� / �✓ 45 HAMPTON ROAD j� V SOUTHAMPTON,N.Y.11968 (/ 516-283-2400 PHILIP B.MATTHEWS TELECOPIER 516-287-1076 STEPHEN L.HAM,m May 15, 1992 Planning Board Town of Southold D t5 V C5 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 MAY 181992 Re: Minor Subdivision fo _; SOUTHOLDTOWN PLANNING BOARD Samuel S. Polk (SCTM # 1000-4-5-5.9) Gentlemen: I am delivering herewith six paper prints and three mylars of the final map of the referenced minor subdivision. These prints and mylars bear the endorsement of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. I am also delivering our Trust Account check to the Town of Southold in the amount of $2, 000 for the park and playground fee. Please have your staff contact me when the prints and mylars have been endorsed by your Chairman and I will attend to the filing of the map with the Office of the Suffolk County Clerk. Very truly yours, Stephen L. Ham, III SLH:ja Enclosures BY HAND A w ~ COUNTY Od= SUFFO S'I'A'1'1- 01: NI=W 110I�1< - SS: -- __�__•_ ,___ Patricia Wood,' being duly sworn, says that she is the LEGAL NOTICE, Editor, of 'I'I-IE LONG ISLAND TRAVELER-WATCHMAN, Notice of Public Hearing a ptlbliC newspaper printed at Southold, in Suffolk County; NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to Section and that Lhe notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, 276 of the Town Law, a public has been ,I)uhIiSIlCd in said t-ong ISlanr] 'I'r',lveler'•W;Itclln171r1 hearing will be held by the Southold Town Planning Board, once each week for' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \v c c k s at the Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York in said 7 Town on the 18th day of'May SIICCCSSiVCIy, Cornfncncing Oil the . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1992 on the question of the following:-- - rl a y o f . . . . . . . . . . . MAY. . . 19 9 2. . . . . 7:30 P.M. Preliminary ap- proval for the subdivision for Paul Matthews(Willow Run)at " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " Mattituck, in the town of Southold, County of Suffolk and the State of New York.Suf- folk County Tax Map Number —2 1000-100-2-1. Sworn to before me IItis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . clay of The property is bordered on the north by Sound View Ave- i MAY 92 nue;on the east by land now,or ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' • ' ' • • • • 1 ,19 formerly of Mattituck Shores Associates;on the south by Ore- gon Road and Mill Road;on the west by land now or formerly of Grace Schanz, (County of,Suf- �Y? — -,Q �!C �? folk Development Rights),lot 1 �- . . . . . . . and lots 27 thru 38 of Saltaire' Notary Public Estates and Wavecrest Lane. 7:35 p.m. Final approval for BARBARA A. SCHNEIDER the minor subdivision for NOTARY PUBLIC, St, te of New York Samuel S. Polk on Fishers Is- No. 480G846 land, in the Town of Southold, Qualifier] in Suffolk Coynly, County of Suffolk and the State Commission Expires 00 i/k12 of New York. Suffolk County Tax Map Number 1000-4-5-5.9. The property is bordered on the north by land now or.formerly of Bard E.Bunaes,by land now or formerly of William L.Hus- ser,and by a Road turn-a-round; J on the east by land now or formerly of Fishers Island Water Works Corp, and by land now or formerly of Robert W. Nel- son; on the south and west by Fishers Island Development, Corp. Any person desiring to heard on the above matter �--•�•°•~;,"'� should appear at the time and U place specified. Dated: May 5, 1992 BY ORDER OF MAY 12 THE SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD Bennett Orlowski Jr. SOUTI IOID TOWN Chairman FLANNtNG BUARD 1X, 5/7/92 (48) LEGAL NOTICE STATE OF YORK) the subdivision for Paul Matthews Notice of Public Hearing (Willow Run) at Mattituck, in the ) SS: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN Town of Southold,County of Suffolk COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) that pursuant to Section 276 of the and the State of New York.Suffolk n Town Law,a public hearing will be County Tax Map Number. 1000-100- 0,44'q T CON ON K-0 tJ of Mattituck, in held by the Southold Town Planning 2-1 Board,at the Town Hall,Main Road, The property is bordered on the said County, being duly sworn, says that he/she Southold,New York in said Town on nort ES h by Sound View Avenue;on the is Principal Clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIM , a the 18th day of May 1992 on the cast by land now or formerly of Mat- question of the following: tituck Shores Associates;on the south Weekly Newspaper, published at Mattituck, in 7:30 P.M.Preliminary approval for by Oregon Road and Mill Road; on the west by land now or formerly of the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and Grace Schanz, (County of Suffolk State of New York, and that the Notice of which Development Rights), lot 1 and lots 27 thru 38 of Saltaire Estates and the annexed is a printed copy, has been regular- Wavecrest Lane. ly published in said Newspaper once each week 7:35 P.M. Final approval for the minor subdivision for Samuel S.Polk for weeks successively, commencing on on Fishers Island, in the Town of the day of 19 /F. Southold,County of Suffolk and the 'F r`-/I State of New York. Suffolk County Tax Map Number.1000-4-5-5.9. ME UMIE V.MOWN The ylandproperty is bordered rl the law t13UNC,s3sto of Y� north by land now or formerly of ��@.4���i� �- Bard E.Bunaes,by land now or for- GSaf�6i�Od do 9087 k merly of William L.Husser,and by a f� O Principal Clerk Road turn-a-round; on the east by fd Sg®0 E7Y6t,1f6S Qf$,19,a9 land now or formerly of Fishers Is- land Water Works Corp,and by land now or formerly of Robert W.Nel- son;on the south and west by Fishers Sworn to bef.re me this Island Development Corp. Any person desiring to be heard on day of ffla&A 19 the above matter should appear at the time and place speed. Dated:May 5,1992 BY ORDER OF THE 2� SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD - 1 OFFO4��G ® p. h _L PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS SCOT L. HARRIS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman _ Supervisor George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Mark S. McDonald P.O. Box 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards Southold, New York 11971 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823 April 28, 1992 Stephen L. Ham III Matthews & Ham 45 Hampton Road Southampton, New York 11968 RE: Minor Subdivision for Samuel S. Polk SCTM4 1000-4-5-5. 9 Dear Mr. Ham: The following resolution was adopted by the Southold Town Planning Board at a meeting held on Monday, April 27, 1992. BE IT RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board set Monday, May 18, 1992 at 7:30 P.M. for a final public hearing on the maps dated January 9, 1992. Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above. Very truly yours, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. f Chairman 61f6F) LE- SUBMISSION WITHOUT COVER LETTER SENDER: 4gvn SUBJECT: PO k SCTM# : \ COMMENTS: by d D APR 2 21992 • �.d._SOi7TH( SCOTT L. HARRIS cm PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ,,. a2 Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman p ' r Supervisor George Ritchie Latham, Jr. ��'"��`" ' `�•�� Richard G. Ward Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Mark S. McDonald P.O. Box 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards Southold, New York 11971 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823 April 7, 1992 Stephen L. Ham, III Mathews and Ham 45 Hampton Road Southampton, NY 11968 RE: Minor Subdivision for Samuel S. Polk SCTM* 1000-4-5-5. 9 Dear Mr. Ham: The following resolution was adopted by the Southold Town Planning Board at a meeting held on Monday, April 6, 1992. BE IT RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board grant a six month extension of sketch approval from April 1, 1992 to October 1, 1992. Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above. Very truly yours, Bennett Orlowski, J . Im3 Chairman r=oF' R - - - v F F_ I 1 c r•1HY T E: LI H .Ir•7 - i �A.��17EW� BC HAP ATTOr,Rry AND CO SELIOR5 e11 i.,W 4-3 IIAM.FTOT: ROAD 516•283•2400 USLYp , �A�x.j1A � L:C W$ 7ELOP(¢Y2 3143•��9=3Aa4 5r�pxeN L. �. April 31 1992 Planning. Board Town of Southold Main Road Soctho?d, IIY 11971 R ® . M nor Subdivision Applicatio» of Samuel S. Polk CIM # 1 D 9 9 s 4-5-5. 9) Dear Board. Mensberv,j Please extend for are additional six months the sketch plan approval that w.a� granted on So-pten+ber 30, 1991 for the referenced application, The applicant's agent for purpozes of obtaining the approval of the Suffo`k Coun,'Cy Department of health Services apparently used an old Form vrhen submitting the prints and mylars of the subdivision snap and d�ilay was: encountered when the entire package eras returned and had to be resubmitted on the nej,= fo.,Tj that also recraired the surveyor's signature. Final maps will be submitted promptly upon receipt of approval by the SufPcoik County Depart-Mart of Ho-alth Services. Very truly yours, Step erg L. Han, Ill WLH:Ja gym SOUTHO BANNING BOARD _ ._ - - C A 1 =: V •.. 1.1 2 F i 1 1 - - vD i91-; Y -r H E 1.3 S H . TTORA°8Ys An C.ouxSELLoAs AT r Aw 45 .M%M.lox RcAD S�tt'i'�.►-*tL7o:�1 N.Y. ±i968 WO.263.2400 PHILIP 6,MAYT21E S T L�C�t'S Y3 �l�•L'8'/ R�J76 PAX TRMSMISSION Phone . `7�✓��— ��t ' From: Stephen L. Man, Number of pages W----- _ (including this ;page) if all Pages are mat eceived, gall (516) 283-2400. �i�SBA�r s r' "l;]7 SOUPLANNING 13 RD A FR — PEA TTHE W :E: �- H f•7 F E+ 1 �+r::)�NEX� etXA �Ot,'2r'SEiipR5 A.+ Lori 55 94'1-?TON ROAM Sfy+J'1'biAM�'X'02Y,N.Y. 11988 XATTSI.$W9 �16•� 3.2ano 1° L$OSyp3£4i :,16 Q{3Y 1��Ci 57EFFiZ1,Nr . PT I.-SIMIssioll nu Phony � �✓�� t �' From: Stephen Eam, III e .Y � 3t MAT=EWS & IIAM ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW .45 HAMPTON ROAD SOUTHAMPTON,N.Y.11968 516-283-2400 PHILIP B.MATTHEWS TELECOPIER 516-287-1076 STEPHEN L.HAM,III April 3, 1992 Planning Board Town of Southold Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Minor Subdivision Application of Samuel S. Polk (SCTM # 1000-4-5-5.9) Dear Board Members: Please extend for an additional six months the sketch plan approval that was granted on September 30, 1991 for the referenced application. The applicant's agent for purposes of obtaining the approval of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services apparently used an old form when submitting the prints and mylars of the subdivision map and delay was encountered when the entire package was returned and had to be resubmitted on the new form that also required the surveyor's signature. Final maps will be submitted promptly upon receipt of approval by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. Very truly yours, Stephen L. Ham, III SLH:ja R APR sovcNo��lwR i PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS SCOTT L. HARRIS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., ChairmanaT. ,<<� Supervisor y ' r George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward ��`r �409 Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Mark S. McDonald P.O. Box 1179 . Kenneth L. Edwards Southold, New York 1.1971 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD . Fax (516) 765-1823 December 10; 1991 Stephen L. Ham III Matthews & Ham 45 Hampton Road Southampton, New York 11968 RE: Minor Subdivision for Samuel S. Polk SCTM41000-4-5-5. 9 Dear Mr. Ham: The following resolution was adopted by the Southold Town Planning Board at a meeting held on Monday, December 9, 1991. BE IT RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, establishes itself as lead agency, and as lead agency makes a ' determination of non-significance, and grants a Negative Declaration. Enclosed please find a copy of the Negative Declaration for your records. Very truly yours, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman Encl. AtTORNEYS &VD C()VNS9LLORB AT 45 ITAXxPTON.ROAD SOUTA aAMPTON,N.Y. 11968 $16.263.2400 Futup b.MAT-mEws TZLZC0Pz1:9 u18-e97-1076 STMvi L.&A.K,r= -PAX rTAMSHISSION To FAX 3 Phone From: Stephen L. Hain, III Number of pares ��- (including this :page) If all Pages are fact received, call 283-2400. CA ° fps , PLANK 1%OARD MATTa-U'*8 RAX -'kTT0r,RZy'F AND CODINSETLons AT Lwl 45 IIAMPTO?: RojcD 516-283-26400 April 3, 1992 Planning Board Town of Southold Main Road Soqt.-hold, NY 11971 Re: Miner Subdivision AppILicalCion of Samuel S. Polk (SCM, A 10,00-4-5-5.9 Dear Board Men--bersi Tease extend for an additional six months the sketch plan approval that was granted on Septenube-- 30, 1991 for the referenced application. The applicant's a�fent for purposes of obtaining the approval- of the A. 1.k Co-anty Department of Health Ser-Vices apparently used an old form when submitting the prints, and mylars of the subdivizion map and dulay was encountered where the entire package was returned and had to be resubmitted on the now, form that also required the surveyor's signature. Final maps will be submitted. promptly upon receipt of approval by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. Very truly yours, step t t te Ham, iij PR 3 ,992 SOU OLD TOWN G 80ARD 5MFICE CRAMER, V. RH SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS December 4, 1991 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman Southold Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 DEC - 51991 Southold, New York 11971 Re: Samuel Polk Minor Subdivision SOUTHOL BO RI SCTM# 1000-004-05-5.9 PLANNING Dear Benny: As per your request,we have completed a preliminary review of the above referenced project. Tasks and completed activities are identified as follows: 1. Review Part I LEAF The parcel has been field inspected by CVA, and the LEAF has been reviewed and amended as necessary. A copy of the corrected LEAF is attached. 2. Prepare Part II LEAF The Part 11 LEAF checklist has been completed and is also attached. Additional information concerning our findings is included below. 3. Advise as Necessary The parcel has been inspected and environmental references concerning the site and area have been consulted. The project is currently used for a single family residence. The site totals 4.88 acres in size. The proposal involves the division of property into one 2.44 acre lot for an existing residential home (Lot 2) and one 2.44 acre lot (Lot 1) for a future residential structure. This site is zoned R-120, requiring a lot yield based upon 120,000 square foot lots or greater. Since, the prop9seJ lots are approximately 1106,28 for feet the application will need a zoning variance from the Zoning Board or lot size. Field inspection finds that the southern portion of the site has steep slopes that range approximately from 30 to 40 percent. The existing home is located on moderately flat u land terrain, approximately 200 feet away from the top of the bank. The site (Lot 2�is subject to human impacts presently resulting from existing site uses. The remainder of Lot 2 includes a driveway and landscaped areas with accessory structures attached to the house. This lot contains vast amounts of natural vegetation leading to the steep slope and the slope is stable. Lot 1 will be a 2.44 acre lot,with a proposed single family house. This parcel is predominantly forested. The overall topography of the site is moderately flat with the Page 1 of 2 54-2 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 Samuel Polk Subdivision Long EAF Review exception of the rear area of the lot which is dominated by steep slopes. The steep slope area in the southern portion of the site contains natural vegetation and tree species. In the terms of project impacts the use of Lot 1 for the purpose of a subdivision and the ultimate construction of a single family,dwelling must be considered. Based upon a hypothetical house layout in conformance with zoning setbacks, extensive clearing may not be necessary for the location of a house, although some tree species will need to be removed. The house can be located in . accordance with R-120 zoning setbacks, and can also be situated 100 feet or more from the steep slope area. This hypothetical building envelope is moderately flat; therefore, minimum or no topographic impacts will occur. However, in the.area of the proposed driveway the slopes exceed 20 percent and will require extensive excavation to construct. Due to this it would seem prudent to require a Grading Site Plan be submitted to the Planning Board for further review at the time of the building permit application, in order to insure the stability of erodible soils in the slope area where the proposed driveway is to be located. We suggest that any future site use for Lot 1 be in excess of 100 feet of the steep slope area. In addition,we suggest that a restriction be placed upon the property to keep the natural vegetation in the steep slope area to limit potential erosion and stability problems. I hope this letter provides the Board with the information needed to continue review of this project. We would be pleased to provide additional input upon request. Please not hesitate to call if you have any questions. Very trul , a . Cramer, ASLA enc: Part I/II LEAF CRAMER, V R SOCIATES Page 2of2 ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS SEQR NEGATIVE DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance Lead Agency: Planning Board of the Town of Southold Address: Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Date. December 4, 1991 This notice is issued pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617, and local law# Chapter 44, of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review) of the Environmental Conservation Law. The lead agency has determined that the proposed action described below will not have a significant effect on the environment. Title of Action: Samuel S. Polk Fishers Island Minor Subdivision SCTM# 1000-4-5-5.9 SEAR Status. Unlisted Action Location: Located on Private Road, off of East End Road, Fishers Island, Southold, New York. Project Description: The project involves a request for a minor subdivision of one parcel into two lots. One house already exists on lot 2 and one is proposed on lot 1. The land is zoned R-120 low density residential. Reasons Supporting This Determination: This determination is issued in full consideration of the criteria for determination of significance contained in 6 NYCRR Part 617.11. In addition, a Long Environmental Assessment Form Parts I, R has been prepared by the Town, and has been fully considered by the Planning Board in the preparation of this determination. This Negative Declaration is issued in compliance with Part 617.8(e)(1)(ii), and in full consideration of the documentation and other relevant information provided. The following specific reasons are offered in support of this determination: 1) The subject site is presently occupied by one dwelling. The proposal would split the 4.88 acre lot into two parcels, thereby creating a lot for the existing dwelling and one for a future unit. 2) No further uses are proposed for lot 2; however, the applicant proposes to construct a single family dwellin*unit in the future on lot 1. The proposed project and future unit will not increase the intensity of land use. 3) The proposed project and future house will not increase demand for services, or set an unwarranted precedent, due to the fact that a uses presently exist on the site. 3) The site does not contain any unique environmental resources. The topography is moderate to steep, the soils are well drained, the site is dominated by landscaped areas and woodlot, and lot 2 is subject to human impacts presently resulting from existing site use. For Further Information: Contact Person: Bennett Orlowski,Jr. Chairman Address. Southold Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Phone No.: (516) 765-1938 Copies of this Notice Sent to: Commissioner - New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 50 Wolf Road,Albany, New York 12233-0001. Regional Director - NYSDEC, Building 40, The Loop Road, SUNY at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, New York 11794 Southold Zoning Board of Appeals, Southold, New York Southold Town Board, Southold, New York Suffolk County Department of Health Services, Riverhead, New York Applicant . PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ;,P?.i,�, �- SCOTT L. HARRIS { t?!° Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman �^ ,., w� ,�Sr�. ,,, Supervisor George Ritchie Latham, Jr. ''>';� Richard G. Ward Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Mark S. McDonald `ftf P.O. Box 1 179 Kenneth L. Edwards Southold, New York 11971 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823 State Environmental Quality Review NEGATIVE DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance December 10, 1991 This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act) of the Environmental Law. The Southold Town Planning Board, as lead agency, has determined that the proposed action described below will . not have a significant effect on the environment and-. a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be prepared. Name of Action: Minor Subdivision for Samuel S. Polk SCTM# : 1000-4-5-5. 