The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1505 Birdseye Rd Twomey F& Latham Martnea Reichert SHEA, KELLEY, DUBIN & QUARTARARO, LLP 631.727.2180x305 mrelchert@suffolklaw.com 33 West Second St. P.O.Box 9398 Riverhead,NY 11901 Thomas A.Twomey,Jr. (1945-2014) John F.Shea,III Christopher D.Kelley David M.Dubin•b Jay P.Quartararo t May 13,2025 Peter M.Mott y � Janice L.Snead E ft_ JeffreyW.Pagano o � t Karen A.Hoeg Bernadette E.Tuthill t t Craig H.Handler # }J Bryan J.Drago BYHAND DELIVERY M AY 1 3 2025 Scott Handwerker Martha F.Reichert Board of Trustees SENIOR COUNSEL Town of Southold nsrd nf►d.own Stephen B.Latham Board of Trustees Town Hall Annex ASSOCIATES 54375 Route 25 Lorraine Paceleo Terrence Russell Southold,NY 11971 MaryKate L.Brigham Jacqueline M.Hubbard David L.Hamill Re: Wetlands Application of 1505 Birdseye Road LLC Jessica L.Dubowski May Theobalt Premises: 1505 Birdseye Road, Orient,New York Jesse D.Frost Daniel Horwith SCTM#: 1000-017.00-01.00-004.000 Zachary E.Mike Christina M.Russo t Dear President Goldsmith and Members of the Board of Trustees: OF COUNSEL Patricia J.Russell Jennifer P.Nigro♦ This office represents John Josephson and Carolina Zapf,the owners of Joan Morgan McGivern 1515 Birdseye Road and 900 Birdseye Road; Pamela Valentine and William SPECIAL COUNSEL Matassoni, the owners of 1525 Birdseye Road and 1675 Birdseye Road; Kathryn Dail! Lisa Clare Kombrink Interwellen Property Partners, LLC, the owner of 700 Birdseye Road; and Kevin M.Fox Craig Gibson Andrew Jordan,the owner of 1105 Birdseye Road in their continued opposition Kevin Handwerker to the above-referenced Application currently pending before the Board of Marina M.Martielli Allison Singh Trustees. At this time, we respectfully request that the pending Application regarding 1505 Birdseye Road,Orient be dismissed,deemed abandoned,and/or •: NV&LA BARS t LL.MINTAXATION denied. ♦ NY&NJ BARS O NY,NJ&DO BARS On September 18, 2024, Glenn Just of JMO Environmental Consulting, Main Office the third-party consultant hired by the Board of Trustees, submitted his report, 33 West Second St. dated September 16,2024,to the Board confirming the presence of a freshwater P.O. Box 9398 Riverhead, NY 11901 wetland at 1505 Birdseye Road, Orient. During his investigation of the subject 631.727.2180 lot which included numerous site visits, he located and confirmed the location suffolklaw.com of freshwater wetlands on the property. He determined the wetland "meets the criteria as defined by [Southold Town Code] Chapter 275-2." He further stated that the reports, technical reviews, field reviews, and supporting documents Page 2 of 2 May 13,2025 previously submitted to the Board by our consultants, Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. and Surfside Environmental Planning, were "very good" and he "supported their statements and conclusions" (emphasis added) including the statement that the presence of freshwater wetlands on the subject lot is "undeniable" and "will have a direct adverse impact on the delineated Upper and Lower wetlands that extend through 1515 and 1505 Birdseye Road." See Surfside Environmental Planning's Report, dated July 17, 2024, at 2. Three separate environmental consultants have now verified that there are freshwater wetlands located on the subject lot and within the area where the Applicant has proposed construction. It is overwhelmingly clear, that administrative review of the subject project is no longer appropriate, and a full wetlands application should have been submitted by the Applicant. Furthermore, it has been over 13 months since the Board has received any communication from the Applicant, over 9 months since we submitted the report by our consultant Surfside Environmental Planning report, dated 7/17/24, and over 7 months since the Board's own third-party consultant, Glenn Just of JMO Environmental Consulting, submitted his report to the Board. It is substantively and procedurally unfair to the surrounding property owners that this "pending"Application should remain open but inactive with no definite future appearance or hearing date or ultimate conclusion when there has been no communication from the Applicant in over a year or any evidence of the Applicant's intent to continue the Application or to even rebut the findings of the Board's consultant. We thank the Board for its time and consideration of our comments, and we respectfully request that the Board deny or dismiss the Application based upon the report of your third-parry consultant or deem the Application abandoned due to the Applicant's failure to communicate with the Board in the last 13 months. We further request that you advise the Property Owner that any future applications must be a full (not administrative) Wetlands Permit Application and a Coastal Erosion Hazard Area Permit Application that requires full review and a public hearing. The environmental sensitivity of this property requires appropriate modest-sized development with proper site and environmental mitigation, including sufficient drainage, compliant setbacks from the existing bluff and wetlands, and any other mitigation measures, including but not limited to wetlands preservation buffers, non-turn, non-disturbance and non-fertilization buffers, and any other appropriate measures that protect the environmental sensitivity and functioning of the environmental features on the subject property. Sincerely, Martha . Reichert cc: Hon. Lori Hulse, Esq. (copy delivered to Trustee's Office) Q Glenn Goldsmith, President OSUfFO��-pG Town Hall Annex A.Nicholas Krupski,Vice President y� 54375 Route 25 Eric Sepenoski y a P.O.Box 1179 Liz Gillooly 10 Southold,NY 11971 Elizabeth Peeples ' p� Telephone(631)765-1892 �� [ Fax(631)765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MEMORANDUM To: Supervisor Albert J. Krupski, Jr. From: Glenn Goldsmith, President Board of Trustees Date: March 21, 2025 Subject: Authorization for Payment for Professional Services Attached is invoice#020425 from JMO Environmental Consulting for a total of $1,350.00 for performing a site inspection and submitting a freshwater wetland determination report. Unfortunately, this office was not aware that a purchase order or a Town Board resolution was necessary to put money in escrow and remove it upon completion of report. As the work has been completed, I am requesting that the attached invoice be authorized for payment. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to call me. 3�,'-( 1z s Supervisor KrLfpski Date GG/ec Enclosures CV CY .Owe see a o O d o � d 'bC N oc c c V y a5 � a .a;,o � o Lo . E o c cn LO (D � • o a — `-cm 0 nft o •� C A w.? Q, o, w m o oo� ' o NIm w O o N O p -t W G aU"i 0. U) Q H a 2 v cn z > v 0Z w � ® °' _E �t z " nCli 9 > O .5 6 v ( 7 N r- V C .' N Ri to. ° LO aH Cl yo a .1 R .� GJ A 5 o'•. ^ N � w ° O c N .[ z Nazi .rr W !i z h > > w > Q ufac,uii,NY B959 31, 3_060 February 4, 2025 n 7 202 J Mr. Glenn Goldsmith, President Board of Town Trustees Town of Southold Town Fall Annex 54375 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: 1505 Birdseye Road. LLC 1505 Birdseye Road, Orient S.C.T.M.No. 1000-17-1-4 FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED Literature and correspondence review, site inspections and report regarding application. 