9 Location: Private Road 112 feet northwest of East End Road Fishers Island SEAR Status: Type I ( X) Unlisted ( ) Conditioned Negative Declaration: Yes ( ) No (X ) Description of Action.- Subdivide a 4. 88 acre parcel into two 2. 44 acre parcels on Fishers Island. Page 2 Samuel S. Polk . SEQR Negative Declaration Con't. Reasons Supporting This Determination: An Environmental assessment. has' been submitted, reviewed and it has been determined that no significant adverse effects to the environment were likely to occur should the project be implemented as planned. Because there .has been no correspondence received from the Department of Health Services in the allotted time, it is assumed that there are no comments or objections from that agency. Because there has been no correspondence received from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation in the allotted time, it is assumed that there are no comments or objections from that agency. The subject site is presently occupied by one dwelling. The proposal would split the A. 88 acre lot into two parcels, thereby creating a lot for the existing dwelling and one for a future unit. No further uses are proposed for lot 2; however, the applicant proposes to construct single family dwelling unit in the future on lot 1. The proposed project and future unit will not increase the intensity of land use. The proposed project and future house will not increase demand for services, or set an ,unwarranted precedent, fur to the fact that a use presently exists on the site. The site does nor contain any unique environmental resources. The topography is moderate to steep, the soils are well drained, the site is dominated by landscaped areas and woodlot, and lot 2 is subject to human impacts presently resulting from existing site use. . For Further Information: Contact Person: Robert G. Kassner Address: Planning Board Telephone Number: (516) 765-1938 cc: Suffolk County Department of Health Services Suffolk County Planning Commission Roger Evans DEC Stony Brook Comm. Thomas C.- Jorling, DEC Albany Cramer, Voorhis & Associates Judith Terry, Town Clerk Building Department Applicant 14-1()-2 (2/87)-7c • 617.21 0 EQR Appendix A State Environmental Quality Review DEC — 51991 FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT QR " full EAF is designed help aagencies sourHot.0 row Purpose: The ned to and determine, in a. g P applicants PPNola i�ether a roject or action may be significant. The question of whether an action may be significant is not always easy to ans quent- ly, there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasureable. It is also understood that those who determine significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may be technically expert in environmental analysis. In addition, many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affecting the question of significance. The full EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the determination process has been orderly, comprehensive.in nature, yet flexible to allow introduction of information to fit a project or action. Full EAF Components: The full EAF is comprised. of three parts: Part 1: Provides objective data and information about a given project and its site. By identifying basic project data, it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3. Part 2: Focuses on identifying the range of possible impacts that may occur from a project or action. It provides guidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to moderEt :tentially- .--..._.. arge impact. The form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigat ��7 �Part 3: If any impact in Part 2 is identified as.potentially-large, then Part 3 is used o'rT1ot the impact is actually important. -�D DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE—Type 1 and Unlisted Actions �- - Identify the Portions of EAF completed for this project: Part 1 _�K Part 2 ❑Past 3 Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts 1 and 2 and 3 if appropriate), and any other supporting information, and considering both the magitude and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined by the lead agency that: A. The project will not result in any large and important impact(s) and, therefore, is one which will not have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will be prepared. ❑ B. Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required, therefore a CONDITIONED negative declaration will be prepared.* ❑ C. The project may result in one or more large and important impacts that may have a significant impact on the environment, therefore.a positive declaration will be prepared. * A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions St �17��10N1 r #'C Name of Action 11 �- U l���i� Name of Lead Agency Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer ( Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer(If different from responsible.officer) Date 1 PART 1—PROJECT MrURMATION Prepared by'Project Sponsor NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect . on the environment. Please complete the entire form, Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be considered as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any addition information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve new studies, research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and specify each instance. NAME OF ACTION MINOR SUBDIVISION OF SAMUEL S . POLK LOCATION OF ACTION (Include Street Address,Municipality and County) Private Road off East End Road, Fishers Island, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York (SCTM # 1000-4- - NAME OF APPLICANT/SPONSOR BUSINESS TELEPHONE Samuel S. Polk ( 516) 283-2400 ADDRESS ' c/o Matthews & Ham, 45 Hampton Road % CITYIPO STATE ZIP CODE Southampton NY 11968 NAME OF OWNER(If different) BUSINESS TELEPHONE ADDRESS CITYIPO STATE ZIP CODE DESCRIPTION OF ACTION subdivision into two 2.44-acre lots of 4.88-acre parcel on which one single-family dwelling is presently located Please Complete Each Question—Indicate N.A. if not applicable A. Site Description Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas. 1. Present land use: ❑Urban ❑Industrial ❑Commercial ❑Residential (suburban) ®Rural (non-farm) ❑Forest ❑Agriculture ❑Other 2. Total acreage of project area: 4.88 acres. APPROXIMATE ACREAGE PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION'S Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) -59 acres .-rail' I- I acres Forested 4 .16 acres .4�a; acres Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) acres acres Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of ECL) acres acres Water Surface Area acres acres Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) acres acres Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces •17 acres •17 -3� acres Other (Indicate type) acres acres 3. What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? __ sand - sand & >?ravel EwaheAd --P1�g . a. Soil drainage: MWell drained 100 % of site ❑Moderately well drained °o of site , ❑Poorly drained % of site b. If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NY Land Classification System? ALA_ acres. (See 1 NYCRR 370). 4. Are'there bedrock outcroppings on project site? ❑Yes (NNo a. What is depth to bedrock? e. 600 ft. (in feet) -0 4-C)C) 0 \1f2bT T1Lim 2 5. Approximate percentage of proposed lot site with slopes: [no 109'0 73• 6 010 15°0 ' 1K115% or greater 26.32 % 6, Is project substantially contiguous to, or contain a building, site, or district, listed on the State or the National Registers of Historic Places? Dyes L�No C '. Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? ❑Yes [�No 8. What is the depth of the water table? � 16 ft(in feet) 9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? ]Yes ONO 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? [XYes *o iFlzf VA rE pp—o PG P ry 11. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? ❑Yes E]No According to J.M.O. Consulting Identify each species 12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations) OYes ®No Describe 13. Is the project site presently used -by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? ❑Yes ONO If yes, explain 14. Does the present site include scenic view known to be impo to t to the ommunity. ❑Yes XNo unknown ��� SCed1 L f 0V%14 20P6 �12 15. Streams within or contiguous to project area: N/A a. Name of Stream and name of River to which.it is tributary N/A 16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: a. Name N/A b. Size (In acres) N/A 17. Is the site served by existing public utilities? ®Yes ❑N.o JA tlfgf (C: ina1 � XY A-7-z� L 4— a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? ®Yes ONO E GG�'�`'t G Ty b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? ❑Yes LNNo 18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 304? ❑Yes CXNo 19. Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 617? MYes ❑No 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? ❑Yes ®No B. Project Description 1. : nysical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage owned or-controlled by project sponsor 4 .88 acres. b. Project acreage .to.be developed: 0 acres initially; 0 /'.�'`� cres ultimately. c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped 4"rii4b acres. (until construction, if,any, takes place on d. Length of project, in miles: N/A (If appropriate) Lot 1) e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed N/A %; f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing N/A ; proposed NIA g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour N/A (upon completion of project)? h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: One Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium Initially one Ultimately two i. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure N/A height; N/A width; N/A length. j. Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? 0 ft. 3. 9 ' 4 ' �. How much natural r,.a«rial (i.e., r earth, etc.) will be removed from the t 0 tons/cubic yards 3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed? OYes ONo IN N/A a. If yes, for what intended purpose is the site being reclaimed? =: b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? ❑Yes * ONo c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? OYes ONo Y, Q 7 t. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? 0 acres. 5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project? OYes ®No 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction N/A months, (including demolition). 7. If multi-phased: N/A a. Total number of phases anticipated (number). i. b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 month year, (including demolition). c. Approximate completion date of final phase month year. d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? OYes ONo 8. Will blasting occur during construction? OYes ®No 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction 0 ; after project is complete 0 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project 0 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? OYes ®No If yes, explain 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? OYes IJNo a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) and amount b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged 13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? Oyes ®No Type 14 Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? OYes KNo Explain 15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? OYes ®No 16. Will the project generate solid waste? KYes ®No �{ 1�t� a. If yes, what is the amount per month tons U� �I�i2M t�'�a.�,�� `' b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? 9Yes ONo F. L I��anJ�l=r>; si.c. If yes, give name location d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into,a sanitary landfill? OYes ONo e. If Yes, explain KP_CYCIAeLL- HAr-c- Yll-/ lt 6f le'fC%lfifztCo 17. Will the project involve the disposal,of solid waste? ❑Yes ®No a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? tons/month. b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? years. 18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? OYes MNo 19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? OYes nNo 20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? OYes ®No 21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? ❑Yes ®No If yes , indicate type(s) 22. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity N/A MLNI C.1(>A gallons/minute. , ��Ea t�-� �v��r��V 23. Total anticipated water usage per day N/A gallons/day, E 2.1. Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? OYes MNo If Yes, explain �� ��y j�E�1-q,-i �-i"1G I'a �, �-��J'��`.:� f�1\;I; Ur•� �Iv 4 25..Approvals Required: Submittal • Type Date City, Town, Village Board ❑Yes K]No City, Town, Village Planning Board K]Yes ❑No Minor Subdivision Approval U/22/91 City, Town-Zoning Board Ayes Z1No L9E S•t7_JE_ VAQIALJCt C City, County Health Department K]Yes ❑No Minor Subdivision Approval (after Planning Bo Other Local Agencies Dyes %]No plan approval)— Other Regional Agencies ❑Yes nNo State Agencies ❑Yes l ]No Federal Agencies ❑Yes K]No C. Zoning and Planning Information 1 . Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, indicate decision required: ❑zoning amendment (zoning variance ❑special use permit ®subdivision ❑site plan ❑new/revision of master plan ❑resource management plan ❑other 2. What is the zoning classification(s)of the site? R-120 - 3(A Ct.-E IR S'Alff MT(AI 1.IDW 3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? two single family-dwellings j(}C' GTf &Jzi� . NDT i JCi�C( L VZ �1t 4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? same 5. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? two single family dwellings ANA CG. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? [ZYes ❑No 7. What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a '/4 mile radius of proposed action? residential; single family dwellings; R-120 8. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a '/4 mile? nYes ❑No 9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? two a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? 2.44 acres 10: Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? ❑Yes nNo 11 . Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police, fire protection)? ❑Yes MNo a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? ❑Yes ❑No 12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? ❑Yes ®No a. If yes, is the:existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? Dyes ❑No D. Anformational Details Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or: avoid them. E. Verification certify that the information provided above is true to the best of mp knowledge. Applicant/Sponsor Name Samuel S. Polk Date 4/22/91 Signature Ry 4W" Lam. Z� Title authorized agent Stephen AL. Ham, III If the action is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment. 5 s F�t 2—PROJECT' IMPACTS AND 41EIR MAGNITUDE Responsibility of Lead Agency General Information (Read Carefully) • In completing the form the reviewer should be guided by the question: Have my responses and determinations been z reasonable? The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst. • Identifying that an impact will be potentially large (column 2) does not mean that it is also necessarily;significant. nificant. ' Any large impact must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance. Identifying an impact in column 2 simply asks that it be looked at further. • The Examples provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of impacts and wherever possible the threshold of magnitude that would trigger a response in column 2. The examples are generally applicable throughout the State and for most situations. But, for any specific project or site other examples and/or lower thresholds may be appropriate for a Potential Large Impact response, thus requiring evaluation in Part 3. • The impacts of each project, on each site, in each locality, will vary. Therefore, the examples are illustrative and have been offered as guidance. They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each question. • The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question. In identifying impacts, consider long term, short term and cumlative effects. Instructions (Read carefully) a. Answer each of the 19 questions in PART 2. Answer Yes if there will be any impact. b. Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers. c. If answering Yes to a question then check the appropriate box (column 1 or 2) to indicate the potential size of the impact. If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided, check column 2. If impact will occur but threshold is lower than example, check column 1. d. If reviewer has doubt about size of the impact then consider the impact as potentially large and proceed to PART 3.- e. If a potentially large impact checked in column 2 can be mitigated by change(s) in the project to a small to moderate impact, also check the Yes box in column 3: A No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible. This must be explained in Part 3. 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be IMPACT ON LAND Moderate Large Mitigated By 1 . Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? Impact Impact Project Change �10 DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 - • Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise per 100 ❑ ❑ ❑Yes El No foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10%. • Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No 3 feet. • Construction of paved parking area for.1,000 or more vehicles. Cl ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No 3 feet of existing ground surface. • Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No than one phase or stage. • Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 ❑ ❑ ❑Yes [:]No tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year. • Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Construction in a designated floodway. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Other impacts ❑ ❑ ❑Yes El No 2. Will there be an effect t.. ...iy un.que or unusual land forms found on the site? (i..e., cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc XNO OYES • Specific land forms: ❑ ❑ El Yes ❑No 6 . 2 3 Small to Potential [Can Impact Be IMPACT ON WATERModerate Large Mitigated By 3. Will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? Impact Impact roject Change (Under Articles 15, 24, 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law, ECL) )9N0 DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Developable area of site contains a protected water body. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑IN • Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No protected stream. • Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes El No 4. Will proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? ;ESNO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 16 A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water ❑. ❑ ❑Yes ❑No or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. • Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No 5. Will Proposed ,Action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? AN DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will require a discharge permit. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No C • Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not ❑ 0 ❑Yes El No have approval to serve proposed (project) action. • Proposed Action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45 ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No gallons per minute pumping capacity. • Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water ❑ ❑ El Yes ❑No supply system. • Proposed Action will adversely affect groundwater. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No do not exist or have inadequate capacity. • Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No day. • Proposed Action will likely cause siltation or other discharge into ari ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to naturai conditions. • Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No products greater than 1,100 gallons. • Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without water ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No and/or sewer services. • Proposed Action locates commercial and/or industrial uses which may ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No require new or expansion of existing waste tregtment and/or storage facilities. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No 6. Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? NO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action would change flood water flows. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No 7 1 2 3 Small to ential Can Impact Be T Moderate Large Mitigated By g Impact Impact Project Change _Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion. ❑ C El El Yes El No Proposed 'Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns.' ❑ ❑Yes []No Action will allow development in a designated floodway. ❑ Other impacts: ❑ El Yes ❑No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No .: IMPACT ON AIR 7. Will proposed action affect air quality? .NO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 Proposed Action will induce 1,000 or more vehicle trips in any given ❑ ❑hour. ❑Yes ❑No ;! Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of ❑ refuse oer hour. ❑ El Yes ❑No • Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. ❑per hour or a ❑ Yes No � heat source producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour. ❑ ❑ r • Proposed action will allow an increase in the amount of land committed to industrial use. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes []No • Proposed action will allow an increase in the density of industrial ❑ development within existing industrial :areas. El ❑Yes []No • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No IMPACT ON-PLANTS AND.ANIMALS 1. Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered species? fINO AYES Examples that would apply to column 2 Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federal list, using the site, over or near site or found on the site. ❑ El ❑Yes ❑No Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. ❑ Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other ❑ ❑Yes ❑No than for agricultural purposes. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No Other impacts: I ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No %Vill Proposed Action substantially affect non-th_reate ed or non-endangered species? Examples that would apply to column 2 NO DYES I I Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident or'n,gratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species. El ❑ ❑Yes ❑No 'roposed Action requires the removal of more than, 10 'f mature forest (over 100 years of age) or other locally important acres ❑ ❑ El Yes ❑No et; �~ ' etation. IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES Will the Proposed Action affect agricultural land re purees? Examples that would apply to column 2 /NNO AYES he proposed action would sever, cross or limit access to agricultural nd (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc.) ❑ ❑ []Yes ❑No 8 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change • Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of ❑ ❑ 0—Yes ❑No agricultural land. • The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres ❑ ❑ ❑t•es ❑No of agricultural land or, if located in an Agricultutal District, more than 2.5 acres of agricultural land. !. The proposed action would disrupt or prevent installation of agricultural ❑ ❑ 01'es ❑No land management systems (e.g., subsurface drain lines, outlet ditches, strip cropping); or create a need for such measures (e.g. cause a farm field to drain poorly due to increased runoff) • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 11 . Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources? eNNO DYES (If necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section 617.21, Appendix B.) Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ON or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use' patterns, whether man-made or natural. • Proposed land uses, or project components visible to users of ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource. • Project components that will result in the elimination or significant ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No screening of scenic views known to be important to the area. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ []Yes ❑No IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12. Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, pre- historic or paleontological importance? JKNO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or National Register of historic places. - • Any impact to an archaeological site or-fossil bed located within the ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No project site. • Proposed Action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No archaeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ El Yes ❑No IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 13 Will Proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? ` Examples that would apply to column 2 NO DYES CTlir permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • A major reduction of an open space important to the community. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No 9 'IMPACT ON T ANSPOF---[ON 3 ' Small to Mential Can Impact Be .:,14. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? Moderate Large Mitigated By 'NO DYES Impact Impact Project Change Examples that would apply to column 2 Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. ❑ Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems. ❑ Yes ❑N�o �v ❑ ❑ :• Other impacts: ❑Yes ❑No El El El Yes ❑No IMPACT ON ENERGY `515. Will proposed action affect the community's sou ces of fuel or energy supply? NO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 ~• Proposed Action will cause a greater than 5% increase in the use of ❑ any form of energy in the municipality.any ❑Yes ONO _ • Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of an energy Eltransm;ssion or supply system to serve•more than 50 single or two family El ❑Yes No �= residences or to serve a major commercial or industrial use. V • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ONO NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS ! 16 Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the Proposed Action? Examples that would apply to column 2 /XNO AYES Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive facility. ❑ El El Yes ONO Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). `- Proposed Action will produce operating noise exceeding the local ❑ El ❑Yes ONO I ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ONO Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a noise screen. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ONO Other impacts: ❑ ❑ Dyes ONO - IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety? Examples that would apply to column 2 ' O AYES °roposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous,ubstances(i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of El Yes ONO 1ccident or upset conditions, or there may be a chronic low level lischarge or emission. °rOPosed Action may result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" in any ❑ orm (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, El Yes El No ' Ifectious, etc.) i torat;e facilities for one million or more gallons of liquified natural as or Other flammable liquids. El ❑ Dyes ❑No ! i roposed action may result in the excavation or other disturbance ithin 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous El ❑ ❑Yes ❑NO aste. - 'ther impacts: �— El El ❑Yes ❑NO 10 1 2 3 IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER Small to Potential Can Impact Be OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD Moderate Large Mitigated By 18. Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community?t DYES Impact Impact Project Change Examples that would apply to column 2 • The permanent population of the city, town or village in which the ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ON project is located is likely to grow by more than 5%. • The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating services ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ONO will increase by more than'5% per year as a result of this project. • Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land use. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ONO or areas of historic importance to the community. • Development will create a demand for additional community services ❑ ❑ Oyes ONO (e.g. schools, police and fire, etc.) Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ONO • Proposed Action will.create or eliminate employment. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ONO • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ El Yes ❑No 19. Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? ^NO DYES If Any Action in.Part 2 Is Identified as a Potential Large impact or LIf You Cannot Determine the. Magnitude of Impact, Proceed to Part 3 Part 3—EVALUATION! OF THE IiAPORTANCE OF IMPACTS Responsibility of Lead Agency Part 3 must be prepared if one or more impact(s) is considered to be potentially large, even if the impact(s) may be mitigated. Instructions Discuss the following for each impact identified in Column 2 of Part 2: 1 . Briefly describe the impact. 2. Describe(if applicable).how the impact could be mitigated or reduced to a small to moderate impact by project change(s). 3. Based on the information available, decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is important. To answer the question of importance, consider: • The probability of the impact occurring • The duration of the impact • Its irreversibility, including permanently lost resources of value • Whether the impact can or will be controlled • The regional consequence of the impact • Its potential divergence from local needs and goals • Whether known objections to the project relate to this impact. . _ (Continue on attachments) 11 b �y I PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS SCOTT L. HARRIS sa- L."�i s ,1�t`. •ter, c a Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman +fie ^ •`, w ' Supervisor George Ritchie Latham, Jr. ,'�����"`' •;�,`�;;j'�' Richard G. Ward � '-�i ' Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Mark S. McDonald P.O. Box 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards Southold, New York 11971 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823 November 22,1991 Stephen L. Ham, III Mathews and Ham 45 Hampton Road Southampton, NY 11968 RE: Minor Subdivision for Samuel S. Polk Zoning District: Low-Density Residential R-120 Fishers Island SCTM# 1000-4-5-5. 9 Dear Mr. Ham: You should be 'aware that if the Planning Board grants final approval, the Town will require a park and playground fee of $2000.00 per vacant lot as per Town Code, Section A106-38 E (3 ) . If you have any questions, or require further information, please contact this office. Very truly yours, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman COUNTY OF SUFFOLKF�G� f�slab �® kIc, PATRICK G. HALPIN I SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE ARTHU' DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING H. A NNN DIRRECTORECTOR OF PL AI ING 1 October 3, 1991 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Town of Southold Planning Board Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Minor Subdivision Plan - Property of Samuel S. Polk Location: Southerly side of cul-de-sac, Private Road, 112 + feet northwest of East End Road, Town of Southold. Dear Mr. Orlowski: Please be advised that pursuant to Section A 14-24, Article X1V of the Suffolk County Administrative Code that the above, captioned plat is not within the jurisdiction of the Suffolk County Planning Commission. Comment: The parcel is outside the Special Groundwater Protection Area that is being developed. Very truly yours, Arthur H. Kunz Director of Planning S/s Frank Dowling, Senior Planner Subdivision Review Division File: 1333-NJ-91-13 FD:mb KSO1JTIjOLD 7�- i99tVETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY HAUPPAUGE, L.1., NEW YORK 11788 TO(516)'360-5192 - NNlidG BOAR „ . New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Aga off - 6. &ss Imbas 0 R @ R 9 W N 0 sox //77 OCT - 8 1991 PtANWNG F: Re: LEAD AGENCY COORDINATION RESPONSE Dear /�✓. 1C Y'f1w This letter responds to your communication of regarding lead agency coordination for the above-noted project, under Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review - SEQR) of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617. The Department has the following interest in this project: DEC Permits (if any) : tIon e C � DEC Contact Person: /i , SEQR Classification: [ ] Type I [ ] Unlisted DEC Position: Based on the information provided: [ ] DEC has no objection to your agency assuming lead agency status for this action. [ ] DEC wishes to assume lead agency status for this action. [ ] DEC needs additional information in order to respond (see comments) . DEC cannot be lead agency because it has no jurisdiction in this action. Comments: IG] see [ ] none If you do not concur with the DEC position indicated above, please contact this office to resolve designation of lead agency within the time allowable under Part 617. Please feel free to contact this office for further information or discussion. 5erSielyz�� cc: (attach distribution list) _ i 3 �o/ C l� Rio vY, 7Z.e lf—�r�y"4��, �scv� ,,y%. F®tt F Y v (i/S6/y i l..ridi .fit PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS `IX- SCOTT L. HARRIS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman ^. � ;'_;, Supervisor George Ritchie Latham, Jr. y � Richard G. Ward Town Hall, 53095 Main Road �� �`� -d;1"Mark S. McDonald P.O. Box 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards Southold, New York 11971 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823 October 8, 1991 !' Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, ,Inc. Environmental and Planning Consultants 54 N. Country Road Miller Place, New York 11764 RE: Review of LEAF Samuel S. Polk SCTM# 1000-4-5-5.9 Dear Mr. Cramer and Voorhis: The Southold Town Planning Board hereby refers the Environmental Assessment Form for the above mentioned subdivision .to your office for review. The Planning Board has received the $400. 00 review fee from the applicant. The purchase order will be sent to you under separate cover. If there are any questions, please contact Planning Staff. e truly yo 7, ennett Orlowski, Jr. � Chairman enc. I 1 COUNTY OF SUFFOLK a p8 VS letc PATRICK G. HALPIN SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING ARTHUR H. KUNZ DIRECTOR OF PLANNING October 3, 1991 f Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Town of Southold Planning Board Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Minor Subdivision Plan - Property of Samuel S. Polk Location: Southerly side of cul-de-sac, Private Road, 112 .+ feet northwest of East End Road, Town of Southold. Dear Mr. Orlowski: Please be advised that pursuant to Section A 14-24, Article XIV of the Suffolk County Administrative Code that the above captioned plat is not within the jurisdiction of the Suffolk County Planning Commission. Comment: The parcel is outside the Special Groundwater Protection Area that is being developed. ------- Very truly yours, Arthur H. Kunz Director of Planning S/s Frank Dowling, Senior Planner (jY`J Subdivision Review Division 010 I n P I` VE �/ GJB i 91:i1 I HJ t (5 �( (316)36Q-3192 SOUTHOLD TOWN I PLANNING BOARD i - ray PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS k� '� ti. , `, SCOTT L. HARRIS l' .:. ..�.". r Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman � �, .� , Supervisor ;I George Ritchie Latham, Jr. : Richard G. Ward J Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Mark S. McDonald 7` P.O. Box 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards Southold, New York 11971 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823 October 1, 1991 Stephen L. Ham III Matthews & Ham 45 Hampton Road Southampton, New York 11968 RE: Minor Subdivision of Samuel S. Polk SCTM#1000-4-5-5. 9 Dear Mr. Ham: The following resolutions were adopted by the Southold Town Planning Board at a meeting held on Monday, September 30, 1991. Be it RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board start the coordination process on this Type I action. Be it RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board grant sketch approval on the map dated April 30, '1990. Sketch plan approval is conditional upon submission of final maps within six months of the date of sketch approval, unless an extension of time is requested by the applicant, and granted by the Planning Board. Please note that five ( 5) paper prints and two ( 2) mylars of the final map containing a current stamp of Health Department approval, must be submitted before a final public hearing will be set. Please note that the Planning Board has_ referred this subdivision to the Suffolk County Planning Commission for their review. You will be notified should any covenants and restrictions be required. l �a Page 2 Samuel Polk Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above. Very truly yours, [ 0�1X&'-(`�J2�, Bennett Orlowski Jr. �''S Chairman MATTHEWS & HAM � L� ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW 45 HAMPTON ROAD SOUTHAMPTON,N.Y.11968 516-283-2400 PHILIP B.MATTHEWS TELECOPIER 516-287-1076 STEPHEN L.HAN,.m October 1, 1991 Planning Board Town of Southold Town Hall Main Roada � Southold, NY 11971 Re: Minor Subdivision for Samuel S. Polk (SCTM # 1000-4-5-5.9) Gentlemen: In accordance with the request in your letter of September 24, 1991, I have enclosed a check to the Town of . Southold in the amount of $400 in payment of your environmental consultant's fee. Very truly yours, Stephen L. Ham, III SLH:ja Enclosure p t� QC� DdC� _ --• -- 21991 PUNNING BOARD PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS e qa SCOTT L. HARRIS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman v M1 Supervisor George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward -, �' Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Mark S. McDonald - P.O. Box 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Southold, New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD -Fax (516) 765-1823 i 1990 RE: Lead Agency Coordination Request Dear Reviewer: The purpose of this request is to determine under Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act-SEQRA) of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617 the following: 1. Your jurisdiction in the action described below; 2. Your interest in assuming the responsibilities of lead agency; and 3 . Issues of concern which you believe should be evaluated. Enclosed please find a copy of the proposal and a complete" Environmental Assessment Form (EA F to . s ist you in ur response. Project Name: Requested Action: g SEQRA Classification: ( x) Type I ( ) Unlisted Contact Person: p �/ .,_^ SN (*6 7 --1938 The lead agency will determine the need for an environmental impact statement (EIS) on this project. Within thirty ( 30) days of the date of this letter, please respond in writing whether or not you have an interest in being lead agency. Planni g Board Position: ( This agency wishes to assume lead agency status for this action. ( ) This agency has no objection to your agency assuming lead agency status fcr this action. ( ) Other. ( See comments below) . Comments: Please feel free to contact this office for further information. Sincerely, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman cc: A Board of Appeals *Building' Department Southold Town Board Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services NYSDEC - Stony Brook �-..5 9-i.:�By * Maps are enclosed for your review Coordinating agencies v15• .7r b7'f PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ] p SCOTT L. HARRIS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman y c.'9�...._v;� Supervisor George Ritchie Latham, Jr. e$9 Richard G. Ward Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Mark S. McDonald P.O. Box 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Southold, New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765.1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD YA01 Fax (516) 765-1823 Suffolk County Planning Commision H. Lee Dennison Executive Office Building - 12th Floor Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 Attention: Mr. Frank Dowling, Senior Planner Subdivision Review Division Gentlemen: Pursuant to Section A14-24, Suffolk County Administrative Code, the Southold Town Planning Board. hereby refers the following proposed subdivision to the Suf olk Coun y Planning Comm' a Map of - q , Hamlet/Locality rr' L Z,e,I . S.C.D.P.W. Topo No. : Zonin f � -� 0 S.C. Tax Map No. . rn,�,0 - Major Sub. Minor Sub. P-"� Site Plan Cluster MATERIAL SUBMITTED: Preliminary Plat ( 3 copies) i/oad Profiles (1) Drainage Plans (1) Topogroaphical Map (1) Site Plan (1) Grading Plan (1) Other materials (specify and give number of copies) Waiver of Subdivision Requirements - See attached sheet CONTINUED REFERRAL CRITERIA: SEQRA STATUS: 1. The project is an (Unlisted) (Type I) (Type II)Action. 