9 Hours @ $150.00/Hr. Amount due: $1,350.00 Cantrell, Elizabeth From: Cantrell, Elizabeth Sent: Friday, September 27, 2024 2:55 PM To: mkoff@cz-studio.com' Subject: RE: 1050 Birdseye Road LLC Attachments: 20240927145201.pdf Good Afternoon, Glenn Just has submitted his work related background which is to be part of his report. Attached is the document to add to your records. ECiza6eth Cantreff Administrative Assistant Town of Southold Board of Trustees Phone: (631)765-1892 Fax: (631)765-6641 From:Cantrell, Elizabeth Sent: Friday, September 27, 2024 11:41 AM To: 'mkoff@cz-studio.com' <mkoff@cz-studio.com> Subject: 1050 Birdseye Road LLC Good afternoon, The Board of Trustees office received the environmental report from J.M.O. Environmental Consulting which is attached for your records. A hard copy has been mailed to you. Sincerely, ECiza6eth Cantreff Administrative Assistant Town of Southold Board of Trustees Phone: (631)765-1892 Fax: (631)765-6641 1 e\ ,y i 1 p 11959 03l.f">3 0001 September 26, 2024 SEP 2 7 2024 Mr. Glenn Goldsmith, President Board of Town Trustees Town Of Southold Town Hall Annex 54375 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Background for Glenn Just Dear Mr. Goldsmith- As requested I have enclosed a copy of my work related background. Re �ctf4 lly- Gle�nE. Just P 2 7 202 Glenn E. Just Attended Suffolk Community College 1974-1976 graduated with an Associates Degree in Marine Technology. At that time worked part time as a commercial bayman. Enrolled in Southampton College 1976 through 1977 while still working part time as a commercial bayman. 1977 - 1980 was employed by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation as a Fish and Wildlife Technician. Principal duties were working in the big and small game hunting program were we planted cover crops on State land for Bobwhite Quail, Ring-neck Pheasants and other small game species; worked in the White-Tailed Deer program at the N.Y.S.D.E.C.'s check stations; Trapped and banded waterfowl (various species of Ducks, Canadian Geese and Brant); as part of the Department's Hunter Safety Program gave waterfowl identification lectures 1980- 1982 was employed by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation as a Marine Resource Technician. Principal duties including operating watercraft while collecting water and shellfish samples for water quality and the certification of areas for shell fishing; worked at the Department's shellfish lab analyzing water and shellfish samples for certification of areas for shell fishing. 1982- 1984 worked as a full time bayman. !984-1987 was employed by the Land Use Company as an environmental analyst. Principal duties were wetland delineations (Tidal and Freshwater); the preparation and submissions of wetland applications to various regulatory agencies including and not limited to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Suffolk County Department of Health Services, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, New York State Department of State Coastal Management Program, various Town Boards throughout Long Island ( Trustees, Zoning, etc.); site assessments, including vegetative inventories, fish and wildlife inventories. 1987 to present began JMQ Environmental Consulting where my duties include wetlands delineations (Tidal an Freshwater); endanger species monitoring; site assessments, including vegetative inventories, fish and wildlife inventories; wetland reclamations; the preparations and submissions of plans and wetlands applications to various regulatory agencies. P 2 7 202 Glenn Goldsmith,President p eon Town Hall Annex A.Nicholas Krupski,Vice President ij,�,� �� 54375 Route 25 Eric Sepenoski c' P.O. Box 1179 Liz Gillooly Southold,NY 11971 Elizabeth Peeples Telephone(631)765-1892 ©� ► � Fax(631)765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD September 23, 2024 1505 Birdseye Road LLC 561 Broadway, #4A New York, NY 10012 RE: 1505 BIRDS EYE ROAD, ORIENT SCTM# 1000-17-1-4 To Whom It May Concern: Regarding the property referenced above, enclosed is the completed environmental report from J.M.O. Environmental Consulting for your records. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact this office at 631-765-1892. Sincerely, 41 4&IL419 Glenn Goldsmith President enclosure JMO ENVIRONAUNTAL CONSULTING P.O.Box 447 QuoGuz NY U959 63L653-0607 September 16, 2024 SEP 1 8 2024 Mr. Glenn Goldsmith, President Board of Town Trustees Town of Southold Town Hall Annex 54375 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 RE: 1505 Birdseye Road, LLC 1505 Birdseye Road, Orient S.C.T.M.No. 1000-17-1-4 Dear Mr. Goldsmith: I have completed my site inspections of this property which were performed on June 30, 2024, July 19, 2024 and July 31, 2024). I have also reviewed the reports on the site prepared by Greenman- Pedersen, Inc. (February 14, 2023), Cole Environmental Services and Surfside Environmental Planning, Inc. (July 17, 2024). It is my opinion that there is a freshwater wetlands on site which meets the criteria as defined in Chapter 275-2, Wetlands (Freshwater) of the Town Code. There is an existing water shed area that contributes water to the freshwater wetlands that is approximately 7 acres in size. The western wetlands area is a seasonally wet forest swamp area with the overflow water going east through an intermittent stream bed to a small emergent freshwater wetland area to a below grade pipe to the emergent freshwater wetland to the east which is dominated by Phragmites australis. The inspections verified the small west of the road emergent wetland and the emergent stream bed. The areas of freshwater wetlands support the values of freshwater wetlands for flood control, ground water protection, wildlife habitat, and open space. I have enclosed aerial photographs that clearly show the wetland areas in the Birdseye Road area and the approximate water shed area of the identified freshwater wetland areas. The reports prepared by Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. and Surfside Environmental Planning are very good with the proper technical review, field review and documentation. I support their statements and conclusions. Res p ctfully- Glenn E. Just InE E]UD S E P 1 8 2024 T of Trust Watershed Surface Runoff Vectors for Freshwater wetland areas Water shed area 296,000SF or approximately 7 acres This is a large enough waster shed to support the seasonal wetland forest and overflow to NE to emergent Phragmites wetland area via a narrow intermittent flow stream bed with a emergent wetland 'ust west of road way with overflow water via pipe to Phragmites wetland east of road. X r• 10 k .l 14 r 3 . 10 :� ZU to f AL CO rn r 70 # l '< GG6 CO S � ...yam �•.. - e ��►:�� bu �'" • AID I «s Ylb� S 1 ri IC' 80 1 1 j A 7i} •� �;,a ,� �r .ice` , �, •�� T .i. y � �' .. - �>'* .,�, ._«d�<. ►' i. . ter• - 40 Z - w r- �40 Watershed Surface Runoff Vectors for Freshwater wetland areas Water shed area 296,000SF or approximately 7 acres This is a large enough waster shed to support the seasonal wetland forest and overflow to NE to emergent Phragmites wetland area via a narrow intermittent flow stream bed with a emergent wetland just west of road way with over flow water via pipe to Phragmites wetland east of road. ti Ip r"rr a d ,r 10 `x CO 20 s w.nir 30 40 To 41 Twome Il Latham Martha Reichert Y Partner SH EA, KELLEY, DUBIN & QUARTARARO, LLP 631.727.2180x305 mreichert@suffolklaw.com 33 West Second St. P.C.Box 9398 Riverhead.NY 11901 Thomas A.Twomey,Jr. (1945-2014) � John F.Shea,III July 23,2024 Christopher D.Kelley David M.Dubin-- Jay P.Quartararo t JUL �f �] :720M24] Peter M.Mott BY HAND DELIVERY and E-MAIL JUL L J Janice L.Snead Kathryn Dalli Board of Trustees Jeffrey W.Pagano o Karen Hoeg Town of Southold Southold Town Bernadette tte E.Tuthill Town Hall Annex Board of Trustees Craig H.Handler 5 Bryan J.Drago 4375 Route 25 Scott Handwerker Southold,NY 11971 Martha F.Reichert