2. A (Negative Declaration) (Positive Declaration) (Determ. of Non-Significance) has been adopted by the Planning Board. 3. E.I.S. statement enclosed. (Yes) (No) . 4. The proposed division has received approval from the S.C. Dept of Health. (Yes) (No) . Commeats: �.-- o We request acknowledgement of receipt of this referral (Yes) (No) Referral received 19 by Suffolk County Planning Commission and assigned File NO. Very truly yours, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman April ZZ, 1991 Southold Town Planning Board Town Hall Southold, New York 11971 Re: Minor Subdivision of Samuel S.. Polk; SCTM # 1000-4-5-5.9 Gentlemen: The following statements are offered for your consideration ; in the review of the above-mentioned minor subdivision and its referral 'to"the -Suffolk County Planning Commission: (1) No grading, other- than foundation excavation for a residential building is proposed. (2-) No. new -roads- -are proposed and. no changes will be made in . . . the grades of the existing roads . (3) No new drainage structures or alteration of existing structures are proposed. Yours truly, . Stephen L. Ham, III, authorized agent of Samuel S. Polk SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD SEE SHEET 2 ' 74 ��� r��ll�r�r'�-/� .Z'/�YS•'a� /��' 't\� S�/�.�I� �.J ��=�\ �� -�� L J � fD \\ �rl r a � u ' UN PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS r 7ir`. SCOTT L. HARRIS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman _:+ � '� Supervisor George Ritchie Latham, Jr.Richard G. Ward tS Town Hall, 53095 Main Road a t7� Mark S. McDonald P.O. Box 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards Southold, New York 11971 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823 September 24, 1991 Stephen L. Hamm, III Mathews and Hamm 45 Hampton Road Southampton, NY 11968 RE: Minor Subdivision for Samuel S. Polk Zoning District: Low-Density Residential R-120 Fishers Island SCTM# 1000-4-5-5. 9 Dear Mr. Ham: The Planning Board has received a cost estimate of $400. 00 from their Environmental Consultant for review of the Long Environmental Assessment Form. The above mentioned sum must be paid in full by your client .before we can authorize our consultant to proceed with the review. The check should be made payable to the Town of Southold. When the consultants complete their review, the Planning Board will consider their findings in making a determination of whether the project will have a significant environmental impact. Very truly yours, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. i'A Chairman MEMORANDUM TO FILE ON FIDCO RE: Lot #3, Chocomount SCTM # 1000-4-5-5. 9 Minor Subdivision Application of Samuel S. Polk (AKA Lieb and Danforth) r FROM: Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner J✓"�"!" l DATE: September 17, 1991 The Fishers Island Development Corporation owns the east end of Fishers Island. Through the years, the Corporation (FIDCO) sold lots more or less in accordance.. with.:a development map that had been drawn by Frederick Law Olmstead in 1928. In 1958, the Town Board adopted the Olmstead development map as an 'open development' area or subdivision, pursuant to Section 280-A.4 of New York State Town Law. (A copy of the Town Board' s .resolution is attached (and labeled Exhibit A. ) . Section 280-A. 4. of New York State Town Law requires the Planning Board to approve the creation of each lot. A copy of that section of the law is attached herein as Exhibit B. According to the Planning Board's records, there was a period of time during which FIDCO was creating (and selling) lots without Planning Board knowledge or approval. 'This practice was stopped in June of 1982, when the Planning Board adopted a set of maps for FIDCO' s property. New lots that had been created without benefit of Planning Board' s approval before that date were shown on this map. Exhibit C is a copy of the Planning Board' s resolution of June 1982. The Planning Board' s 1982 resolution did not specify which map it was adopting. However the two maps in the file that were drawn just before and after the June resolution both show the Chocomount area as being subdivided into three lots. Lot 3 of this subdivision carries the notation 12 lots' . Neither map shows an actual subdivision line for these two lots. Exhibit D Ls a copy of this section of the map. At this time, based on this evidence, and none other to the contrary, it seems safe to say that Lot 3 was destined to be two lots in 1982. However, the zoning of this area was changed by the Town Board in 1989. Under the current requirements, neither of the proposed lots will meet the minimum area requirements of the 1 R-120 zoning district. At first glance, it would seem that the Planning Board could not approve the proposed subdivision without a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. However, Harvey Arnoff, the Town Attorney, at a meeting held on April 12, 1991, stated that it was his opinion that the 1990 decision of Ellington Construction Corp. v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 77 N.Y. 2d 114, provided a sufficient basis for the Town to subdivide the two lots in accordance with the zoning that was in effect in 1982. Exhibit E has the minutes of that meeting along with a copy of the Ellington decision. He felt that FIDCO, as the subdivider and developer, had manifested a committment to follow through with its development map, and consequently, had vested rights in the map as it was adopted in 1982. Accordingly, Lot 3 will not be affected by the 1989 upzoning. With this interpretation, the Town Attorney removed all obstacles to the Planning Board proceeding with an application save one; which was that FIDCO had failed to file the 1982 map.. Since there was no filed map, the Planning Board could not proceed with any subdivision applications within the .open development area. In accordance„ the Planning .Board suspended its review of all applications, be they subdivisions or lot-line amendments within the open development area. In September of 1991, the 1982 map was resubmitted in a form acceptable to the Suffolk County Clerk' s office for filing. The Planning Board renewed its 1982 approval of the open development map and authorized its Chairman to endorse it on September 9th. FIDCO has sixty (60) days from September 9, 1991 to file this map. Until that time, no further subdivision applications will be processed by the Planning Board. For further information on the subdivision of Lot 3 of Chocomount, the reader should read the subdivision file for this lot. It is referenced in the Planning Board' s Master file drawer as SCTM # 1000-4-5-5.9, and the name Samuel S. Polk (aka Lieb and Danforth) . Addendum: On the issue of mergers, Section 100-32.B. of the current Zoning code extends the provisions of Section 265-a of New York State Town Law, which provides for a three year extension for those subdivisions that were approved under less restrictive zoning requirements. Section 100-32.B. of the Town' s Zoning . code exempts certain subdivision maps from the zoning shown on the zoning map. This extension appears to be an open-ended extension. However, there have been no discussion with the Town Attorney as to whether the Ellington decisions will affect the traditional interpretation of Section 100-32.B. of the Zoning code. Exhibits F and G include the above noted sections of Town and State law. ` cc: Victor Lessard, Principal Building Inspector Harvey Arnoff, Town Attorney p e ... .. ..r.•.:r+rw.a.rx::�•.�:xa��+rie r�•ic«x,gy✓.x:::?..... . - . . ... . . •• •: .. .. ........-. -- •. - , . ... " Iwo Moved by Councilman Demarest; seconned by Justice Edwards: UTHEREAS, FISHERS ISLAND ESTATES has made application to the Town Board for the establishment of an OPEN DEVELOPMENT AREA pursuant to the provi- sions of Section 280-A of the Town Law, and i,qi ?EAS , the Town Board has heretofore referred the matter to the Planning Board for its advice , and WHEREAS , the Planning Board has recommended that the application of FIS117-RS ISLAND ESTATES be granted, • NCW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town Board of the Town of Southold does hereby establish an OPEN DEVELOPMENT AREA over the premises of FISHERS IELAND ESTATES as shown forth on the map attached to the application, and it is recommended that 50 feet be reserved for highwayjf purposes wherever it is possible. Vote of Town Board: Ayes-Supervisor Klipp; Councilmen Albertson and Demarest; Justices Tuthill,a$a,Edwards:&!rirds, . Noes-Henry .A . Clark. �. Moved by Councilman Demarest; seconded- by Justice Clark; WHE?EAS , at a meeting of this Board, held on Bebruary 25, 1958, a resol- ution was duly adopted referring to the Planning Board of the Town of Southold, ' proposals to amend the Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York for its recommendation and report, and WHEREAS , the - Planning Board did thereafter file with the Town Board its written •recommend=,tion and report on said 'proposals , Now,'-;therefore, be it RESOLVED: that this Board hold a public hearing be held at the Supervisor 's Office , 16 South Street, Greenport , N.Y, on the 8th day of April, 1958, at 2:30 P.M. o 'clock in th afternoon of that day, and it is further ' RESOLVED: That the Town Clerk cause a notice of said proposed hearing, containing a copy of the proposed amendments , to be published once in the I'lattituck W;tch-an-Long Island Traveler, the official Town newspaper at least 10 days prior to the time of said hearing. Vote of Town Bo=rd: Ayes-Supervisor K1ipp;Councilmen Albertson and Demarest.; Justices Tuthill, Clark and Edwards. Moved by Justice Ralph Tuthill; seconded by Councilman Lester Albertson ?dH-REAS , the Town Superintendent of Highways did, on the 25th day- of _ February, 1958, duly recommend he purchase of certain machinery pursu- ant to the provisions of Section 142 of' the Highway Law, NOW, THEREFO'E, BE IT RESOLVED that pursuant to Section 142 of the High- - way Law the Town Superintendent of Highways is hereby authorized to Purchase, in accordance with the provisions of Article 5-a of the General Municipal Law, with the approval of the County Superintendent of Highways , the following One Model A . S. B. S. Walter Snow FivhtPr_ 4-r.eint nn.qitiva A,-4,mm ppyll TOWN LAW ZONING AND PLANNING §280-a Art. 16 Art. 16 �'v v" I 1 street or highway is not yielding a fair, where section 52 of the Highway Law a zoning ordinance may not be denied :r, the board of appeals,'or other similar only required. permit from state for because the proposed use would be in =stablished such a board having power to Fork in or upon state highway, and par- violation of a restrictive covenant. zoning regulations, shall ty seeking building permit was entitled. Friends of Shawangunks, Inc, v. Knowl- jority of its members to grant a permit for ve power in a to it without obtaining permit from ton, 1985, 64 N.Y.2d 387, 487 N.Y.S.2d state, where proposed work did not even ghway which will as little as practicable require curb cuts along highway. Corra- 543, 476 N.E.2d 988. ch street or highway, or tend to cause a i do v. Wolf, 1962, 37 Misc.2d 89, 235 In absence of statute allowing bal- plan, and such board may impose reason- N.Y.S.2d 336. ancing of public and private rights in- n of granting such permit, which require- 3. Denial of permit volved, property owners were entitled to t of the town. Before taking any action compel building inspector to issue build- A particular use of land may be en- ing permit which had been denied on and of appeals or similar board shall give a joined as in violation of a restrictive basis that town was in process of con- =st and others shall have an o ortunit to covenant,although the use is permissible demning property for swimming pool. ice of the time and place of such hearing suan a of zoningunder permits for a use allowed ed by Misc the is- e2d1 v.Town of 768, 300 N.Y.S.2d Hempstead, 1969,59 r of general circulation in such town. Any review in the same manner and pursuant § 2$0. Municipal improvements in streets :als from the decisions of such board upon j No public municipal street utility or improvement shall be constructed by 648, § 14: L.1962, c. 310, § 457.) ( the town in any street or highway within that part of the town outside the limits of any incorporated-city or village until it has become a public street storical Note or highway and is duly placed on the official map or plan, provided 63, however, that subject to the discretion of the town board, a subsurface utility or improvement operated for revenue by The town or by a special district may be constructed by the town in a private street, provided a public easement satisfactory to the town board is dbtained for such utility ,ScKlnney's Forms i or improvement. al Government Forms under Town Law, § 279: (L.1932,c.634; amended L.1938,c.264,§ 5; L.1939,c.590,§ 2; L1949,c. 750§ 1.).nting Permit for Building in Bed of Mapped Historical Note -oceeding to Compel Board of Appeals to Grant Derivation. Town Law of 1909, c. 63, apped Street, see Form 2. § 149-q, as added L.1927, c. 175. Compel Board of Appeals to Grant Permit for 3, see Form 3. )mpelling Board of Appeals to Grant Permit for Library References t. see Form 4. Zoning and Planning 4-S-87, 382.2. C.J.S. Zoning and Land Planning try References §§ 25, 197, 233. C.J.S. Zoning and Land Planning §§ 25, 192, 233. Notes of Decisions 60. 1. Lighting A mayinstall subsurce Until the streets in a subdivision have street tl ghts a ongnot a street which has not c of Decisions been dedicated and accepted, a town been dedicated to the town and which may not assume responsibility for the has not become a public street by pre- permit is constitutional. Winepol v. costs of energy and maintenance of a Town of Hempstead, 1969, 59 Misc.2d street lighting system. Op. State Compt, scription. Op.State Compt. 81-127. 768. 300 N.Y.S.2d 197. 83-47. i 2. State highway rights-of-way § 2$0-a. Permits for buildings not on Improved mapped streets Municipality's requirement that party -id seeking building permit obtain permit I. No permit for the erection of any building shall be issued unless a ,te from state for construction of building street or highway giving'access to such proposed structure has been duly 118 alongside state highway was arbitrary 376 placed on the official map or plan, or if there be no official map or plan, 377 EXy/�iT g h LL Y � I 280-a § TOWN LAW Art. 16 unless such street or highway is (a) an existing state, county or town highway, or*(b) a:street shown upon a plat approved by the planning board as provided in sections two hundred seventy-six and two hundred seventy- seven of this article, as in effect at the time such plat was approved,or(c) a r street on a plat duly filed and recorded in the office of the county clerk or register prior to the appointment of such planning board and the grant to such board of the power to approve plats. 2. Before such permit shall be issued such street or highway shall have been suitably improved to the satisfaction of the town board or planning board, if empowered by the town board in accordance with standards and specifications approved by the town board, as adequate in respect to the public p health, safety and general welfare for the special circumstances of r the particular street or highway. _ I Alternatively, and in the discretion of such board, a performance bond sufficient to cover the full cost of such improvement as estimated by such board shall be furnished to the town b the owner. Such performance Y p � I� II ' bond shall be- issued by a bonding or surety company approved by the town • board of b owner � y the o er with security acceptable to the town board,and shall •= also be approved by such town board as to form,sufficiency and manner of t execution. The term, manner of modification and method of enforcement 1, 1 of such bond shall be determined by the appropriate board in substantial conformity with section two hundred seventy-seven of this Article. • 3. Where the enforcement of the provisions of this section would entail practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship, or where the circumstances of the case do not require the structure to be related to existing or proposed streets or highways, the applicant for such a permit may appeal from the decision of the administrative officer having charge of the issue of permits to the board of appeals or other similar board, in any town which has established a board having power to make variances or exceptions in zoning regulations, and the same provisions are hereby applied to such appeals and to such board as are provided in cases of appeals on zoning regulations. The board may in passing on such appeal make any reason- able exception and issue the permit subject to conditions that will protect any future street or highway layout. Any such decision shall be subject to :• review by certiorari order issued out of a special term of the supreme court in the same manner and pursuant to the same provisions as in appeals from the decisions of such board upon zoning regulations. ° 'f 4. The town board may, by resolution, establish an open development 'r area or areas within the town, wherein permits may be issued for the erection of structures to which access is given by right of way or easement, r upon such conditions and subject to such limitations as may be prescribed by general or special rule of the planning board, if one exists, or of the i town board if a planning board does not exist. If a planning board exists in such town, the town board, before establishing any such open develop- ment area or areas, shall refer the matter to such planning board for its advice and shall allow such planning board a reasonable time to report. i ' 378 + :I TOWN LAW ZONING AND PLANNING an existing ay is' Art. 16 Art. 16 §280is** sate, county or•-town ►- Note - t upon a plat approved b 5. For the purposes of this section the word "access"shall mean that the Undred seventy-six and two hundred ed seventy- such street or highway Plot•on which such structure is proposed to be erected directly abuts on �t at the time such fat was a g y and has sufficient frontage thereon to allow the P approved or(c) a ingress and a res� recorded in the office of the county clerk or :ent of such planning board and the g of fire trucks, ambulances, police cars and other emer- gency vehicles, and, a frontage of fifteen feet shall presumptively be )prove plats. grant to sufficient for that purpose. f be issued such street or highwaavey (Formerly§ 280 in part,L.1932,c. 634; amended L.1938,c.264, satisfaction of the town board or planning § 2' L.1942, c. 497, § 1; L.1945, c. 741, § 1; renumbered280§ 5; andL-1939, c.59d wn board in accordance L•1949, c. 750, § 1; amended L.1954, c. 750, § -1 and amended town with standards and § 1� L.1958, c. 334, § 1,) ral welfa�erforathes special circumstancesequate in respect to he of Historical Note :y, Derivation. Town Law of 1909, c. 63, § 149-r, as added L.1927, c. 175. ;cretion of such board, a performance bond Of such improvement as estimated by such �e town b West's McKlnney's Forms y the owner. Such performance The following forms appear in Local Government Forms under Town Law, ng or surety company approved by the town § The .trity acceptable to the town board, and shall Complaint for Declaratory Judgment as to Legality of Re Board as to form,sufficiency and manner of Board as a Condition to Issuance of Building Permit see )f modification and Requirements of Planning method of enforcement Notice of Petition in Article 78 Proceedingto Form 1. :ed by the appropriate board in substantial Appeals Denying Review Determination of Board of ndred seventy-seven of this article. Y 7 Permit and Variance, see Form 2.