SENIOR COUNSEL Re: Wetlands Application of 1505 Birdseye Road LLC Stephen B.Latham Premises: 1505 Birdseye Road, Orient, New York ASSOCIATES Lorraine Paceleo SCTM#: 1000-017.00-01.00-004.000 Terrence Russell aryKate L.Brigham Jacqueline M.Morley Dear President Goldsmith and Members of the Board of Trustees: David L.Hamill Jessica L.Dubowski May Theobalt This office represents John Josephson and Carolina Zapf,the owners of 1515 OF COUNSEL Birdseye Road and 900 Birdseye Road; Pamela Valentine and William Matassoni, Patricia J.Russell the owners of 1525 Birdseye Road and 1675 Birdseye Road; Interwellen Property Jennifer P.Nigro♦ Partners, LLC,the owner of 700 Birdseye Road; and Andrew Jordan, the owner of Joan Morgan McGivern Allison Singh H 05 Birdseye Lane. SPECIAL COUNSEL Lisa Clare Kombrink Please find enclosed seven (7) copies of a report dated July 17, 2024 Kevin M.Fox Craig Gibson prepared by Daphne Vaughan, Executive Environmental Planner at Surfside Kevin Handwerker Environmental Planning,Inc.,regarding her confirmation of a freshwater wetlands, Marina M.Martielli the easterly half of which is located on 1515 Birdseye Road,which is owned by our •: NY&LA BARS client. The westerly half of this wetlands extends into the above- referenced t TAXATION NY&NJ BARS property at 1505 Birdseye Road. S♦ NV&N O NY,NJ&DC BARS Please add this report to the Record for this application. Thank you. Main Office 33 west Second St. Sincerely, P.O. Box 9398 y' Riverhead,NY 11901 • 631.727.2180 suffolklaw.com Ma a F. Reichert cc: Hon. Lori Hulse, Esq. (copy delivered to TNustee.'s Office) surf_ s _i ,d� eEC o JUC. 2 3 2024 225 Montauk Highway, Suite 220 Moriches, NY 11955 Southold Town 631-772-1206 Board of Trustees 150S Birdseye Road Development Project—1515 Birdseye Road Site Assessment 1515 Birdseye Road,Orient,Town of Southold (SCTM#1000-17-1-4 AND#1000=17-2-1.11) Daphne Vaughan,Executive Environmental Planner July 17,2024 This office was hired by Mr.John Josephson,owner of 1515 Birdseye Road,Orient(Josephson Property),to review the existing site conditions,on 1515 Birdseye Road and the impacts of a proposed development project to construct a new single-family residence and associated accessory structures,clearing,grading and septic system on the adjacent,vacant parcel known as 1505 Birdseye Road(Applicant's Property),for which an application is currently pending before the Town of Southold Trustees.This office visited the Josephson property at 1515 Birdseye Road,Orient,on June 19,2024'in the early afternoon,to assess the presence or absence of freshwater wetlands affecting the Josephson Property At,1515 Birdseye Road and the Applicant 1505 Birdseye LLC's property,1505 Birdseye Road.Our office reviewed prior wetlands assessments on the subject properties by Cole Environmental Services(CES)from 2022 for the Applicant 1505 Birdseye Road LLC,and Kurt Weiskotten,M.S.,of Greenman-Pedersen,Inc.(GPI),dated February 14,-2023 for Mr.Josephson prior to our site visit. During the site visit,the wetland delineation by GPI was reviewed,as the flags hung for same in February 2023 were still present at the property. Photographs were taken adjacent to Birdseye Road in the area of the"Lower Wetland" noted in the GPI report,,as well as the"Upper Wetland Area"also noted in said report. Late spring/early summer.-conditions were in occurrence during our site visit,with full-growth herbaceous vegetation throughout the.site.(GP[visited the property in winter,and CES saw late summer and mid-fall conditions in their site visits noted in their respective reports.) it should be noted that daily temperatures during the 10 days prior to the site visit were in the mid-upper 70's, oftentimes approaching 80 degrees Fahrenheit, with lows in the overnights ranging between 54 degrees Fahrenheit and 65 degrees Fahrenheit.No precipitation occurred in the 10 days leading up to the June 191 site visit per weather records for the area(The Weather Channel:'www.weather.com). 1515 Birdseve Road Site Review&Wetlands Assessment The Josephson property is a vacant parcel,comprised of approximately 1.3 acres,located off of the north side of Main Road(Route 25),fronting on Long Island Sound.The lot is largely vegetated overall with a tree-covered.dirt pathway that runs through the woods,,to reach Long Island Sound to the north.The property varies In elevation,with a bluff overlooking the rocky beach on Long Island Sound within the northern third of the property,lowering In elevation within the central portions of the property,to a drainage swale,that extends from the eastern side of Birdseye Road,where a stand of Phragmites is located within a visible channel,through.a culvert under the paved roadway,and into 1515 Birdseye Road.This area is designated as the"Lower Wetland"in the 2023 GPI report.At the time of our site visit,the lower wetland was primarily vegetated in soft rush(Juncus effusus),Joe Pye weed(Eupatoriurn purpureum),willow.herb (Epilobium)and jewelweed(Impatiens capensis);all-facultative wetland(FACW)or Facultative Wet plus(FACW+)species 1 Surfs►de Environmental Planning Inc. 1505 Birdseye Road Development Project and 1515 Birdseye Road—Property Assessment Report known to occur 67-99%of the time in wetlands;further confirming the wetland boundary.in this location;as delineated by GPI in February 2023.(See attached photos#146)Soils were saturated within the area,with water present within footsteps taken throughout the lower wetland. No standing water was otherwise present at the time. As vegetation was impenetrable to continue following the flagged"drainage channel"noted within the 2023 GPI report, we then entered the more open and"formal"dirt pathway,accessible in the southeast corner of the Josephson lot,to gain access to the purported"Upper Wetland"area noted in the GPI report.The pathway is comprised largely of upland species of trees(Black Cherry and Black Locust)and shrubs,With invasive Oriental Bittersweet'and Multi-Floral Rose as one continues along the pathway from south to,north within the southern portion of the property;until one comes upon the lowest elevations of the lot within the central.area,where the drainage channel leading from the,lower wetland to the east,is visible and accessible,particularly on the west side of the dirt pathway.In this area,there is a drainage pipe running underneath the dirt pathway,that likely drains water from the lower elevations on the west side of the,path toward the lower wetland to the east andto the larger Phragmites assemblage beyond: Immediately upon viewing the area on the west side of the pathway in this location,it is evident that wetlands are indeed present in the area designated as the"Upper Wetland"in the GPI report.The Upper Wetland Area is characterized by a large,unstable,muddy area existing within a ring of red and silver maple.trees(Acer.rubrum&Acer saccharinum),each facultative(FAC)and facultative wet(FACW)species respectively,occurring at least 34-66%of the time in wetlands(if not more):These trees were mostly showing buttressed roots at their bases,indicative of year-round wet soils.Traversing the largely unvegetated muddy areas within the trees was unbalanced in the more central areas, where standing water was likely more prevalent in recent times,as rotting branches were helpful in crossing this area.A deer footprint path through this location was noted and photographed,showing the depth of the mud/mucky soils (Photo#9). Little vegetation was noted within the muddy area,(photos#10,#11,#13.