# Petition in Article 78 Proceeding to the provisions of this section would entail Denying Permit and Variance, see Review Form 3.Determination of Board of A Judgment g Article 78 Proceeding Annulling Determination of Board of Appeals ry hardship, or where the circumstances of Denying Permit and Variance, see Form 4. cture to be related to existingor Appeals nt for such a permit may appeal Proposed firer having charge of the issue of permits Libra =r similar board Zoning and Planning a �' References in any town which has C.J.S. zoning and g Land 3Plan Ner to make variances or exceptions §§ 25, 191, 192. Planning 7e provisions are hereby applied to such e provided in cases of appeals on zoning ?assing on such a Notes of Decisions appeal make any reason- Access roads nit subject to conditions that will protect gut. An Generally 6 Subdivision plat improvements ]Z y such decision shall be subject to Emergency vehicle In )ut of a special term of the Supreme provisi II egress 7 gtess and nt to the same court I Frontage requirements 8 L Constitutionality provision as in appeals Improvements 9 Upon zoning regulations. Constitutionality ] roProvision of this section requiring that solution � + ruction giving access to proposed structure Cons be suitablyimproved establish an open development Emergency vehicle in e i r before conditions vhercin permits may be access roads press and egress, Permit may be issued, merely building Y issued for the 7 approval of construction upon milli ess is given by right of way Frontage requirements P compli_ y or easement, Improvements access roads g ance with reasonable conditions de- signed such limitations as may be prescribed signed for protection both of ultimate ?fanning board Access roads 9 purchasers of if one exists, or of the -Subdivision plats 12 home and public, n within 'es not exist, t Mandatory police power,and is not objectionable as If a planning board exists nature of section 4 compelling construction of roads on ire establishing Mlscellancous considerations 10 land at owner's e:cpense without com- matter to g any such open develop- Official map g ingsuch Planning Performance bonds 11 pensation from town. Brous v. 37 board a reasonable time to report. 1952, 304 N.Y. 164, 106 N.E.2d 503mith, 378 Purpose 3 • Review 13 Subdivision 2 of this section re that street quosed f 379 giving access to proposed r a i s 280—a TOWN § LAW Note 1 Art. 16 ,.: �•� structure be suitably improved before a town not on an improved mapped street building permit-may be issued is consti- until there has been compliance with tutional. Bayer v. Pugsley, 1958, 13 this section. 15 Op.State Compt- 261, Misc.2d 610, 176 N.Y.S.2d 848, affirmed 1959. See,also, 11 Op:State Compt. 181, r 7 A.D.2d 828, 181 N.Y.S.2d 781. 1955. 3.. 2. Construction 5. Official map Under this section provision that no Town .was without an "official mar)" building permit shall issue until roads by reason of failure of town cleric to file i shown on plat have been improved to certificate of its establishment with satisfaction of town board and that if county clerk as required by this section applicant feels he has exceptional case, and that defect was jurisdictional, and i he may go to zoning board of appeals zoning board of appeals could not prop- ; which may make exception or direct is- erly deny building permit on ground r suance of conditional permit, must be that dirt road on which parcel had front- strictly construed, in view of facts that age and over which it had easement did provision is derogatory of common law not appear on official map. White v. and that town is municipal corporation Town of Pound Ridge Zoning Bd. of of limited powers. Lunmor Homes,Inc. Appeals, 1973, 42 A.D.2d 904, 347 N.Y. v.Johnson, 1953, 122 N.Y.S.2d 149. S.2d 725. This section prohibiting issuance of r d 3. Purpose building permit unless street or highway ' Provision of this section requiring that giving access to proposed structure is on road giving access to proposed structure map or plan or street or highway exists be suitably improved before building or is shown on approved plat did not r - permit may be issued, is concerned with require owners and contract vendee of problem of community planning and is three lots fronting on town highway to 1 designed to secure uniform and harmo- file subdivision map to o�tain building nious development of growth. Brous v. permit. Jack Homes, Inc. v. Baldwin, Smith, 1952, 304 N.Y. 164, 106 N.E.2d 1963, 39 Misc.2d 693, 241 N.Y S_2d 487. - 503. Purpose of this section requiring that 6. Access roads—Generally road giving access to proposed structure Where contract required that road, be suitably improved before building which vendors were to construct, be of- permit may be issued is not only to pro- fered for dedication to town upon com- ' tect health,safety and general welfare of pletion, road was prerequisite to obtain- community, but also to protect residents ing a building permit, and vendors ulti- a� of proposed structure. Robinson v.Jag- mately constructed road at their own 1 � 1968 7 Misc.2d 507 293 N.Y.S.2d expense, vendors had obligation to con- s g 25er8. struct road acceptable for dedication Purpose of this section providing that within specified time. C. & C. Blashka Inc. v. Frazer, 1969, 32 A.D.2d 774, 302 building f g permits shall not be issued ex N.Y.S.2d 443, affirmed 30 N.Y-2d 645, cept for parcels fronting on, among oth- er things, a street shown on a map ap- 331 N.Y.S.2d 669, 282 N.E.2d 623- proved by planning board and that no One-acre plot resulting from subdivi- building permit shall issue until roads sion of two-acre tract would have suffi- have been improved to satisfaction of cient access to improved public road r+ town board, is to guarantee that before over strip of land 17 feet wide and 396 ¢fG buildings on streets shown on filed map feet long as would warrant issuance of di or other streets shall be occupied and area variance. Mastromonaco v- Bar- streets used, streets shall meet certain tels, 1962, 16 A.D.2d 676, 227 N.Y.S.2d requirements for protection of health, 74• safety and general welfare. Lunmor This section does not require,as oondi- Homes, Inc. v. Johnson, 1953, 122 N.Y. tion of issuance of permit for erection of S.2d 149. building on lot abutting on an improved county highway, any form of physical 4. Mandatory nature of section access, but merely any reasonable A building permit may not be lawfully means. Annandale. Inc. v. Brienza, issued for the erection of a building in a 1956, 1 A.D.2d 785, 148 N.Y.S.2d 17- 'ry' ! 380 7 1-3-4 PLANNING-BOARD TOWN O SOUTHOL,D SUFFOLK CONTY Southold, N.Y. 1 1971 HENRY E.RAYNOR,Jr.,Cllirman JAMES WALL TELEPHONE ,WNNETT ORLOR'SKI.Jr. 765-1938 GEORGE RITCHIE L.`T'HAM,Jr. W1LUA"I F.JIULLE•N,Jr. _ A meeting of .the Southold Town Planning Board was called to order June 15 , 1982 , 11: 10 a.m. at the Fishers Island Firehouse, Fishers Island, New York. Present were: Chairman Henry E. Raynor, Jr. Member G. Ritchie Latham, Jr. Member William F. Mullen, Jr. Member Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Member James Wall Building Administrator Victor Lassard Allerton Cushman - The Planning Board inspected this Property prior to the meeting noting the applicant' s request to split the property into two sites . The board requested James Wall to supply them with a letter from the applicant stating no further subdivisions will be made on this property before taking any action. On motion made by Mr. Orlowski, seconded by Mr. Mullen, it Was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board accept those maps of the east end of Fishers Island with a condition that the areas that are undesignated will fall under the present subdivision regulations . Vote of the Board: Ayes : Raynor, Latham, Mullen, Orlowski, Wall Annette Zabohonski - The Planning Board inspected this property prior to the meeting. James Wall was asked to supply the board with stipu- lations as to the improvements of the right-of-way and width. On motion made by Mr. Mullen, seconded by Mr. Latham, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board declare itself lead agency in regard to the State Environmental Quality Review. Act in the matter of the minor subdivision of Annette Zabohonski located at i Fishers Island. An initial determinati made. on of nonsigniticance has been i Vote of the Board: Ayes : Raynor, Latham, Mullen, Orlowski Abstained James Wall (interested party) �}(N161T 18_4A 18-4A/ 3-3- 11 18-58 I8 -4B,C ,19- IC ® 18-5C f 18-3 d 17-5 47-.4C . 17 i -'4H � 4A �1:7�-3. 1 7-2 17-I: 17'-4 E l g18-IA 16-45 Lot 2 �' 16-4 , 17:�4 F Choaxno rat 16-3 16-14 ' Lot 3 f' 16-2 N Chocornount - 16-5 l. 2 tots FISHERS W ISLAND W 16-6 16 I _ WATER 16 7A • 15- 10 . • I6-(2 I 16-7B W 16-13 «JJ Boocock 15-9 16-9 16-8 Boocock 15-8, { : portion 15-II ~gin' Portion cn 15-6 'n 15-7 A.:.�: •. portion � -., 15-1I 15-12 h� a 15-4 ,15-1.3 \ 4 MEMORANDUM TO FILE - Fishers Island Development Corporation April 12, 1991 A meeting was held this morning from 9:00 a.m. to about 9:30 a.m. Harvey Arnoff called the meeting to discuss the status of the FIDCO subdivision map. This meeting was related to the Lieb and Danforth application that was made by Steve Ham on behalf of his clients. (See previous correspondence in the file from Steve Ham, and proposed correspondence from the Town, which was never sent for the background. ) Also present at this meeting were: Ken Edwards, Planning Board member from Fishers Island. Mark McDonald, Planning Board member from Southold Tom Doherty, Fishers Island Utility Company Mr. Calhoun, President? Fishers Island Development Co. Victor Lessard, Principal Building Inspector Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner At this meeting, Mr. Arnoff spoke of a court decision from December 1990, which is attached. In his opinion, this .decision protected FIDCO' s remaining undeveloped and unsold lots from the 1989 upzoning. The lots in question are less than three acres in area, which is the minimum lot area required by the 1989 upzoning. However, he remains concerned about the lack- of a filed subdivision map. According to the records that have been found and researched, a subdivision map was never filed with the County Clerk' s office. Consequently, the FIDCO subdivision map is not a recognized legal document. Harvey felt that this state of affairs precluded the Planning Board and the Zoning Board from taking any actions on any applications. He recommended the filing of the map by FIDCO. This led to a detailed technical and legal discussion about how the map could be signed and filed. The gist of this discussion was that the matter may end up before a judge for resolution. At the close of the meeting it was decided that Messeurs Doherty and Calhoun were . going to do some research. First they were going to speak with Dick Lark, Esq, former attorney E 'i�i7 for FIDCO, to see if he might have a signed copy of the subdivision map in his possession, if a copy of the map had indeed been signed. The Planning Board' s records show that the Planning Board passed resolutions approving revisions to the subdivision map. However, there is no record of any of the maps being signed and filed with the County Clerk's office. If there is no signed map in existence, they would then proceed to have a set of mylar and paper maps drawn up in accordance with the filing requirements of the County Clerk' s office. The attorney for FIDCO and Harvey would then take whatever legal steps would be necessary to prepare the maps first, for the Planning Board Chairman' s signature; and second, for filing with the County Clerk' s office. Tom Doherty will keep Ken Edwards and I informed as to what they find out after speaking with Dick Lark. Submitted by Valerie Scopaz April 12, 1991 - 11: 15 a.m. c T. 2d SERIES s_ L.LLINGTON CONST. v. ZONING BD. OF APPEALS Cite as 564 N.YS.2d loot (CLA 1001 r. less formidable when a t 1�0) �.r ucird for the law that he was willing to Law's three-year exemption period from Penofsky, who is not an"offxft l > prpetuaw a 16—year fraud on both his zoning amendment increasing lot area or rt" and is not accountable to w yers and the public. dimension requirements permitted develop- demean authority, has been pertr ,c demean the process as a whole when er to secure right to complete subdivision :) :rand Jury room. _ in accordance with existing zoning require- i.-•_ altw hold, in essence, that the Grand Jury g g -: anal analysis, I cannot conetir b s pweeding was not fatally tainted by either ments by manifesting commitment to exe- t would permit the State to pra, aAnofsky's lack of admission to the Bar or cution of subdivision plan through complet- the basis of an indictment obbdw i lr criminally fraudulent conduct. Accord- mg improvements and incurring expendi- person because, in my view,tool to 104r Mto, I would hold that the indictment un tures in connection therewith, during ex- ,promises the integrity of the pnt 6w which defendant was prosecuted was emption period, sufficient to constitute i thereby undermines the pn . i1�&fective and should have been dismissed. vesting under common-law rules, and (2) bbr' invest its confidence in that pn to substantial improvements and expenditures :i theory, the Grand Jury is or . ...,;VACHTLER, C.J., and SIMONS, made by developer during three-year ex-_ t, in our legal system against A i&laYE and BELLACOSA, JJ., concur emption period were sufficient to confer and abusive conduct by the prow ,w---w-,,h H_ NCOCK, J. vested right to obtain building9-permits in = :rin of government(see, Peopkt+ ate.. accordance with provisions of former zon- �,'� Inc., 49 N.Y.2d 389, 39543K m ! - TITONE, J., dissents and votes to ing ordinance. 238, 402 N.E.2d 1140• Peopk 1 -nTerse in a separate opinion in which `{ 45 N.Y.2d 589, 594, 412 N.YSa , ILEX-A`'DER, J., concurs. Supreme Court, Appellate Division, af- a• N.E.2d 656). In modem prates in each case: Order affirmed. firmed. t. .R it has come to be regarded,all Lxs. . a mere investigative agent ecutOr." (Matter of Additim � 1. Statutes �214 _ ' , 5 KEY gUNBER SYSTEM 7 Grand Jury v. Doe, 50 N.Y:' �,.r In construing statute, Court of Ap. '7 N.Y.S.2d 950, 405 N.E.2d IN �_.. peals need look no further than statute :; J., concurring] As one tor' itself if statute is unambiguous and its g]) meaning evident from language. -ved, the Grand Jury frequent as a rubber stamp 77 N.Y.2d 114 2. Zoning and Planning a825 {j affirming] what the prosettllsr s. �IsIn the Matter of ELLINGTON . When more restrictive zoning ordi- ,n it to affirm • • [and] b >: ( nance is enacted owner will be.permitted ?� )r fail[ing] to indict as the prcl► CONSTRUCTION CORP., to complete structure or development tail{ emits' that it should." (Peopk s Respondent, which amendment has rendered noncon- r, 36 Misc.2d 729, 734, 383 N.YSX `w.- v forming only where owner has undertaken +1 'en the central importance of ty ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF substantial construction and made substan- t's role in the Grand Jury sysW THE INCORPORATED VILLAGE tial expenditures prior to effective date of believe that we can, or should OF NEW HEMPSTEAD, Appellant. amendment. r] + � a proper predicate for a crilni>+ Court of Appeals of New York. ' n the work product of a Grad 3. Zoning and Planning C-376 ;e "legal adviser" was a Pero Dec. 20, 1990. Rule of construction that zoning legis- iii `aniel Penofsky—who was neW lation which is in derogation of common a competent by the State Bow law must be strictly construed against mu- :aminers, was never approved b! Developer commenced proceeding to nicipality which seeks to enforce it would +ittee on Character and Fitno Tuate decision of village zoning board of be contravened by interpreting statutory `Eimself had such little persoa° Ippeals confirming denial by village build- exemption provisions, which provide ex- a. i 9 inspector of application for building emption period after filing of subdivision T Msu and dismiss is not a sunddtF Permit. The Supreme Court Rockland plat during which amendment increasing insuring the regularity of the undttl7 G1unt p ' p g s. since many of the activities of ,, y, Rosato, J., entered judgment for lot area or dimension requirements shall - )istrict Attorney handling the Grp .eveloper� and board appealed. The Su- not be applicable to or in any way affect :station• including witness prep+" preme Court, Appellate Division, 152 any of the lots shown and delineated on =lection of the counts to be subttuttd A,D.2d 365, 549 N.Y.S.2d 405, modified such subdivision plat, as applying to a lot ':1 , Off the record and, consequeo. hdl'ment and affirmed. Board a y p y p •vade judicial scrutiny (see also,A+ }, appealed only when developer has actually coin let- i 1. 296 N.Y.315,322, 73 N.E.2d 52�) y Perini granted. The Court of Ap- ed lot or obtained building permit for it 1 Deals, Hancock, J., held that: (1) Village during exemption period, McKinney's Vil- .l w. 1002 564 NEW YORK SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES . lage Law § 7-708, subd. 2; McKinney's 7. Zoning and Planning e-376 Town Law § 265-a; McKinney's General Developer made substantial improve- ments and expenditures during exemption 4. Zoning and Planning e-376 period provided by Village Law, which es-- Provision of Village Law, which estab- tablishes three-year exemption period after lishes exemption period of three years after filing of subdivision plat during which filing of subdivision plat during which zon- amendment increasing lot area or dimen- ing amendment increasing lot area or di- sion requirement shall not be applicable to mension requirements shall not be applica- or in any way affect any of the lots'shown ble to or in any way affect any'of the lots and delineated on such subdivision plat, t' shown and delineated on such subdivision and thus developer had vested right to plat, was intended to permit developer to obtain building permits in accordance with . secure the right to complete subdivision in provisions of former zoning ordinances for -LL accordance with existing zoning require- proposed lots in subdivision; prior to vil- - ments by manifesting a commitment to ex- ]ages amendment of its zoning ordinance, ecution of subdivision plan through com- developer had installed drainage facilities, pleting improvements and incurring ex- water and sewer lines, fire hydrants, curbs h penditures in connection therewith, during and curb cuts, and underground telephone exemption period, sufficient to constitute and electric service, and developer subse- _ vesting under common-law rules. McKin- quently, with village's knowledge, had in- ney's Village Law § 7-708, subd. 2. stalled paved road. McKinney's Village 5. Zoning and Planning a376 Law § 7-708, subd. 2. Subdivision owner is exempt.under Vil- lage Law from compliance with new, more Village At stringent _LlOoris F. Ulman, g Atty. (Frank t area and dimension requirements g u rements . q upon applying for building permits for its I. Brown, Spring Valley, of counsel), for remaining lots, where owner takes suffi- appellant. cient steps toward completion of proposed _L116John S. Edwards, New York City, for subdivision, and thus acquires common-law respondent. vested-rights, before expiration of Law's _L117Barbara J. Samel, Schenectady,, for three-year exemption period from new zon- the New York State Conference of Mayors ing requirements. McKinney's Village and Other Mun. Officials, amicus curiae. Law § 7-708, subd. 2. 6. Statutes 0-212.3 OPINION OF THE COURT Court of Appeals must presume that is Legislature could not have intended inter- HANCOCK, Judge. pretation of statute which produces unrea- For a village having both a Planning sonable and potentially unjust conse- Board and a 11sZoning Board of Appeals, s quetices. Village Law § 7-708(2)1 establishes an ex- t: I. Insofar as is pertinent, Village Law § 7-708 dimensions of the lots thereon delineated and I� provides: which said subdivision plat has been duly ap- d "2. (a) Notwithstanding any inconsistent proved by the planning board if any, of the provision of this chapter or of any general, village in which the land shown on said plat is special or local law, the provisions of a zoning situate, or approved by such other board or �I I law hereafter adopted and the provisions of a officer, if any, of such village, vested with at- change or amendment hereafter adopted to a thority to approve subdivision plats,and which zoning law which provisions establish or in- said subdivision plat or the first section thereof crease lot areas, lot dimensions which are great- has been duly filed in the office of the recording er than or in excess of the lot areas or lot officer of the county in which the land shown dimensions of the lots shown and delineated on on said subdivision plat is situate, or which a subdivision plat of land into lots for resi- provisions establish or increase side..rear Or dential use and which said subdivision plat also front yard or set-back requirements in excess of ' shows and delineates one or more new streets, those applicable to building plats under the pro* roads or highways in addition to lot lines and vision of the zoning law, if any, in force al%l -,f ,I n 3d SERIES ELLINGTON CONST. v. ZONING BD. OF APPEALS 1003 Cite as 3"N.YS2d 1001 (CtApp. I990) and Planning Ca376 emption period of three years after the September 24, 1975, the subdivision plat )per made substantial improve- filing of a subdivision plat during which an was filed. On June 29, 1982, the town expenditures during exemption amendment increasing lot area or dimen- approved a revised subdivision plat. This ; vided by Village Law, which es- Sion requirements shall not "be applicable plat, filed on October 14, 1982, did not in ;ree-year exemption period after to or in any way affect any of the lots any way modify the original layout of the subdivision plat during which shown and delineated on such subdivision lots, streets and other improvements? =} increasing lot area or dimen- plat" (§ 7-708[2][a]). Prior to an increase 4� --2ment shall not be applicable to in the applicable area and dimension re- Between 1980 and early 1984, petitioner ay affect any of the lots shown quirements, the owner of an approved sub- built seven homes on section one of the :tted on such subdivision plat, division failed to complete it or to apply for subdivision. No homes were constructed in building a section two which had been laid out for lots 't .:eveloper had vested right to � permits on all of the proposed lots. '•.ling permits in accordance with ;t It did, however, take sufficient steps to- having widths of between 108 and 120 feet i :)f former zoning ordinances for ward completion of the proposed subdivi- and areas complying with the 22,.500 y: is in subdivision; prior to vil- a sion before the exemption period expired to square-foot minimum requirement of the .dment of its zoning ordinance, g acquire common-law vested rights. The Town of Ramapo ordinance. ::ad installed drainage facilities, question presented by the appeal of respon- In 1984, when the Village of New Hemp- :.ewer lines, fire hydrants, curbs dent Zoning Board is whether the_petition- stead was incorporated,the territory of the ts, and underground telephone er owner,_by of these vested.rights, town which encompassed petitioner's subdi- ;its _. - - - :c service, and developer subse- g is exempt_from__eompliance_with_the_new ,. vision became part of the Village. On Jan- I•T;. ith village's knowledge, had in- more strirgent.area_and dimension require- uary 2, 1986, the Village amended the ap- ed road. McKinney's Village menu when it_apples ior_building.permits plicable zoning ordinance to increase the ; A subd. 2. 