&#14)with some growth of Cinnamon Fern(Osmunda.cinnamomea)(Photo#16),which is also a.FACW species. As the elevations outside of the maple trees slowly increases,low-growing poison ivy is extremely prevalent along these sloped areas.The soils in these areas are notably drier and sunlight is scarce due to the overhead tree canopy. A monument is located within the muddy wetland area that demarcates the property line between the Josephson property at 1515 Birdseye Road and the Applicant's property at 1505 Birdseye Road(Photo#15).Looking west from this marker,one can see that the muddy wetland depression continues into 1505 Birdseye Road in accordance with the. estimated wetland boundary shown in the GPI report,with elevations beyond said approximation continuing higher,. relative to those on the Josephson property. Attached please find copies of photos relating to our site visit with an associated Photo Location Reference Key notated on the GPI report's"Wetland Delineation Map",dated February 14,2023,and depicting the existing site conditions witnessed within 1515 Birdseye Road during our June 19,2024 site visit. Conclusion&Recommendations In conclusion,this office concurs with the findings of the 2023 Wetland Delineation conducted by GPI.With respect to the Upper Wetland,facultative wet species of plants dominated this area,with saturated and/or mucky soils prevalent. The continuance of this wetland into 1565 Birdseye Road is undeniable. I have reviewed and compared the proposed project site plans for 1505 Birdseye Road,by Carlos Zappata Studio,dated May 19,2019,and the revised site plan last dated April 22,2022,.with our current findings.In my professional opinion, the proposed development project will have a direct adverse impact on the delineated Upper and Lower Wetlands that extend through 1515 and 1505 Birdseye Road. There is insufficient separation distance shown,in the latest plan between the wetland'area and the proposed development.Locating a proposed septic system and appropriate drainage for a residence on this property that meets current,Southold Town Wetlands Code(Chapter 275)is difficult with the current proposal.Development should be balanced between the Top of Bluff and the Wetland Boundary,by maximizing setbacks from each,with construction of a' 2 surfside Environmental Planning Inc. 1505 Birdseye Road Development Project and 1515 Birdseye Road—Property Assessment Report modest-sized development. In order to minimize site disturbance and to mitigate any adverse impacts to the wetlands,a non-disturbance buffer should be established to preserve existing upland vegetation,which could be supplemented with native trees and shrubs to ensure that the existing wetland and drainage channel remain undisturbed. Wetlands and surrounding buffering vegetation serve to function as areas of filtration to retain runoff draining-from surrounding properties,and to recharge the aquifer below,as well as to provide wildlife habitat.An interior forested wetland such as the one described in this report is particularly important to maintain proper drainage of stormwaters to the larger assemblage of wetlands located to the east of these two parcels,in order to avoid adverse impacts to the adjacent parcels on.either side of 1505 Birdseye.In times of standing water,the upper wetland,likely serves as significant habitat to enhance the overall ecosystem.Revision to the proposed project should be explored such that the proposal should provide adequate structural setbacks and vegetative buffer from the environmental features like the bluff and wetlands on the property that make its development attractive to.landowners while still providing protection to the local environment.. Respectfully Submitted, Daphne Vaughan Executive Environmental Planner Experience Daphne Vaughan holds a Bachelor of Science in Marine Science/Biology from Long Island University,Southampton NY as well as a Master of Professional Studies in Waste Management,from SUNY Stony Brook.She was employed by the Town of Southampton Environment Division for seven and a half years,ending her term there as a Senior Environmental Analyst,assessing development applications on environmentally sensitive properties,and presenting them-to the Town of Southampton Conservation Board for review. Daphne has been delineating-wetland boundaries for the Town and privately for 23 years and has visited hundreds of properties throughout the East End of Long Island for such assessments during her career.She established Surfside Environmental Planning in early 2011,after working for another local consultant for nearly three years.She has represented hundreds of homeowners before multiple municipalities on proposed development projects on constrained properties,specializing in wetland-sensitive locations. 3 Surfside Environmental Planning Inc. 1505 Birdseye Road Development Project and 1515 Birdseye Road—Property Assessment Report JOSEPHSON PROPERTY —WETLAND ASSESSMENT SITUATE: 1515 BIRDSEYE ROAD, ORIENT, NEW YORK SCTM# 1000-17-2-1.11 !� tiAj IVY;.tfa, Ar n Photo#1: "LOWER WETLAND AREA" photo taken within delineated wetland on the Josephson property.Jewelweed (Impatiens copensis) was prevalent throughout this area, particularly in the area of the drainage pipe located under Birdseye Road. ALL PHOTOS TAKEN JUNE 19, 2024 at 1pm. AFt", gt" C\ l�� ► `\ t\\ ,�` �, �p tit mot. 140 '� Ly ,+. �, ''• _�l•`f\� \ \``� `�� ? , ,+•� `r\\�; ?�\\� \�* `� 1 N,'� 1A, 41 V t '•. �y If rr , •� f � , j.`-�!►�`� � ' �� it•� ,4.-. N f .. t _ /. is AQ � f c$ r 1 M� "• Photo #2: "LOWER WETLAND AREA" photo taken within delineated wetland. Small Joe Pye Weed (Eupatorium purpureum) plant. Additional larger specimens were noted within this area during inspection. Surf side 225 Montauk Highway, Suite 220, Moriches, New York 11955 631-772-1206 JOSEPHSON PROPERTY — WETLAND ASSESSMENT SITUATE: 1515 BIRDSEYE ROAD, ORIENT, NEW YORK SCTM# 1000-17-2-1.11 it 5 � .,fir,. • ;� ,,. w.�� . .�• `.. •i' r � -�..' " _ � •�3 .>;r"��a p,n•. J � • � G �'i,�Ry. s.�� r`-, 9��"r' /1 fit' '•_ �� ..�M: ' - AM AT -a. 1 `J l 1wtom' Photos#3&#4: "LOWER WETLAND AREA" photo taken within delineated wetland. Large specimens of soft rush (Juncus effusus) were noted in addition to jewel weed (Impatiens copensis) and Joe Pye weed (Eupotorium purpureum) confirming the wetland delineation by GPI in 2023. 4 s. '4"V _<:.-1.�\ r+' crR •.,yy � •.�_ '� n �y+tc. r,.g�• �vr°, -,� '4' .� ��Z y� �.i!•+r'.f +� •...:.a �,[ r'�`*1^ �' � 't-. ". ` :i. t,_! lam('°�.•�,•'�.! j�e ..:•,�' . � 4..I ��,. .. ,� h C � � 1✓'' �I I .gyp,,�v'� ��V�� '��a ` r Ctkj C r ► J. °� �! y,�tpx Y -� Y 1 � 111 rrG�I',M r>�Cj• .., 1 �•:. •. " J .e d ��4't F�'•�` a 11� �! R'�� 1t•.. 7 � ,�,�I' ',�;M F ' [ e� ' .� if,,•„�''� .`',,(s,��<7 + 1 4�'�•r� s41, �;, f. ( � l , E L�Pt. `w� tom. i''d v. � Q,� y o •1' �fi *Y ,i ..r .,.. •1i r ,�1�; 101i►�1S. Surlside 225 Montauk Highway, Suite 220, Moriches, New York 11955 631-772-1206 JOSEPHSON PROPERTY —WETLAND ASSESSMENT SITUATE: 1515 BIRDSEYE ROAD, ORIENT, NEW YORK SCTM# 1000-17-2-1.11 At 4,1 VL `t'X Vf �. a � �`.- s 'ai''k`''' - f v •- "fey -t. �, �r `.�u.. S. kh f � i4 "y-i _ � 't•, '',�\ vj.� 1 ?' jr Photo#5: "LOWER WETLAND AREA" photo taken within delineated wetland. Additional view of jewel weed (Impatiens copensis) located along the natural drainage channel within the lower wetland area. 0* 1.06 50*4 a, Pr Photo#6: Soil in lower wetland area was noted as saturated, with water present within footsteps taken. Surfs 1 de 225 Montauk Highway, Suite 220, Moriches, New York 11955 631-772-1206 JOSEPHSON PROPERTY — WETLAND ASSESSMENT SITUATE: 1515 BIRDSEYE ROAD, ORIENT, NEW YORK SCTM# 1000-17-2-1.11 Yc T i • a : . . gal►^{' C '1i - Photo#7&#8: View of "UPPER WETLAND"taken from dirt pathway looking southwest. Saturated soils and red and silver maple trees (Ater rubrum &Acer saccharinum) are evident within these photos IL t > vIMO ases P. 7. :rram . - 1 /� h1 J: .!� �' - • 14 Ilk S u r f s i d e 225 Montauk Highway, Suite 220, Moriches, New York 11955 631-772-1206 QWF=ft4 ►:. JOSEPHSON PROPERTY -WETLAND ASSESSMENT SITUATE: 1515 BIRDSEYE ROAD, ORIENT, NEW YORK SCTM# 1000-17-2-1.11 IbL Photo#9: "UPPER WETLAND AREA" Deer tracks through the northern portion of the delineated upper wetland area. Note depth is due to wet soils. 701 Ar SLIL f974 'A Photo#10: Looking west across upper wetland area. Note mucky soil and lack of vegetation. S u r f s i d e 225 Montauk Highway, Suite 220, Moriches, New York 11955 631-772-1206 JOSEPHSON PROPERTY —WETLAND ASSESSMENT SITUATE: 1515 BIRDSEYE ROAD, ORIENT, NEW YORK SCTM# 1000-17-2-1.11 "4z2 X�- '�• may. li,J "':' �.. r ri..F ',�~ ':�,.t�,`�' ':�Rl{ � � ' \ . .. ^ +� _ Photo #11:.View of silt fence placed adjacent to wetland area on 1505 Birdeye property taken from 1515 Birdseye. Note muddy soil conditions and deteriorated tree debris. to 1 ► • ; ` r .•k i - - !° IV 9 e Photo #12: Looking south and up the slope from the muddy area within the wetland. Note the cherry tree on the left and ground covering of poison ivy as the elevations change. surfsi(je 225 Montauk Highway, Suite 220, Moriches, New York 11955 631-772-1206 JOSEPHSON PROPERTY —WETLAND ASSESSMENT SITUATE: 1515 BIRDSEYE ROAD, ORIENT, NEW YORK SCTM# 1000-17-2-1.11 INL , w �� r °�lP' ��t � .t �V y J�,w r T.✓.�.�� 'vR�'� -', .i��wS�!��'�'l�„5,.�..��,,'";� Photo#13: Looking east toward the pathway (note person on path) from the center of the upper wetland area. Note decayed tree debris and muddy conditions after no rain for at least 10 days. " •'ti .i' �, i a..T r f f in Photo#14: Looking west from boundary between 1515 and 1505 Birdseye Road and the continuation of the wetland area into the property to the west proposed to be developed. S u r f s i d e 225 Montauk Highway, Suite 220, Moriches, New York 11955 631-772-1206 JOSEPHSON PROPERTY — WETLAND ASSESSMENT SITUATE: 1515 BIRDSEYE ROAD, ORIENT, NEW YORK SCTM# 1000-17-2-1.11 �l Av • � i f. r 1.7 " j-�� •• �� •� 4 � - - ."fir I 0- �ti AdW or Photo #15: Monument demarcating the Josephson property boundary from 1505 Birdseye Road property. Note buttressed maple in background within delineated wetland area. 49 Photo #16: Cinnamon fern (Osmundd cinnomomeo) located within wetland delineation from GPI from February 9, 2023. surf side 225 Montauk Highway, Suite 220, Moriches, New York 11955 631-772-1206 5 15 Birdseye Road - Wetland Delineation Map _ Town of Southold, Suffolk County, NY r i t � ` a Lower Wetland . MIpFBtS ,•� Open Drainage Channel 1 15 8 ]O%THSON t 9,10,11, {✓} 13,14,16 12 Upper Wetland Estimated Continuation of Upper Wetland Boundary ; + a Legend - Wetland Boundary Dirt Path Centerline Estimated Continuation of Upper Wetland Boundary Delineation Flag Point N 0 15 30 Feet Underground Pipe I ; Approximate Parcel Boundary J: E Meters _ _ = 16 Estimated Drainage Channel Centerline 5 � 4�••r�aw Oft 0. Bq�13� M Nn 05 ChrV—L QW,TWd ft. 7/14IM3 Dolores Quick From: noreply@civicpIus.com Sent: M9n dayFJulLy,71757 -�4;1-,:217,-. u"'6Quick V" c y y M'h 1� PM 0 To: Do ores Quick Subject: Online Form Submittal: Request for Public Records Request for Public Records First Name Dolores .. ........ Last Name Quick Mailing Address Twomey Latham Shea Kelley Dubin & Quartararo, 33 West 2nd Street City Riverhead State NY Zip 11901 .I.—I.............................. Phone Number 631-727-2180 x294 Email Address dquick@suffolklaw.com Records TO BOARD OF TRUSTEES: Any and all documentation regarding JMO Environmental Consulting's preparation of an Environmental Assessment Review of 1605 Birdseye Road, Orient(SCTM# 1000-17-1-4) in accordance with the Board's 3/20/24 Resolution AND any new documents filed or sent to the Board of Trustees regarding 1501 Birdseye Road, Orient since 6/15/24 including but not limited to correspondence, updated surveys, plans, memos, and electronic communications (including emails).__ Department Other Signature (enter your Dolores Quick name) of person making the request Do you agree? I Agree DENTS NONCARROW TOWN HALL, 53095 MAIN ROAD TOWN CLERK P.O. BOA'H 79 REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS SOUTHOLD, NY 11971 MARRIAGE OFFICER FAX. 631-765-6145 RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER TELEPHONE: 631-765-1800 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER southoldtotviiny.gov apv Souryo(o 4ko v � r�auxrr.�` OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC ACCESS TO RECORDS INSTRUCTIONS: Please complete section'I of this form and give to Town Clerk's Office (agency Freedom of Information Officer). One copy will be returned to you in response to your request, or as an interim response. SECTION I. TO: (Department or Officer, if known, that has the information you are requesting). RECORD YOU WISH TO INSPECT: (Describe the record sought. If possible, supply date, file title, tax map number, and any other pertinent information). Signature of Applicant: Printed Name: 0 n re S Address—��JcA Mailing Address (if different from above): Telephone Number: t , J -2 6 ul�) Date: AP FlEbEiVf�U , [ ] AP ED��T�H DELAY* Denis Noncarrow Date - Freedom of Information Officer Southold Town Clerk SoutF old Town Clerk *If delayed or denied, see reverse side for explanation. Martha F. Reichert TwomeY � Latham PBrtR er SHEA, KELLEY, DUBIN & QUARTARARO, LLP 631.727.2180x305 mrelchert@suffolklaw.com 33 West Second St. P.O.Box 9398 Riverhead,NY 11901 Thomas A.Twomey,Jr. May 20, 2024 John F.Shea,III u U Christopher Kelley BY HAND David M.Dubin :n • Jay P.Quartararo t Board of Trustees MAY 2 0 2024 Peter M. L.Snead Mott Janice L Town of Southold Kathryn Dalli Town Hall Annex Jeffrey W.Pagano O 54375 Route 25 Boa d o ld_F11 ens Karen A.Hoeg Bernadette E.Tuthill Southold,NY 11971 Craig H.Handler Bryan J. Scott Handwerker Re: Wetlands Application of 1505 Birdseye Road LLC Martha F.Reichert 1505 Birdseye Road, Orient SENIOR COUNSEL SCTM#: 1000-017.00-01.00-004.000 Stephen B.Latham ASSOCIATES ' Dear President Goldsmith and Members of the Board of Trustees: Lorraine Paceleo Terrence Russell This office represents John Josephson and Carolina Zapf, the owners of 1515 MaryKate L.Brigham Jacqueline M.Morley Birdseye Road and 900 Birdseye Road; Pamela Valentine and William Matassoni,the David L.Hamill owners of 1525 Birdseye Road and 1675 Birdseye Road;Interwellen Property Partners, Jessica L.Dubowski May Theobait LLC, the owner of 700 Birdseye Road; and Andrew Jordan, the owner of 1105 OF COUNSEL Birdseye Lane. Patricia J.Russell Jennifer P.Nigro • Our review of the Application's physical file.revealed a receipt dated March Joan Morgan McGivern Allison Singh - 13,2024 acknowledging payment of the third-party environmental consultant fee. Had this receipt been disclosed as part of our April 9, 2024 FOIL request or uploaded to SPECIAL COUNSEL Laserfiche our office would not have submitted our April 12 2024 letter requesting Lisa Clare Kombrink � p � q g Kevin M.Fox the Trustees to deem the Application abandoned due to the Applicant's failure to meet Craig Gibson Kevin Handwerker the Trustees' March 11, 2024 deadline. , Marina M.Martielli As discussed in our prior communications,there is no basis in the Town Code +.' NY&LA BARS to support "administrative" review of this Application. Furthermore, there is i LL.M IN TAXATION ♦ NYZNJBARS significant public interest in this Application,a history of prior