3 for its remaining lots..._Supreme.Court and minimum area requirement for average the Appeilate Division,152 A.D.2d 365, 549 g N•Y_S2d 405,-.bath held.that_the_owner is. density lots to 35,000 square feet and the minimum width requirement for such lots 1;1 F. Ulman, Village Atty. (Frank protected_under the exemption in Village . I ;: Spring Valley, of counsel), for Law§ 1;t97-708(2)(b), and we agree. There to 150 feet Prior to this time, petitioner should, accordingly, be an affirmance. had installed various improvements on the ::.;its subdivision including,on section two,drain- S. New York City, for I age facilities, water and sewer lines, fire hydrants, curbs and curb cuts, and under- On April 29, 1975, the Town of Ramapo ra J. Samel, Schenectady, for PlanningBoard accepted for filing ground telephone and electric service. Af- p g petition- ter the amendment to the ordinance—and ork State Conference of Mayor er's"average density"subdivision plat(see, Mun. Officials, amicus curiae- Town Law § 281). As a condition of its with the Village's knowledge—petitioner "average density" approval, the town re- installed a paved road on section two. 3NION OF THE COURT quired that 12.105 acres of the 33.522 acres In June 1986, petitioner applied for a in the subdivision be irrevocablydedicated g p building permit to construct a house on lot :•r 'CK, Judge. to it for parkland purposes. The subdivi- D-10 in section two. The Village building it ills a having both a Planning sion was approved for development in two f tl g g p inspector denied the permit because peti- ! aivsZoning Board of Appeals, sections, the first to consist of 9 lots and tioner failed i2oto make certain public im- ` ,w § 7-708(2)t establishes an ex- the second of 22 lots. provements to a county road adjoining the is of the lots thereon delineated and On July 3, 1975, petitioner's predecessor subdivision, and because the lot did not !'-:•l 1 subdivision plat has been duly ap dedicated the parkland and thereafter, on meet the amended, more restrictive Village the planning board, if any, of the effect at the time of the filing of the said subdi- Sion plats, then the exemption f i :vhich the land shown on said plat isp , exempon prove for r approved by such other board of vision plat or first section thereof,shall not, for such paragraph shall apply for a period of three to g au- the period of time prescribed in paragraph(b)of. years after the filing of the subdivision plat or it y, of such village, vested with 1 ,"nprove subdivision plats,and whiff this subdivision, be applicable to or in any way first section thereof." (Emphasis added.) ' 3' ;vision plat or the first section thereof affect any of the lots shown and delineated on Provisions virtually identical to those in Vil- tt,ly filed in the office of the recordin8 such subdivision plat. lage Law§ 7-708(2)are contained in Town Law iyt • fife county in which the land sho%0 "(b) If at the time of the filing of the subdivi- § 265-a and General City Law § 83-a. •t,bdivision plat is situate, or which Sion plat or first section thereof referred to in Paragraph (a) of this subdivision there was in 2. It is not disputed that the three-year exemp- lannin establish or increase side, rear the village both a zoning board and a i or set-back requirements in excess board vested with authorit a planning tion period at issue began to run on the date the i ;icable to building plats under the Pr** approve to pprove subdivi- revised plat was filed (Oct. 14, 1982). the zoning law, if any, in force i a 1004 564 NEW YORK SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES zoning requirements.3 With respect to this lots in which an owner has acquired . second reason, the inspector ruled that the exemption in Village Law § 7-708 did not mon-lawlvested rights duringthe Inc �� apply inasmuch as petitioner had not legislation, first "lon ook to th the _ sought a building permit during the three- words for their meaning, both.as they at year exemption period. Petitioner then used in the section and in their context'r commenced its first article 78 proceeding to part of the entire statute," review the denial of its permit. Supreme 69 N.Y-2d 8, 13, 511 N.Y,S2d 219 (Price v. Prig Court dismissed this proceeding for peti- N.E2d 684.) Por if the statute is una� W. tioner's failure to exhaust administrative uous and its meaning evident from remedies since it had not sought relief in ]an m �Q ' an appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals. look nogfurthers(seedent Se d Conte nds, we nee Accordingly, petitioner appealed the build- York, 9 State of New ing inspector's denial to the Zoning Board 51, 456 E 2dd1174). ' 190-191,469 N.Y.S.Z; of Appeals and, as alternative relief, re- quested a variance. Prom the language of section 7-708(2l When respondent Zoning Board of A as it applies to the Village of New Hestead, tere is no peals.denied petitioner's application in all purpose hs to create an exem question:P tion frthatom the- itr respects, it commenced the present article operation of amendments imposing stricter 78 proceeding. Supreme Court annulled area and dimension requirements; and j respondent's detertnination and directed that the period of the exemption is thre+* u the Village inspector to issue the buildingr Permit for lot D-10 and the other lots in of the years commencing on the date of the the subdivision "if, as, and when petitioner containssnol subdivision plat. But the statute' makes an application for same". `= language which prescribes the;, pellate Division a The 'gyp- conditions which must be satisfied for ia£ greed with Supreme owner to receive the benefit of the exem Court's conclusion that petitioner had ac- lion. It does not specify whether as 1 quired vested rights to complete the ubdi- {' prerequisite for claiming the exemption fo vision under the originally applicable area { and dimension requirements, but modified exemption period, havot, the e completed coner mu n t they t by requiring petitioner to fulfill certain con struo- _ ditions in order to obtain the building tion on the lot or obtained a building permit: mit.' g Per- for such construction—or whether it is suf-; 1 ficient if the owner .has taken sufficienO II steps toward completion of the subdivision,. Ill. This a under the existing, more liberal zoning re- ppeal turns on a question of quirements to have acquired vested rights statutory interpretation: the intended ef- in the remaining undeveloped lots. 1 fect of the language in Village TheZa § 7-708(2) creating the exempti n. Re requirements ofathe amended ndate is that thordi ante spondent Zoning Board of Appeals con- tends that the statute affords protection way"shall ffect any of the lots shown cable to or in an only for those lots in a filed subdivision eated on such sub e and delur ,i which an owner has completed or for which Law § 7-708 2 a droision plat" (Village" . it has actually obtained a building [ ][ ] [emphasis added]), Ex-: Burin P permit actly what the lots are =$ fia g the exem tion period. Petitioner protected from—i.e.,.. ' argues that the statute Protects subdivision what is meant by the phrases "be applica- `s` ( P ble to" and many way affect"-is.not 3. The ( reason give n for the permit—i.e., that Petitioner failed denial of the lage Law § 7-708 2 spection f., that not io issue on the pay anin- ( }—the Zoning Board of AP peals lacked a rational basis for the denial of ;, appeal. ' petitioner's request for a variance. In the light 4. Both Supreme Court and the Appellate Divi• of our conclusion that pdtitioner was entitled to sion also concluded that" tf the new, more re- - the benefit a the exemption provision, we do strictive zoning requirements were held to be not reach the variance issue. applicable despite the exemption period in Vil-•- ``V; :.. l >R S i' t! IT, 2d SERIES EILLINGTON CONST. v. ZONING BD. OF APPEALS 1005 " Cite as 564 N.Y.S.2d 1001 (Ct.App. 1990) vhich an owner has acquired corn- clear. It is necessary, therefore, to look Rohan, Zoning and Land Use Controls ? :��lvested rights during the period beyond the words of the statute at the § 52.08[4] r,. , at 52-78-52-80; 4 Rathkopf, T ;truing section 7-708(2), as with any circumstances surrounding its adoption and op. cit., § 50.04, at 50-41-50-42). Wheth- ;...i is s,. :;on, we first "look to the particular to consider the policy reasons for enacting er rooted in equity or the common law, the `.;T _or their meaning, both.as they are legislation in an area where common-law operation and effect of the vested rights r the section and in their context as rules have long controlled (see, Price v. doctrine is the same and it has been applied _• the entire statute." (Price v. Price, Price, supra, 69 N.Y.2d at 13-14, 511 N.Y. alike to a single building or a subdivision '.2d 8, 13, 511 N.Y.S.2d 219, 503 S.2d 219,503 N.E.2d 684),being mindful,of (see, Matter of Putnam Armonk v. Town !°i For if the statute is unambig- course, that the "'legislative intent is the of Southeast, 52 A.D.2d 10, 382 N.Y.S.2d _nd its meaning evident from the great and controlling principle"' (id., at 14, 538, supra; Elsinore Prop. Owners Assn. -;.:4 e, as respondent contends, we need 511 N.Y.S.2d 219, 503 N.E.2d 684; People v. Morwand Homes, 286 App.Div. 1105, !*' further (see, Sega v. State of New i V. Ryan, 274 N.Y. 149, 152, 8 N.E.2d 313). 1106-1107, 146 N.Y.S.2d 78; Ward v. City : [s J N.Y.2d 183 190-191 469 N.Y.S.2d of New Rochelle, 20 Mise.2d 122, 197 N.Y. ti. € Village Law § 7-708(2) and its counter- S.2d 64, affd. 9 A.D.2d 911, 197 N.Y.S.2d N.E.2d 1174). part, 'Mown Law § 265-a, were enacted in 128, a}fd. 8 N.Y.2d 895, 204 N.Y.S.2d 144, the language of section 7-708(2), 1960 (L.1960, chs. 1060, 1061). The Legis- 168 N.E.2d 821; 4 Rathkopf, op. cit., _plies to the Village of New Hemp- 3 lature adopted a similar-measure for cities § 50.03[3][d], at 50-39-50-41). -here is no question: (1) that its � in 1961 (General City Law § 83-a, L.1961, is to create an exemption from the j ch. 275). Prior to these enactments, ques- Under the vested rights doctrine as it .:❑ of amendments imposing stricter Lions concerning the rights of owners of applied to subdivisions (prior to the exemp- :d dimension requirements; and (2) 1 approved subdivisions to complete their tion statutes), nothing cut off the period period of the exemption is three i subdivisions in accordance with the regula- during which a developer could acquire )mmencing on the date of the filing tions existing at the time of their approval vested rights aster initial approval. On the subdivision plat. . But the statute i were p,, rned122 exclusively by the com- other hand,nothing prevented a municipali- no language which prescribes the mon law pertaining to vested rights. ty from subjecting the undeveloped lots in is which must be satisfied for an an approved subdivision to more stringent [21 The New York rule,both before and restrictions at any time after the plat was 'o receive the benefit of the exemp after the exemption statutes, has been that filed so long as vesting had not occurred. A does not specify whether as a isite for claiming the exemption for where a more restrictive zoning ordinance Protecting the owner depended entirely on is enacted, an owner will be permitted to the date of vesting relative to the effective :ular lot,the owner must, during the complete a structure or a development '`' ion period, have completed construe- date of the amended ordinance. If vesting (;;;;t he lot or obtained a building permit which an amendment has rendered noncon- t occurred first,the owner was protected. It I construction-or whether it is suf forming only where the owner has under- mattered not when the events occurred .11 taken substantial construction and made with respect to the initial date of plat ap- if the owner has taken sufficient P i; substantial expenditures prior to the effec- royal, but only which came first. 1. oward completion of the subdivision P y tive date of the amendment (see, People v. r.he existing, more liberal zoning re The enactment of the statutory exemp- :Miller, 304 N.Y. 105 107-109, 106 N.E.2d :lilts to have acquired vested rights 34; ,Matter of Putnam Armonk v. Town of tion provisions (V llagel23 Law § 7-708[2]; remaining undeveloped lots. The Southeast, 52 A.D.2d 10, 14-15, 382 N.Y. Town Law § 265-a[2]; General City Law So :itutory mandate is that the stricter S.2d 538; 4 Rathkopf, Zoning and Planning § 83-a[2]) obviously supplied something •ments of the amended ordinance which the decisional law of vested rights :ot ' ' ' be applicable to or in any § 50:03[3], at 50-25-50-28 [4th ed.]; 1 lacked: a specific period during which the ct an of the lots shown and delin Anderson, ;few York Zoning Law and Prac- , y tice § 6.18, at 229-234 [3d ed.]). The doc- developer could secure the right to com- i a such subdivision plat" (Village trine of vested rights has generally been plete the unfinished lots free from the re- +-708[2][a] [emphasis added]). Ex- described as an application of the constitu- quirements of the new, more restrictive i:at the lots are protected from-i.e., tiunaliy based common-law rule protecting ordinance and beyond which such right meant by the phrases "be applica nonconforming uses'(see, People v. Miller, could not be secured. But the statutes did and "in any way affect"-is.not 1 supra, :304 N.Y. at 107, 106 N.E.2d 34; 4 not define precisely what the developer N § 7-708(2)-the Zoning Board of Ap ]tathkopf, op. cit., at 50-13, n. 2). But the must do during the period to obtain the eked a rational basis for the denial of doctrine is also said to have been grounded Protection of the exemption. er's request for a variance. In the light ! on principles of equitable estoppel (see, [31 Respondent Zoning Board of Ap- conclusion that petitioner was entitled t° '::cfit of the exemption provision, we 40 .flatter of Pokoik n Silsdorf, 40 N.Y.2d peals contends that, under the statute, in :h the variance issue. . 769, 773, and at 774, 390 N.Y.S.2d 49, 358 order to achieve freedom from the amend N.E.2d 874 [Breitel, Ch. J., dissenting]; 7 ed- ordinance for any uncompleted lot, a 1 i a 1006 564 NEW YORK SUPPLEME- I NT, 2d SERIFS developer must have actually completed the can Institute of Planners r lot or obtainedid; h4em a � m building 3 n Under this g permit for it. support of A 3834, id.). Indeed Gove rnor error F cons truction, a develop er rw p which Rockefeller in his memorandum approving .. had done more than enough during the the legislation stated that the "purpose of exemption period to acquire common-law these bills is to reconcile the interests of vested rights for the remaining undevel- home builders and developers who have I oped lots in the subdivision, would be re- p quired, nevertheless, to comply with the made financial commitments relying on ex- . I amended ordinance for these lots. Such sting zoning ordinances, and the interests of towns and villages in not being unduly 4 construction, if adopted would produce an l extensive change in the law, and would restrained from u' pgrading zoning require- - deprive the developer of what, but for the ments (1960 McKinney's Session Laws of effect of the statute, would be its right to N.Y., Messages of Governor, at 2064). -: ` achieve vesting during the exemption pen- Petitioner's interpretation of the stat- :' od under the common-law rule. It would, ute—that it was intended to permit a devel- thus, contravene the established rule of oper to gain vested rights during the ex- construction that zoning legislation of the tion p u P period—seems fully con em e y sistent type in question which is "in derogation of. with this legislative purpose of effecting a . the common law ' ' ' must be strictly compromise in a statute which would fairly construed against the municipality which balance the conflicting interests of the de- seeks to enforce [it]" (Matter of Al- velopers and municipalities. Under _ len v. Adami 39 N peti- .Y.2d 275, 277, .383 boners construction, each group gains something and gives up N.Y.S.2d 565, 347 N.E.2d 890; see, r1latter something. The =' of 440 E. 102nd St. Corp, v. 1Vurdock, 285 developers gain the assurance of a definite N.Y. 298, 304-305, 34 N.E.2d 329; 1 period during which they can protect their A = a nderson,New York Zoning Law and Prac- subdivisions by securing vesting; they give f `> tice § 17.01, at 740-743 [3d ed.]; see gener- up the possibility of protection under the.. ally, McKinne 's Cons.Laws of NY Book - Y statute after that period. The municipals 1, Statutes § 153, at 331-332 ["(t)he courts ties gain the authority to enforce an up - will not construe a statute as abolishing a grading of their zoning requirements at common-law right in the absence of a clear any time after the exemption.period and intent on the .part of the Legislature"]). the assurance that the new requirements [4-7] Contrary to respondent Zoning will bind any developer which has not by I Board's position, a commonsense analysis then achieved vesting; the municipalities ff of the legislative purpose of Village Law give up their former unrestricted power to subject a subdivision to new re§ 7-708 and Town Law § 265-a in the light requirements q i of the circumstances surrounding their at any time before the owner has acquired _ S ' original enactment(L.1960, chs. 1060, 1061) vesting rights. w does not suggest that the legislation was The view of the statute espoused by re- intended to deprive a subdivision developer spondent Zoning Board, on the other sl of its capacity to acquire vested rights in a hand—that a developer � o subd' per can derive n ivision o pro- subdivision during the exemption period. tection for the balance of its subdivision by The legislative history shows that the en- achieving vesting during the exemption pe- _ actment was the culmination of a success- riod—permits undeniably harsh results. ` ful legislative compromise between the Obviously, where a developer has complet- _Y'.' views of the developers and the differing ed a substantial portion of a subdivision, it views of the municipalities and that repre- could be faced with large losses and unan- a sentatives of both groups urged its adop- ticipated additional cost if compelled to re- tion (see,ji.,aMem. of Westchester County structure its plans and dismantle and re- chss. 1e Officials Assn., Bill Jacket, L.1960, construct subdivision improvements in or- 060, 1061; Mem. Office for Local der to complete the remaining lots. As has Government, id.; Mem. of New York State been observed, a rule of such stringency Home Builder's Ass'n, id.. Mem. of Amen- applying to subdivisions imposes a formid- _.'GfaT J¢¢. 