litigation,and there are J NY.NJ&PA BARS ■ NY.NJ 8 DC BARS complex site conditions, all of which merit the opportunity for public comment. We NY,NJBFL BARS respectfully request that a public hearing be scheduled and noticed once the Main Office consultant's report has been submitted. Please make this letter part of the Application's 33 West Second St. record. P.O.Box 9398 Riverhead,NY 11901 631.727.2180 Sincerely, suffolklaw.com Martha .Reichert cc: Hon. Lori Hulse,Esq. (copy delivered to Trustees'Office) �_ Martha F. Reichert Twom%-.y 05 Latham Pa rt ARer 631.727.2180 x305 S H E A, K E L L E Y, DUBIN & Q U A R T A R A R O, LLP mreichert@suffolklaw.com 33 West Second St. P.O.Box 9398 Riverhead,NY 11901 Thomas A.Twomey,Jr, (1945-2014) April 12, 2024 John F.Shea,III D rr' Christopher D.Kelley David M.Dubin e- Jay P.Quartararo t By Hand: Peter M.Moll Janice L.Snead Board of Trustees APR T 2 Kathryn Dalli Town of Southold Jeffrey W.Pagano 0 Karen A.Hoeg Town Hall Annex Southold Town Bernadette E.Tuthill 54375 Route 25 Board Of Trustees Craig H.Handler Bryan J.Drago Southold,NY 11971 Daniel R.Bernard to Scott Handwerker Martha F.Reichert Re: Wetlands Application of 1505 Birdseye Road LLC 1505 Birdseye Road, Orient,New York SENIOR COUNSEL Stephen B.Latham (SCTM# 1000-017.00-01.00-004.000) ASSOCIATES Lorraine Paceleo Dear President Goldsmith and Members of the Board of Trustees: Terrence Russell aryKate Brigham JacquelineJosephson M.Morley l� p On behalf our clients John Jose f,the owners of 1515 David L.Hamill Birdseye Road and 900 Birdseye Road; Pamela Valentine and William Matassoni, Jessica L.Dubowski the owners of 1525 Birdseye Road and 1675 Birdseye Road; Interwellen Property MayTheobalt Y Y h rtY Partners, LLC, the owner of 700 Birdseye Road; and Andrew Jordan,the owner of OF COUNSEL 1105 Birdseye Lane we thank the Trustees for updating their online file yesterday Patricia J.Russell Y p g Y Y Jennifer P.Nigro . to contain all recent submissions into the record. Joan Morgan McGivern Allison Singh We have reviewed the Trustees' February 27, 2024 letter to the Applicant - SPECIAL COUNSEL setting a deadline of March 11, 2024 to submit the required consultant fee in order Lisa Clare Kombrink Kevin M.Fox to prevent the Application from being deemed abandoned. We have also reviewed Craig Gibson the Applicant's March 7,2024 response to the Trustees' demand. There is nothing Kevin Handwerker Marina M.Martielli in the record that suggests that the Applicant submitted the fee in accordance with the terms and deadline set forth in the February 27,2024 letter. NY&LA BARS T LL.MINTAXATION Accordingly, the Application should officially be deemed abandoned as of ♦ NY&NJ BARS , O NY.NJ&PA BARS• NY,NJ 8 DC BARS March 11> 2024> and marked as such. According to Laserfiche7 at the time of this ♦ NY,NJ&FL BARS writing, the Application is still listed online as "pending." We trust this will be Main Office corrected to reflect the Trustees' directive in their February 27, 2024 letter. 33 West Second St. P.O.Box 9398 Riverhead,NY 11901 Sincerely, r 631.727.2180 suffolklaw.com "Marthahert Cc: Hon. Lori Hulse,Esq. (copy delivered to Trustees Office) Martha F. Beichert Twomey i'aIYllrtf VA' Latham 631 727.2180 x305 fi E A; K L L I.E Y. D U 6 i N & Q U to ft T A R A R O, L L P mreichert@suffolklaw.com 3�T/esi ecol.!b_ April 10, 2024 4 r 1 VIA EMAIL AND FEDERAL EXPRESS PR 1 1 2024 Board of Trustees Town of Southold ,_4 Town Hall Annex 54375 Route 25 � Southold,NY 11971 Re: Wetlands Application of 1505 Birdseye Road LLC 1505 Birdseye Road, Orient,New York (SCTM# 1000-017.00-01.00-004.000) Dear President Goldsmith and Members of the Board of Trustees: This office represents John Josephson and Carolina Zapf, the owners of 1515 Birdseye Road and 900 Birdseye Road; Pamela Valentine and William Matassoni, the owners of 1525 Birdseye Road and 1675 Birdseye Road; Interwellen Property Partners, LLC, the owner of 700 Birdseye Road; and Andrew Jordan, the owner of 1105 Birdseye Lane. We have previously written on behalf of our clients in opposition to the above-referenced Application. The subject of this letter, however, is the impropriety of the Trustees' refusal to enter submissions made by our office into the Application's record. There are at least three recent instances of documents that were submitted, accepted and stamped received by the Trustees, and that should have been made part of the record,yet none of these submissions have been uploaded to Laserfiche, the Town's official online repository of application files and records. The last document currently shown in Laserfiche is our letter to the Trustees dated July 12, 2023. Several recent submissions have been left out. Specifically: 1. On February 6, 2024, our letter to the Trustees requesting the dismissal of this Application was submitted, stamped received, but not added to the record despite the express request to do so. See Exhibit A.' t The letter that was sent via email is dated stamped received February 6,2024,and the hard copy that was sent by Federal Express is date stamped received February 7,2024. APR 1 1 202 Town of Southold Board of Trustees April 10,2024 Page 2 2. The Applicant's submission of a "Freshwater Wetlands Review, was stamped received by the Trustees on February 6, 2024,but excluded from the record. Our office obtained a copy of this document via a FOIL request, but only after previously insisting with the Town Clerk's Office in December 2023 that we believed there were responsive documents that might not be uploaded to Laserfiche. This was confirmed when our February 6, 2024 letter was not uploaded to Laserfiche. 3. Our letter dated and submitted on February 14,2024 in response to the Applicant's "Freshwater Wetlands Review" has not been uploaded to Laserfiche despite the express request that it be entered into the record. See Exhibit B. Our February 14,2024 letter raised the serious issues posed by the refusal of the Trustees' administrative office staff to enter these submissions into the record on the grounds that the Application is being handled"administratively." First,our clients are all property owners in close proximity to the Applicant's property, i.e., within the "zone of interest," who have standing to challenge this application. See Sun-Brite Car Wash Inc. v Bd. of Zoning&Appeals, 69 N.Y.2d 406, 508 N.E.2d 130, 515 N.Y.S.2d 418 (1987). Moreover, our clients' standing was confirmed by the prior Article 78 litigation that found the Trustees' grant of a wetlands permit to this Applicant was arbitrary and capricious. As especially impacted owners,our clients have the right to have their written submissions become part of the administrative record, regardless of how it is being processed — administratively,by public hearing,or otherwise. In fact,our past submissions were made part of the record until this past February. The Trustees' unjustified refusal to enter our recent submissions and the Applicant's submissions into the record is plain bad faith. The Trustees' office staff have no statutory authority or discretion to omit a submission from the record. Accepting submissions and adding them to the record is a ministerial act that is devoid of discretion. When a municipality fails to carry out exclusively ministerial actions, liability will attach if the failure to carry out such action is "otherwise tortious and not justifiable pursuant to statutory command."Tango v. Tulevech, 61 N.Y.2d 34,40(1983). This conduct violates Civil Rights Law§ 70-a because it undermines our clients' right and ability to meaningfully participate in the application review process. It