3 :d SERIES =:.S MEDICAL TRANSPORTERS v. PERALES 1007 t Cite as 564 N.Y.S.2d 1007 (Ct.App. 1990) .70 of Planners, id.; Mem. in 3. :i;ie barrier to development (4 Rathkopf, i 3834, id.). Indeed, Governor C't., ;0.05(31, at.00-73) and actually 77 N.Y.2d 126 i i his memorandum approving 9 :rtaeues rational land use planning (id., at 1261n the Matter of NEW YORK STATE `�•-_ '?)n stated that the "purpose of '1• :_.der established rules, we must MEDICAL TRANSPORTERS ASSOCI- ,s to reconcile the interests of -:cute .;rat the Legislature could not ATION, INC., et al., Appellants, -ors and developers who have - e tr.te:aeu respondent's interpretation = •:al commitments relying on ex- 5 the s:atute whicll L125produces.such un- V. z ordinances, and the interests r•:asonabie and potentially unjust conse- ' A villages in not being unduly .2 ia(:nces isee. Ferres v. City of New Ro- Cesar A. PERALES, as Commissioner of rtie, o \t.Y.2d 446, 454 510 N.Y:S.2d 57 the Department of Social Services of .y -om upgrading zoning require _ , J 1'1cXinney's Session Laws of = 972: 'latter of Petterson v. the State of New York, Respondent. :-1es of Governor, at 2064). .,;istronz Coro., 17 -.Y.2d 32, 38, 268 Court of Appeals of New York. interpretation of the stat 1. ''15 :*.E.2d 329; 3lcKinrey's, -as intended to permit a devei- :.S.LL•v s or `i.Y., Book 1, Statutes Dec. 20, 1990. F vested rights during the ex :-1, 1i3. I='6. at 280-284, 286-290, 297- yF riod—seems fully consistent ;islative purpose of effecting a -. ,ccorainziy agree with the courts Providers of transportation services a ;Ei a statute which would fairly "ow --at village Law § 7-708(2) was'in- filed Article 78 proceeding to require De- oonflicting interests of the de _ `"" to z•ermit a developer to secure the partment of Social Services to process ret- t municipalities. Under peti- ':,mt to compiete a subdivision in accord- roactive request for approval of nonemer- truction, each group gains .ce uir.n tha existing zoning requirements gency transportation service for Medicaid : d gives up something. The - rnanitesting a commitment to the execu patients. The Supreme Court, Nassau ' ain the assurance of a definite "n of the subdivision plan through com- County, Lockman, J., directed commission which they can protect their "tang =morocements and incurring ex- er to process request for retroactive ap- ::11 )y securing vesting; they give ares in connection therewith, during proval. Commissioner appealed. The Su- :oility of protection under the - exemntion period, sufficient to consti , P - preme Court Appellate Division 553 N.Y. r that period. The municipal ;'ate '.=sting under common-law rules. S.2d 790, held that Department had not e authority to enforce an up- Moreover, our review of the record con- ratified agent's adoption of policy that :heir zoning requirements at cern;rg the work performed and expendi- y would allow retroactive prior approval, :ter the exemption period and x tures made by petitioner confirms the con- and reversed. Providers appealed. The 'ee that the new requirements x elusion of the :appellate Division that, as Court of Appeals, Kaye, J., held that: (1) developer which has not by ? °ound by the Supreme Court, the substan jtl • p Department was not estopped from adopt- �•-• d vesting; the municipalities A :al improvements and expenditures made j:�i. P 3 , ing policy that required prior approval; (2) ' f: r former unrestricted power to I luring the three-year exemption period •.li+;: record did not support providers' claim that = mdivision to new requirements e��nierred a vested right to obtain building Department ratified actions of agents; and "'4' ermits in accordance with the provisions oefore the owner has acquired P (3) even if record supported claim that De- $ :ts. "t the former zoning ordinance." (15.2 D '': : u5, 377, 549 N.Y.S.2d 405.) partment allowed and condoned actions of of the statute espoused by re- agent allowing retroactive prior approval, T,e r..rder of the A Appellate Division ':.Wing Board, on the other ; PP Department could not ratify agents act. =_ developer can derive no pro should be affirmed,' with costs. ;e balance of its subdivision by Affirmed. �;tmg during the exemption per .1CHTLE:,, C.J., and SIMONS, Alexander, J., dissented and issued an 1 undeniably harsh results. n 1YE• :1L X:aNDER, TITONE and opinion in which Simons, J., concurred. ' here a developer has complet [sEl.L:aCOSA, JJ., concur. ial portion of a subdivision, it Order affirmed, with costs. with large losses and unan- 1. Estoppel anal cost if compelled to re afiL.1 P o E KEY NL'M9fR SYSTEM Estoppel against ins and dismantle and re- 4T PP cannot be invoked g ;sion improvements in or- governmental agency to prevent it from e remaining lots. As has discharging its statutory duties. rule of such stringency s• '.'ve have considered respondent's remaining basis for disturbing the Appellate Division's or- Sions imposes a fortnid- arguments and conclude that they provide no der. - C § 100-31 ZONING § 100-32 Jr- (b) Adequate supervised parking facilities shall be provided. (c) No signs, except one(1)one-premises sign not larger than six (6)square feet in size displayed for a period of not longer than one(1)week immediately prior to the day of such sale, shall be permitted. C (d) A permit is obtained therefor from the Building Inspector upon the payment of a fee of fifteen dollars ($15.). § 100-32. Bulk, area and parking regulations. No building or premises shall be used and no building or part thereof shall be erected or altered in the Agricultural-Conservation District and in the Low-Density Residential R-80 District unless the same conforms to the Bulk Schedule and Parking Schedule7 incorporated into this chapter with the same force and effect as if such regulations were set forth herein in full, as well as to the following bulk and parking requirements: t A. In the case of a lot held in single and separate ownership prior to November 23, 1971,and thereafter,with an area of less than forty thousand (40,000) square feet, a single-family dwelling may be constructed thereon, provided that the requirements of Column vii of the Bulk Schedule and the Parking Schedule incorporated in this chapter are complied"with. B. The bulk and parking requirements for single-family dwellings as set forth in Column ii of the Bulk Schedule and the Parking Schedule incorporated into this chapter shall apply to the following lots: (1) All lots shown on major and minor subdivision maps which were granted final approval by the Planning Board prior to May 20, 1983. (2) All lots shown on major subdivision maps upon which the Planning Board has held a hearing for preliminary,map approval prior to May.20, 1983. 7 Editor's Note: The Bulk Schedule is included at the end of this chapter,and the Parking Schedule is in§ 100-191A. 100-19 6-1.90 § 100-32 SOUTHOLD CODE § 100-33 \ 43) All lots shown on minor subdivision maps that have been granted sketch plan approval by the Planning Board prior to May 20, 1983. (4) All lots set off or created by approval of the Planning Board subsequent to November 23, 1971, and prior to May 20, 1983. C. The bulk and parking requirements for single-family dwellings set forth in Columns i and iii of the Bulk Schedule and Parking Schedule incorporated into this chapter shall A, apply to the following lots: (1) All lots shown on minor subdivision maps which have been granted sketch plan approval by the Planning Board on or after May 20, 1983. (2) All lots shown on major subdivision maps upon which the Planning Board has held a hearing for preliminary map approval on or after May 20, 1983. (3) All lots set off or created by approval of the Planning Board on or after May 20, 1983. D. The bulk and parking requirements for two-family dwellings c set forth in Column xii of the Bulk Schedule and Parking Schedule incorporated into this chapter shall apply to the following lots: (1) All lots shown on minor subdivision maps which have been granted sketch plan approval by the Planing Board on or after May 20, 1983. (2) All lots shown on major subdivision maps upon which the Planning Board has held a hearing for preliminary approval on or after May 20, 1983. (3) All lots set off or created by approval of the Planning Board on or after May 20, 1983. e § 100-33. Accessory buildings. [Amended 4-10-1990 by L.L. No. 6-19901 In the Agricultural-Conservation District and Low-Density Residential R-80, R-120, R-200 and R-400 Districts, accessory 10050 9-1_90 TOWN LAW ZONING AND PLANNING §265-a Art. 16 Art. 16 n v. has exercised-his rights thereunder and forming gas station use Was not rezoned nance book. 6 Op.State Compt. 245, 486 after the town board has changed the but was left in residential district. Le- 1950. building ordinance under which the per- vine v. Town of Oyster Bay, 1966, 26 olved mit was issued. 17 Op.State Compt. 121, A.D.2d 583, 272 N.Y.S.2d 171. 28. Maps, filing of ,mint 1961. Notwithstanding fact that town board A zoning map must be filed with a uture rezoned only property adjacent to that of zoning local law only when the local that 24. Promotion of general welfare plaintiff so as to include it within a pro- law, in express terms, adopts the map or town See, also, Notes of Decisions set out posed planned industrial park district af- incorporates it therein, but there is no mina- under section 263. ter conducting hearings at which consid- legal requirement that the map (or a e ad- Generally, when change of zone, vari- eration was given to rezoning all of portion thereof)be filed with A local law ;)osed ante or special permit is sought,there is property in area, rezoning of tract, con- effecting a zoning change by metes and range specific project sponsored by particular sidering its size and location, did not bounds description. Op.State Compt. ehen- developer which is subject of applica- constitute"spot zoning,' absent evidence 81-24. wel- tion; however, error occurs where zon- that rezoning of property was prompted and ing legislation is enacted to grant single by an intent to benefit owner thereof or 29. Reconsideration of amendment by { and y that it was initiated at his instance. owner a discriminator benefit at ex- board '7, 28 pense and detriment of his neighbors, Daum v. Meade, 1971, 65 Misc.2d 572, Town board had authorityto "recon- without any public advantage or justifi- 318 N.Y.S.2d 199. sider" its prior resolution cation, rather than pursuant to compre- P granting zon- cation, plan for welfare of community. 26. Vested property rights ing change,so long as the requisite statu- See, also, Notes of Decisions set out tory procedures for changing present �ning Kravitz v. Plenge, 1982, 84 A.D.2d 422, zoning regulations were followed. Vizzi under section 261. }yster 446 N.Y.S.2d 807. v. Town of Islip, 1972, 71 Misc.2d 483, '.S.2d In determining validity of amendment Fact that property has been in particu- 336 N.Y.S.2d 520. to zoning law, relevant inquiry is wheth- lar zone for long periods of time does ordi- er amendment was enacted for benefit not render it inviolate to change in zon- 30. Fees and expenses of a of individual owner rather than for gen- ing. Glen Head-Glenwood Landing Civ- busi- eral welfare of community. Albright v. is Council v. Town of Oyster Bay, 1981, It is doubtful that a town board may !posi- Town of Manlius, 1970, 34 A.D.2d 419, 109 Misc.2d 376, 438 N.Y.S.2d 715, af- charge a person who petitions for a zon- firmed 88 A.D.2d 484, 453 N.Y.S.2d 732. ing change an application fee and the cling 312 N.Y.S.2d 13, modified on other cost of publication of the amendment. than grounds 28 N.Y.2d_108, 320 N.Y.S.2d 50, 27. Entry in minutes of board Op.State Compt. 80-60. iness 268 N.E.2d 785. See, also, annotations under note num- nent. . Amendment to building zone ordi- ber 13 of section 264. A town may not charge the cost e .D.2d nance which in effect reinstated zoning publication of a zoning change to the ied 9 of realty after having downgraded it was Changes in zoning ordinances made applicants who request such change. 25 -med valid and constitutional despite public by town board must be entered in ordi- Op.State Compt. 265, 1969. 168 meetings and picketing designed to in- fluence upgrading, where town board § 265—a. Exemption of lots shown on approved subdivision plats con- adopted amendment upon its own judg- ig of ment that it was in best interests of gen- 1. Notwithstanding any inconsistent provision of this chapter or of any d ex- eral welfare of community in zoning general, special or local law, the provisions of a zoning ordinance hereafter mu- sense. Gates of Woodbury Co. v. Town adopted, and the provisions of a change or amendment hereafter adopted elite of Oyster Bay, 1968, 29 A.D.2d 943, 289 N. �ning N.Y.S.2d 379. to a zoning ordinance, which provisions establish or increase lot areas, lot that dimensions which are greater than or in excess of the lot areas or lot ange 25. spot zoning dimensions of the lots shown and delineated on a subdivision plat of land •een- See, also, Notes of Decisions set out into lots for residential use and which said subdivision plat also shows and 148 under section 263. delineates one or more new streets, roads or highways in addition to lot Amendment of building zone ordi- lines and dimensions of the lots thereon delineated and which said subdivi- may nance changing approximately 14 acres sion plat has been duly approved by the planning board, if any, of the town pro- in land from residential " district to in which the land shown on said plat is situate or approved b and industrial H" district withh condition P � pp y such other mPt• that grade be reduced to that of road on board or officer, if any, of such town vested with authority to approve which it fronted was void as constituting subdivision plats, and which said subdivision plat or the first section spot or contract zoning, where precise thereof has been duly filed in the office of the recording officer of the change and conditions were proposed the applicants for town zoning and werree county in which the land shown on said subdivision plat is situate, or �0.00 adopted in toto, rezoned parcel was first which provisions.establish or increase side, rear or front yard or set back cant industrial intrusion in area and noncon- requirements in excess of those applicable to building plots under the 258 259 §265—a TOWN LAW I ZONING AND PLANNING Art. 16 1 Art. 16 provisions of the.zoning ordinance, if any, in force and effect at the time of ments for three-year period following original final plat approval, property the filing of the said subdivision plat or first section thereof, shall not, for owners,having failed to avail themselves the period of time prescribed in subdivision two of this section, be applica- I of statutory grace period, would not be ble to or in any way affect any of the lots shown and delineated on such heard to complain of hardship resulting subdivision plat. from subsequent rezoning of the proper- ty. Freundlich v. Town Bd. of South- 2. If at the time of the filing of the subdivision plat or first section ampton, 1979, 73 A.D.2d 684, 422 N.Y. thereof referred to in subdivision one of this section there was in the town S.2d 215, affirmed 52 N.Y.2d 921, 437 both a zoning ordinance and a planning board vested with authority to N.Y.S.2d 664, 419 N.E.2d 342. approve subdivision plats, then the exemption provided for in such subdivi- 2. Validity of particular exemptions sion shall apply for a period of three years after the filing of the subdivision Where village was created out of land plat or first section thereof. If at the time of the filing of the subdivision lying in town and was incorporated on February 3, 1967, and town's zoning or, plat or first section thereof referred to in subdivision one of this section dinance, to be approved by town author- there was a zoning ordinance in effect in the town but there was no ities, was in effect until at least June 1, planning board in said town vested with authority to approve subdivision 1968, which was the earliest date when Plats, then the exemption provided for in such subdivision shall apply f village ordinance could supersede town ' p p pp yor a ordinance, and prior to this date town's period of two years after the filing of the subdivision plat or first section planning board found that lots on peti- t thereof. If at the time of the filing of the subdivision plat or first section tioner's subdivision plat satisfied mini- N thereof referred to in subdivision one of this section there was no zoning i mum area requirements of town's zon- I ordinance in the town but there was a planning board vested with authority ing ordinance and granted approval to approve subdivision plats, then the exemption provided for in such subdivision shall apply for a period of two years after the filing of the j § 266. Zoning commission subdivision plat or first section thereof. If at the time of the filing of the In order to avail itself of the powers c subdivision plat or first section thereof referred to subdivision one of this board shall appoint a commission to be section there was no zoning ordinance in the town and no planning board to recommend the boundaries of the var vested with authority to approve subdivision plats, then the exemption ate regulations to be enforced therein. provided for in such subdivision shall apply for a period of one year after preliminary report and hold public heal the filing of said subdivision plat or first section thereof. If such period of I final report and such town board shall exemption would expire within one year from the date of the filing of a action until it has received the final rep section of the approved plat, it shall be extended for that section fora planning board already exists it may be period of one year from the date of the filing of such section. sion. (Added L.1960, c. 1060; amended L.1963, c. 978, § 1.) (L.1932, c. 634; amended L.1963, c. 759.) Historical Note Historical : Effective Date. Section effective Apr. Derivation. Town Law of 1909, c. 63, S: 30, 1960, pursuant to L.1960, c. 1060, § 141-c, subd. 18-e and § 349-t. Said § 2• subd. 18-e was added L.1926, c. 715. 7i Library References Cross Refer. Zoning and Planning «44, 63, 321 et C.J.S. Zoning and Land Planning Village zoning commission, see Village Law E seq. §§ 25; 38 to 49, 154 to 159. Library Refer Notes of Decisions Zoning and Planning e�351. Failure to use exemption 1 Validity of particular exemptions 2 C.J.S. Zoning and Land Planning §§ 97, 177 to 185. 1. Failure to use exemption Where property was exempted pursu- ant to this section, from zoning amend- 260 261 TOWN LAW ZONING AND PLANNING §266 Art. 16 Art. 16 if any, in force and effect at the time of ments for three-year period following thereto, petitioner's plat became exempt original final plat approval, property from operation of newly enacted village _31at or first section thereof, shall not, for owners,having failed to avail themselves ordinance, and village could not consti- ubdivision two of this section, be applica- i of statutory grace period, would not be tutionally take away this exemption by of the lots shown and delineated on such heard to complain of hardship resulting enactment of village ordinance that was from subsequent rezoning of the proper- more restrictive than the predecessor ty. Freundlich v. Town Bd. of South- town code. Wesley Chapel, Inc. v. Van tat or first section ampton, 1979, 73 A.D.2d 684, 422 N.Y. of the subdivision p S.2d 215, affirmed 52 N.Y.2d 921, 437 Den Hende, 1969, 32 A.D.2d 565, 300 one of this section there was in the town N.Y.S.2d 664, 419 N.E.2d 342. N.Y.S.2d 803. planning board vested with authority to Town zoning ordinance amendment e exemption provided for in such subdivi- 2• Validity of particular exemptions establishing minimum width of 40 feet -ee years after the filing of the subdivision Where village was created out of land on street line, but exempting from such lying in town and was incorporated on requirement lots which had been desig- t the time of the filing of the subdivision February 3, 1967, and town's zoning or- red to in subdivision one of this section dinance, to be approved by town author- nated on a plat previously or subse- n effect in the town but there was no ities, was in effect until at least June 1, quently filed in the office of county ! 