is an arbitrary and capricious abuse of the Trustees' power to cherry-pick submissions and manipulate the contents of the administrative record. The Trustees have a duty to enter any documents pertaining to this property and the instant application into its record, and to preserve a complete record for judicial review in the event of an Article 78 proceeding. Simply put, administrative permit review is no excuse to exclude relevant documents from the record. Moreover, it has been well documented that this Application is not eligible for administrative review. The project description includes regulated activities that require a Coastal Erosion Hazard Area Permit,for which there is no administrative option pursuant to Chapter 111. Additionally,this project does not qualify for an administrative wetlands permit pursuant to Town Code §275-5(B)because it involves several complex,unresolved issues,including the presence of Town of Southold Board of Trustees April 10,2024 Page 3 wetlands on the property. The issues here are so technical that the Trustees resolved to retain their own expert consultant, at the Applicant's expense, which the Applicant has ignored to date, to advise them pursuant to Town Code §275-7. The continued refusal by the Trustees to accept documents into this Application's record is a disturbing denial of our clients' substantive and procedural due process rights. It also infringes on the public's right of access to public documents submitted in connection with this Application, especially when those documents were accepted and stamped received by the Trustees. As such, we demand that our prior submissions and this letter be entered into the record of this Application. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, MARTHA F. REICH RT Enclosures Cc: Denis Noncarrow, Town Clerk Paul DeChance, Town Attorney Hon. Lori Hulse, Counsel to the Board of Trustees List of Exhibits: Exhibit A: Twomey Latham correspondence dated February 6, 2024, and stamped received by Trustees on February 6, 2024 and February 7, 2024. Exhibit B: Twomey Latham correspondence dated February 14, 2024 with Exhibits A-G. _ f APR 1 1 2024 EXHIBIT A OR 1 1 202 Martha F.Reichert Partner LathamTwomey F NV BMQ 631.727.2180 x305 S H E A, K E L L E Y, DUBIN & Q U A R T A R A R O, L L R� "'. __,_� I "r- 1 r( -, ,,,..,,5 mreichert@suffalklaw.com i J s 33 West Second St. P.O.Box 9398 February 6,2024 I Riverhead,NY 11901 VIA EMAIL AND FEDERAL EXPRESS sot [Bole! Tovdn Boat-J of FrL,-tees Board of Trustees Town of Southold Town Hall Annex 54375 Route 25 Southold,NY 11971 Re: Wetlands Application of 1505 Birdseye Road LLC 1505 Birdseye Road,Orient,New York(SCTM#1000-17-1-14) Dear President Goldsmith and Members of the Board of Trustees: This office represents John Josephson and Carolina Zapf, the owners of 1515 Birdseye Road and 900 Birdseye Road; Pamela Valentine and William Matassoni, the owners of 1525 Birdseye Road and 1675 Birdseye Road; Interwellen Property Partners, LLC, the owner of 700 Birdseye Road; and Andrew Jordan, the owner of 1105 Birdseye Lane in their continued opposition to the above-referenced Application currently pending before the Trustees. It has been nearly one-year since the Trustees tabled their review on February 15, 2023 in order to hire an independent environmental consultant pursuant to Town Code §275-7(D). It has been over eight months since the Trustees directed the Applicant, in their letter dated May 24, 2023,to remit the$1,875.00 environmental assessment fee. It has been over six months since our office last wrote to the Trustees requesting that the Application be denied in the face of the Applicant's continued failure to pay the requisite fee and to cooperate in the review of its Application. Since that time, the Applicant has made no attempt whatsoever to comply with the Trustees' requirements. Furthermore,the Applicant is now time-barred from seeking any kind of administrative review or appeal of the Trustees' determination to require an independent environmental consultant. Given that this file has lain dormant since our July 11, 2023 letter, it appears our clients have shown more diligence and interest in this Application than the Applicant. As such, we respectfully request that the Trustees consider this application inactive and abandoned. We further request that this Application be denied and dismissed at the next regular meeting of the Trustees, and removed from the Trustees' roster of pending applications. Thank you for your attention. Please include this letter in the record of this matter. Sincerely, MAR. HA F. REIC ERT APR 1 1 202 Cantrell, Elizabeth From: Kim-Marie Coruzzi <kcoruzzi@suffolklaw.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 6,2024 1:22 PM To: Cantrell, Elizabeth Cc: David Dubin;Martha Reichert Subject: Wetlands Application of 1505 Birdseye Road LLC: Premises: 1505 Birdseye Road,Orient Attachments: Letter to Southold Trustees 02-06-2024 FINAL.pdf Good Afternoon Ms.Cantrell, With reference to the above matter,attached please find attorney Martha Reichert's letter. A copy is being sent today to the Board of Trustees via Federal Express. Thank you. Kim-Marie Coruzzi Legal Assistant to Martha Reichert and Allison Singh Twomey, Latham, Shea, Kelley, Dubin&Quartararo LLP 33 West Second Street, P.O. Box 9398, Riverhead, NY 11901 0: (631)727-2180 Ext. 283 1ccori.�zzLiQsuffolklaw.cc�rq I www.suffolklaw.com Twomery VA' Latham , Kt,__F , C J R i Be Well Advised.' i ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. APR 1 1 2024 i Martha F.Reichert Twomey ` Partner Y3M 631.727.2180 x306 SHEA, KELLEY, DUBIN & 0UARTARAiQ, LLP mrelchert@suffolklaw.com 33 West Second St P.O.Box,9393 February 6,2024 _ :hs�a,riY i t9Q VIA ENTAIL AND FEDERAL EXPRESS Board of Trustees 1' Town of Southold "� B _ 02 Town Hall Annex 54375 Route 25 �� Southold,NY 11971 -st- "`' � Re: Wetlands Application of 1505 Birdseye Road LLC 1505 Birdseye Road,Orient,New York(SCTM#1000-17-1-14) Dear President Goldsmith and Members of the Board of Trustees: This office represents John Josephson and Carolina Zapf, the owners of 1515 Birdseye Road and 900 Birdseye Road; Pamela Valentine and William Matassoni, the owners of 1525 Birdseye Road and 1675 Birdseye Road; Interwellen Property Partners, LLC, the owner of 700 Birdseye Road; and Andrew Jordan, the owner of 1105 Birdseye Lane in their continued opposition to the above-referenced Application currently pending before the Trustees. It has been nearly one-year since the Trustees tabled their review on February 15,2023 in order to hire an independent environmental consultant pursuant to Town Code §275-7(D). It has been over eight months since the Trustees directed the Applicant, in their letter dated May 24, 2023,to remit the$1,875.00 environmental assessment fee. It has been over six months since our office last wrote to the Trustees requesting that the Application be denied in the face of the Applicant's continued failure to pay the requisite fee and to cooperate in the review of its Application. Since that time, the Applicant has made no attempt whatsoever to comply with the Trustees' requirements. Furthermore, the Applicant is now time-barred from seeking any kind of administrative review or appeal of the Trustees' determination to require an independent environmental consultant. Given that this file has lain dormant since our July 11, 2023 letter, it appears our clients have shown more diligence and interest in this Application than the Applicant. As such, we respectfully request that the Trustees consider this application inactive and abandoned. We further request that this Application be denied and dismissed at the next regular meeting of the Trustees, and removed from the Trustees' roster of pending applications. Thank you for your attention. Please include this letter in the record of this matter. Sincerely, MAR` 1+ F.REIC FERT APR 1 1 2024 EXHIBIT B Martha F. Reichert Twomey MA Latham Partner 631.727.2160 x305 S H E A, K E3 L L L'`(, D U B I N & Q U A R T A R A k 0, L L E' mreichert@suffolklaw.com P,O,Box'.