1968, which was the earliest date when clerk, was not invalid on ground that ed with authority to approve subdivision j village ordinance could supersede town there was an unlawful delegation to j for in such subdivision shall apply fora ordinance, and prior to this date town's county planning commission of power ig of the subdivision plat or first section planning board found that lots on peti- to enact zoning legislation for the town ng of the subdivision plat or first section tioner's subdivision plat satisfied mini- with respect to plats subsequently filed. one of this section there was no zoning mum area requirements of town's zon- Application of De-Jo Const. Corp., 1962, ing ordinance and granted approval 36 Misc.2d 288, 232 N.Y.S.2d 908. as a planning board vested with authority en the exemption provided for in such -iod of two years after the filing of the § 266• Zoning commission iereof. If at the time of the filing of the In order to avail itself of the powers conferred by this article, such town iereof referred to subdivision one of this I board shall appoint a commission to be known as the zoning commission lance in the town and no planning board to recommend the boundaries of the various original districts and appropri- e subdivision plats, then the exemption ate regulations to be enforced therein. Such commission shall make a shall apply for a period of one year after preliminary report and hold public hearings thereon before submitting its or first section thereof. If such period of final report and such town board shall not hold its public hearing or take )ne year from the date of the filing of a action until it has received the final report of such commission. Where a shall be extended for that section for a I planning board already exists it may be appointed as the zoning commis- of the filing of such section. sion. 963, c. 978, § 1.) (L.1932, c. 634; amended L.1963, c. 759.) torical Note Historical Note pr. Derivation. Town Law of 1909, c. 63, Said section 349-t was added L.1926, c. 6(Y § 141-c, subd. 18-e and § 349-t. Said 714, § 1. subd. 18-e was added L.1926, c. 715. ry References Cross References et C.J.S. Zoning and Land Planning i Village zoning commission, see Village Law § 7-710. §§ 25; 38 to 49, 154 to 159. Library References of Decisions ! Zoning and Planning a351. Validity of particular exemptions 2 1C.J.S. Zoning and Land Planning §§ 97, 177 to 185. 1. Failure to use exemption Where property was exempted pursu- ant to this section, from zoning amend- 2 261 60 § 265 TOWN LAW TOWN LA' Notes of Decisions 9. Protest against proposed change— angetown, 1986, 125 A.D.2d 465, 509 Historical and Statutory Notes Generally N.Y.S.2d 394. For applicable historical and statutory notes, 7 A single joint tenant's signature is 15. Disapproval of change by plan- Notes of Decisions, see§ 266, as amended by L.19, sufficient to constitute a vote on behalf ning board 266. Adoption of the jointly owned property for pur- Webster Associates v. Town of Web- § 9 of first zoning ordinance[Eff.July ] L poses of a protest petition under Town ster, 447 N.Y.S.2d 401 [main volume] by L90, C. 515. See, also, § 266 ante.] Law § 265. Op.Atty.Gen. (Inf.) 89-17. affirmed 85 A.D.2d 882, 446 N.Y.S.2d 1. In order to avail itself of the powers conferred b y 955, reversed 58 N.Y.2d 220, 464 N.Y. town board shall appoint a commission to be known as t 10. — Necessity of three-fourths vote S.2d 431, 451 N.E.2d 189. Sion to recommend the boundaries of the various on Town board's three-to-two vote ap- 22. Conditional changes appropriate regulations to be enforced therein. proving application for change in zoning Town zoning board could not impose 2• Where a planning board already exists it may b, was not sufficient to pass amendment, condition on grant of variance permit- zoning commission. where landowner who submitted written ting use of agricultural-residential prop- 3. Such commission shall make a preliminary repor objection owned slightly more than 207o erty for automobile body repair shop, more public hearings thereon as deemed appropriate 1 of land area immediately adjacent to requiring phasing out of operation on before submitting its final report. property for which zoning change was in another parcel of property,not subject to question, if area lying in street were variance, notwithstanding contention 4. The town board shall not hold its public hearing or excluded,under Town Law requiring ap- that condition was justified by close rela- has received the final report of such commission. ' proval of at least three-fourths of mem- tionship between properties and by in- 5. Upon adoption of a resolution by the town board ; bers of town board of land regulation terrelated nature of land in the commu- report, such commission shall cease to exist as a separa change if change is objected to by own- nity. St. Onge v. Donovan, 1988, 71 (L.1932, c. 634; amended L.1963, c. 759; L.1990, c. 515, § 1.) ers of 20%or more of immediately adja- N.Y.2d 507, 527 N.Y.S.2d 721, 522 cent land. Biedermann v. Town of Or- N.E.2d 1019. Historical and Statutory Notes 1990 Amendment. L.1990,c.515, § 1, ing the number of 1 § 265-a. Exemption of lots shown on subdivision plats eff.July 1, 1991,in catchline substituted held as one or more reference to adoption of first zoning or- ate by commission, . Notes of Decisions dinance for reference to zoning commis ed provision a.uthoi sion, designated existing provisions as Commercial subdivisions 8 3. Commercial subdivisions subds. 1, 3, and 4 and, as so designated, ning board to be Local laws 4 Statute providing for exemption of ap- in subd. 3 inserted provisions authoriz- commission, and ad proved subdivision plats from increased lot area and lot coverage requirements c 2. Validity of particular exemptions of zoning ordinances adopted or amend- § 267. Board of appeals Sections of Town Law and Village ed subsequent to subdivision plat ap- Law which provide exemption from proval applied to commercial subdivi- West's McKinney's Forms amendment to zoning ordinance increas- sions as well as residential subdivisions. The following forms appear in Local Government Forms und ing required lot size made within three Ramapo 287 Ltd. Partnership v. Village years after approval and filing of subdi- of Montebello, 1990, — Misc..2d _, Order to show cause (with restraining order) in article 78 p; vision plat or first section of plat were 550 N.Y.S.2d 1021. determination of board of appeals—denying special use pei not intended to abrogate vested rights as automobile repair shop, see Form 11A. acquired before or during exemption pe- 4. Local laws Petition in article 78 proceeding to review determination of boas riod by virtue of substantial improve- This section does not exempt a devel- ing special use permit to use property as automobile repair. ments. Ellington Const. Corp.v.Zoning oper who has filed a subdivision plat Notice of motion by use variance applicants to intervene in arti Bd. of Appeals of Inc. Village of New from the requirements of a subsequent- review determination of board of appeals granting variance Hempstead, 1989, 152 A.D.2d 365, 549 ly-enacted local law governing wetlands preprimary and elementary school for profit, see Form 26. N.Y.S.2d 405. preservation. Op.Atty.Gen. I 90-10. Affirmation in support of motion by use variance applicants to ii proceeding to review determination of board of appeals @ operate a private preprimary and elementary school for 1 § 266. Zoning commission [Eff. until July 1, 1991. See, also, § 266 Order permitting use variance applicants to intervene in artic post.] review determination of board of appeals granting variance In order to avail itself of the powers conferred by this article, such town preprimary and elementary school for profit, see Form 28. board shall appoint a commission to be known as the zoning commission to Notes of Decisions recommend the boundaries of the various original districts and appropriate regulations to be enforced therein. Such commission shall make a prelimi-' Consent of adjoining landowners 93a Declaratory nary report and hold public hearings thereon before submitting its final Rehearing 212a 209a report and such town board shall not hold its public hearing or take action Ripeness for judicial review, scope of until it has received the final report of such commission. Where a planning judicial review review P P g Scope of judicial review board already exists it may be appointed as the zoning commission. Ripeness for judicial review 217a 28. Practical diffic (L.1932, c. 634; amended L.1963, c. 759.) llmeliness of petition Evidence establish 22 Generally 208 23 ty and,thus,justifie, V_S_ MATTHEWS BC HAM z ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW 45 HAMPTON ROAD SOUTHAMPTON,N.Y.11968 _ 7•ll� f '��i 516-283-2400 PHILIP B.MATTHEws TELECOPIER 516-287-1076 STEPHEN L.H"!III - January 23 , 1991 r - MEMORANDUM TO Messrs. Harvey A. Arnoff, Town Attorney Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals Victor Lessard, Principal Building Inspector Bennett OrlowskiJr. , Chairman, Planning Board FROM: Stephen L. Ham, III RE: Lot 3 Chocomount, Map of Fishers Island Development Corporation (SCTM # 1000 - 4 - 5 - 5.9) In October I submitted an application for 'a minor subdivision of the referenced premises (survey attached) on behalf of Isabel Leib and Theodore Danforth. It was returned to me recently under cover of a- letter from Mr. Orlowski (copy attached) . I was advised to apply to the Zoning Board of Appeals for an interpretation as to whether my clients owned one lot or two. As you are all aware, the notation 112 lots" appears on the FIDCO Map depiction of the subject property (excerpt attached) . Last March, I spoke with Ken Edwards of the Planning Board who advised me that, . notwithstanding the upzoning to a 120, 000 square feet minimum in this area, I could apply directly to the Planning Board for subdivision approval even though each 1 El�'N/3/% /9 of the two lots to be created would be only 106, 284 square feet in area. It was his understanding, and apparently the understanding of at least some other Town officials, that the status of this property as two homesites` was not affected by the zoning change since it was shown as such on a map approved by the Health Department and Planning Board. After I applied for a minor subdivision in October (having unsuccessfully argued that the proper application would be for a setoff) , the Planning Board, contrary to the advice I received in March, advised me by letter of November 13 (copy attached) that it could not proceed with its review because the subdivision would result in the creation of two undersized lots. The application was not finally returned until January because, when I protested this decision to the Planning Board staff, it sought the opinion of the Town Attorney. To the extent that Mr. Orlowski 's letter of January 11 represents the views of the Town Attorney, the Town Attorney apparently believes an interpretation should be sought from the Zoning Board. Last week I discussed the application with Linda Kowalski of the Zoning Board staff. I believe Ms. Kowalski also consulted with Mr. Goehringer. The Zoning Board has taken the position that it will not render an interpretation. However, it would entertain an application for a variance provided I submitted the necessary Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector and otherwise complied with the requirements for giving the Zoning Board jurisdiction to hear an appeal. 2 1 On January 18, I met with Mr. Lessard who gave me a brief history of the FIDCO Map and discussed the status of this property with me. Mr. Lessard is of the opinion that I do not need; any variances to create two lots on this parcel since the Planning Board and the Health Department have already approved it as 112 lots" . He said my clients have two lots and, when the time comes; they can-put their line down. I do not know whether he meant that Planning Board action would not even be necessary but he certainly meant that variances would not be required since he- told me he would not issue a Notice of Disapproval. The purpose of this Memorandum is generally to let your offices know that the Town is not speaking with a unified voice on the issues involved in this application. These issues concern some fundamental questions about land use that certainly apply to I other lots on the FIDCO Map and may apply to lots on filed maps I I covering other areas of the Town. Specifically, I would like to know if you can agree on a single answer to the following questions: 1. Other than the fact that they must be described by metes and bounds, does the Town consider lots shown on the FIDCO Map as being any different from lots shown on major subdivision ^"rr maps? 2. Does the Town take the position that a merger occurs when two formerly conforming lots, that adjoin one another and are held in common ownership, are rendered nonconforming by a rezoning to a greater minimum area requirement? Does it make 3 i 4 any difference whether the two lots are in an approved major subdivision? T5 3 . Must the owners of the subject property take Ilan appeal to the . Zoning Board or will it in fact render an �y-0 interpretation as to whether they have one ~or two lots? 4. Is Planning Board action even req uired or may the �,. owners simply draw their own division line? 5. If Planning Board action is required, should the application not be for a setoff rather than a minor subdivision? (Please compare the van Hengel and Emmet-West applications from the mid-1980 's which related to properties on the FIDCO Map and were treated as setoffs. ) If the merger doctrine applies to the FIDCO Map, then that Map no longer accurately depicts the remaining building 01/ v�� lots on the East End of Fishers Island. That is clear from the instant application. Another example involves other clients of \��) this office who have entered into a contract with; FIDCO to exchange two lots they own near the golf course for Lots 13 and 14 in Block 44 (survey attached) . In a conference with Mr. Lessard and Mr. Edwards in October, I was advised that a separate building permit could be issued for each of the lots my clients will acquire (44-13 and 44-14) . However, if the merger doctrine applies to the FIDCO Map, it could be argued that these lots have merged since the total area of both, approximately 223 , 000 square feet, is insufficient to support two lots in the R-120 Zone District. Moreover, since other lots owned by FIDCO, 4 44-7, 44-8 and 44-12 (shown on the attached excerpt) adjoin Lots 44-13 and 44-14,• further questions are raised: must FIDCO apply for setoff or subdivision approval in order to convey two lots where it owns adjoining property and must it obtain a variance to convey a lot (44-14) that is only about 95, 000 square feet in ram.. area? I understand tliat the issues I raise may not be the most important on your respective agendas. However, my clients have waited two months while their application sat in a file pending a determination by the Town Attorney that has raised more questions than it has answered. I would therefore very much appreciate it if, at your earliest convenience, you would consider these questions and provide me with a response on which you all can agree. If you decide to plan a meeting, I would also appreciate being allowed to attend to present my views in greater detail. S.L.H. , III 5 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS `� 7 ; SCOTT L. HARRIS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman YF i Supervisor George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Mark S. McDonald P.O. Box 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Southold, New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823 CERTIFIED MAIL: Return Receipt Requested. May 2, 1991 Stephen L. Ham, III Matthews and Ham 45 Hampton Road Southampton, NY 11968 RE: Minor Subdivision application of Samuel S. Polk SCTM## 1000-4-5-5 .9 Dear Mr. Ham: The Planning Board has received your client' s application for the above mentioned Subdivision on Fishers Island. We find that we cannot proceed with your application because there is no filed open development map of the Fishers Island Development Corporation. When the FIDCO open development map is filed, then the Planning Board can proceed with your client' s application. Your application and check for .$2, 000 are enclosed. If you have any questions, or require further assistance, please contact this office. Very truly yours, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman enc. cc: Harvey A. Arnoff, Town Attorney Victor Lessard, Principal Building Inspector Robert B. Calhoun, President, FIDCO I.21-Do 2 0.1.e1 a L A/y0 - . 'sOUNO A ZI-cr . SOUND ISLAND Y of FISHERS J �> SEE ]EC kO 130 [�2 n 13 SEE sE0 N0 I!o D.BO R.D.fil \• ,I':\ -414 \ .u• , �y] PT .T17 BJ �] n a.a• / } -A + •/24. Q�' P I.t• 38. -� I 1 '. 1..• j2i1 '4 E.lT ,Ir S!i 29.1.fd I`\` !/ 1- yy,,NN aa.lA C / ' ]I. 11110 -' 1 AA\ .. ,• 4.2 2.11] l.9 Wl 1�µc1 •'f,•. IIO. EpPN e.11 5•4 •O. IE.e z]Icl 2 2— , IE ° .r 19.1 a 6•ld Cl�- ;. ... �l's b i ind lvl<I III KS n.0 n.I n.t [ IUNOePYae uM01 4.0ycl � w 5 f/ .7 le eik; l \` r ° I •I i-1.3 ! t W t,t.W 4 G /.0 O• l d • t 3 Ia OOge \ ]e• a a 1a. 1 6t ]e• 1 ti. Q1�- FERRY .2 L 'f �i0. - - \+ gPp !EE 9CC MO I]0 �.IIIE N.fUiiE WNEf]N/JLY 1Il. �... b ILI loyq 7 BCOCK � •���E� rcaxr .—P - ., .n A ISLAND [SOUND - ,. _. Lea—d _ — © COUNTY OF SUFFOLK •[[.[[ To_.Nor SOU7HOLD Real Properly Tax Service Agency --- -- - OO4 <1 77.m IS _ C.nr.. No EO a u a Ems.. -7`9-SI your - µod Ctc�� • /II-SILa� \/ yaxcC GI 191. It-91 � I t;l el J t � I °1 Vt, / uowod • THIS MINOR SUBDIVISION IS FOR LOTS ON ACRES LOCATED ON 1`�i�� � IN �'.SG41t SCTM#- 1000- MINOR SUBDIVISION (NO ROAD) Complete application received Application reviewed at work session 9'�%3��/ intro. oK uoL ox inro. Y j Applicant advised of necessary revisions not Revised submission received ,hro. ox WTI oK Sketch plan approval 7 —30-- -with conditions L G ® e Lead Agency Coordination �3 / / SEQRA determination P2 _ Sent to Fire Commissioner Receipt of firewell location Ce Notification to applicant to include on final map ` Sent to County Planning Commission -71 ' .` ro JOK Receipt of County Report rior m, ,iljo4 oK Review of SCPC report Draft Covenants and Restrictions received inro. ox iro. ox il Draft Covenants and Restrictions reviewed ❑ . :, Filed Covenants and Restrictions received Receipt of mylars and paper prints with Health approval . Final Public Hearing 42A Approval'of subdivision -with conditions �� �� ��dL PLC ���� C{�� +���� �' • Endorsement of subdivision 's;_� rns ����A 0 i ' I 6 24" DIA COVER I rI-z ao 0 0 0 0 a IInS In a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 a (4) 8" DIA KNOCKOUTS Ico to a O O o o = 0 D a io a 0 0 0 0 M 0 0 a o c 0 o c o o a i I F. -�L- a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 4" 1 �IIr It.-19 vSS 'Al 1Z"Q�-D DRY WELL -1y 14-i� t ' CROSS SECTION G� q �'$a `a`� / 9 IZ o►J r►F NOT TO SCALE > Sit- (� `Pa•d�'�, LPG 5 v'�z�=�� 3o Ui I rat j � { SIU� S Lo-r `5 ��� 0 i �yST �uU I � .1 u° ,�`� KNOCKOUT INLET AND 1 •1oa OULET OPENINGS ` I \ o $ N 5 -Nz; \ w MZ 88 Q�\ n• RIBS INSIDE-� I v w a1 \ '�L ocu✓ o i o ��✓ �1L I�T t LA Ca + N + II I I J `�,N" \\ \ q CAST L . CA- ,'W�- 1 CONCRETE COVERS 7 PLAN a I I S a I I ° A A \ { a� t Gc►sT Fpp LOCKING CASTING TO GRADE �I \ l° �t� \ I ►V& (� FINISHED GRADE (OP \ I , ' �c� �' +"r CHIMNEY / 4 x 4 12.6/12.6 GA. WIRE MESH NOTES: X 12" 6 x 6 6/6 GA. WIRE MESH r4" 1. COORDINATE DISTANCES ARE MEASURED FROM �.o U.S. COAST AND GEODETIC SURVEY TRIANGULATION INLET 3" VENT—/ i a. vENT-�' OUTLET STATION "CHOCOMOUNT 2" � / LIQUID in CONTINUOUS HOT 4 OUTLET \ \ \ \ \ \ I I ASPHALT SEAL BAFFLE NED WITH f . 2. SITE IS IN THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, COUNTY OF '� \ \ 'roT.b l_ ,b t=.>✓.L I to -� 4" SCHEDULE #40 I/8' PVC '� SUFFOLK, TAX MAP 1000, SECTION 004, BLOCK 5, INLET BAFFLE .1 60*GAS DEFLECTOR LOT 5.g1 � 8 = t - �'-�-�•---`-• --`-••--- -�--►•.--- � ', 3. SITE IS TO BE SERVICED BY MUNICIPAL WATER - \ - - - - \ - _-�=Y _ .- _� _- 5._s - -- -:. _-.>- -__ ._--_-�AND' N -SITE--SEWAGE COMPLIANCE WITH THE STANDARDS AND i � 4" ,- I--3" AND" ON�SiTE-SEWAGE DTSPDS�`f�"S'Y`�TEMTN"„ '_": CROSS SECTION REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUFFOLK COUNTY \\ \ \ \ \ \\ \\ \\ \ \ DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 1000 GALLON 4. SITE IS IN R-120 ZONE i -�-o-r�L �e�� 2 COMPARTMENT SEPTIC TANK 5. OWNER: Mr. Samuel S. Polk \\\ �\ �\ tioc.•z 4/ \\ NOT To SCALE 485 Harris Road /kIlf �' \ \ \ \ \ \ Bedford Hills, NY. 10458 S \ \ \ i � 2,2)530-5352 6. BASE FOR LEVELS: NGVD 1929 (APPROXIMATE) `\o 7.-------36------- EXISTING CONTOURS TEST HOLE DATA ���OF NF1Y L/ { ? GZ H. AJ \ \\ \ \\ \\ ' 9 ° APR 2 3 IP91, m � ��� g,µ - � _ 1 °r 1Qd' p \ y \ 7 90 _.e__..... A D \ \ `�' \ 85 Q o I am familiar with the standards for ^pprovai uWott-- �T�11/►S1 \ \\ \ Q/ ✓1 3 and construction of subsurface sewage dispo:tiui \ \ 80 systems for single family residence and wi!i Q � \\ �\ �s abide by the conditions set forth therein ar?d on the permit to construct. SEP 1 1 1991 `��-MUD=L `-�• L� SOUTHOLD TOWN L 0 Z> GN OGo NOUI-�'t' APPLICANT PL NNIN BOAR_ ,D„ ,., r1SV_MV_S t51-A-L rD Ulna) yO�L'.. - 50 25 O 50 O I hereby certify that this map was made from actual surveys completed April30, 1990 and V ( monuments are set as shown. ' "A declaration of covenants and restrictions C�-ld.►-�nt_cer, P,a_L_r-{�� is I►.iG Q' !o I affecting the lots in this Subdivision has been 0oF_WIo,�,..1<, Go"� Ec_--icu-r .,1 filed in the office of the Suffolk County Clerk . in Liber Page i I , f M i