�;39'S P2iverhead,NY 11W)l February 14, 2024 VIA EMAIL AND BY HAND Board of Trustees Town of Southold Town Hall Annex 54375 Route 25 Southold,NY 11971 Re: Wetlands Application of 1505 Birdseye Road LLC 1505 Birdseye Road,Orient,New York(SCTM# 1000-17-1-14) Dear President Goldsmith and Members of the Board of Trustees: This office represents John Josephson and Carolina Zapf, the owners of 1515 Birdseye Road and 900 Birdseye Road; Pamela Valentine and William Matassoni, the owners of 1525 Birdseye Road and 1675 Birdseye Road; Interwellen Property Partners, LLC, the owner of 700 Birdseye Road; and Andrew Jordan, the owner of 1105 Birdseye Lane in their continued opposition to the above-referenced Application currently pending before the Trustees. We submit this letter in opposition the Applicant's submission on February 6,2024 of a purported"Freshwater Wetlands Review" dated February 2, 2024 and prepared by John M. Bredemeyer, III (the "Bredemeyer Report"). We request that this report be rejected in its entirety by the Trustees for the following reasons discussed herein. L The Bredemeyer Report is Self-Serving & Does Not Provide the Trustees with Independent Expert Analysis We note that the Trustees bid out their request for an independent wetlands expert to several environmental consultants specializing in freshwater wetlands delineation, and that Mr. Bredemeyer was not one of the consultants included in their bid solicitations. As such,this report may not be used or relied upon by the Trustees as a substitute for the Trustees' determination that the Applicant is required to pay the consultant fees for expert opinions,as required by the Trustees pursuant to Southold Town Code §275-7. Furthermore, Mr. Bredemeyer's report clearly states that his report was submitted on behalf of the Applicant's principal Carlos Zapata and Carlos Zapata Studio and at the request of the Applicant's agent, Michael A. Kimack, Esq. Mr. Bredemeyer's loyalties are clearly with the Applicant, and therefore, he cannot provide the independent,expert analysis to the Trustees that is contemplated in Chapter 275 when the Trustees determined that they required independent,expert advice to review this Application. APB Town of Southold Board of Trustees February 14,2024 Page 2 of 7 II. The Bredemeyer Report Violates the Town's Ethics Code Not only is the Bredemeyer Report not the work product of an independent, third party consultant retained by the Trustees,but it also violates the Town of Southold's Code of Ethics in Town Code Chapter 26. Specifically, Mr. Bredemeyer's appearance before the Board in this Application in the form of this report violates Town Code §26-14,which states: A Town officer or employee shall not appear or practice before the Town as to particular matters on which the Town officer or employee personally worked while in Town service..." (Emphasis added). Here,Mr. Bredemeyer's prior service as an elected official on the Board of Trustees and his well- documented substantial and personal involvement with this property during his time of public service unequivocally prohibits his appearance or representation of the owner of this property no matter how much time has passed since leaving public service. In fact, the extent of Mr. Bredemeyer's involvement with this particular property and this Applicant is discussed at length in the decision of the Hon. Carmen Victoria St. George in Matter of John Josephson, et al. v. Town of Southold Board of Trustees and 1505 Birdseye Road LLC, Index No. 004826/19 (Suffolk County Sup. Ct. April 4, 2022), in which former Trustee Bredemeyer's efforts to recharacterize the property's"bluff'as a"bank"and the Trustees'reliance on his findings were expressly found by the Court to be "arbitrary and capricious and without a rational basis."His actions and his findings were the reason the Supreme Court annulled Wetlands Permit No. 9455,which was approved by the Trustees in 2019. A copy of this decision is attached as Exhibit A. Given that a court of law has already determined that Mr.Bredemeyer's prior dealings with this property were without a basis in fact, how can the Trustees now give countenance to an improper report prepared by an ethically compromised consultant with a dubious record of making arbitrary determinations specifically on this property? To do so would undermine the credibility and rational basis of any findings the Board makes with respect to the instant Application. III. The Bredemeyer Report is Scientifically Deficient and Fails to Follow Standard Wetlands Delineation Methodologies As we noted in our February 14, 2023 letter to the Board regarding this Application, our clients retained the services of Mr. Kurt Weiskotten, M.S., a Senior Environmental Scientist at Greenman-Pederson, Inc. ("GPI"), and an accomplished wetlands expert with nearly 40 years of wetlands experience. Mr. Weiskotten performed a field inspection on February 9, 2023 and prepared a Wetlands Delineation Report, dated February 14, 2023, which was submitted to the Board on February 14, 2023 and stamped received on February 15, 2023 (the "Weiskotten Report"). Using standard wetlands delineation methodologies,the Weiskotten Report conclusively found multiple indicia of a freshwater wetland straddling the Applicant's property and our clients' property at 1515 Birdseye. Those indicia include the presence of: (i) hydrophytic'vegetation; (ii)' APR i3� i Town of Southold Board of Trustees February 14,2024 Page 3 of 7 hydric soils; and (iii) wetlands hydrology in the upper wetland located between 1505 and 1515 Birdseye Road. The Weiskotten Report concluded this is a forested freshwater wetlands and a vernal pond. By contrast,the Bredemeyer Report,in addition to being self-serving and unethical,is also scientifically unreliable and deficient with respect to determining the issue of whether a freshwater wetlands is present on the Applicant's property. The Bredemeyer Report fails to follow the standard wetlands delineation methodologies and data collection needed to make consistent and accurate wetlands delineations. Two such benchmark manuals used by qualified wetlands delineation experts are the NYSDEC's Freshwater Wetlands Delineation Manual (July 1995 Edition) (the "NYSDEC Manual")and the 1987 Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual(the"Army Corps Manual") and its 2012 Northeast US Regional Supplement. The NYSDEC Manual, which is largely based on the Army Corps Manual, explains the importance of using these established methodologies because the "[d]elineation methods outlined herein ... will provide for legally defensible and reproducible wetland boundaries ... However, to depart from methods outlined in this Manual is to enter the realm of `Best Professional Judgement' and the reasons for doing so must be well documented." NYSDEC Wetlands Delineation Manual,p. 5. (Emphasis added). Attached in Exhibit B,is a supplemental letter by Mr. Weiskotten dated February 13,2024 setting forth his review and detailed section-by-section analysis of the Bredemeyer Report. Mr. Weiskotten found that Mr.Bredemeyer's concentration on wetland vegetation without considering hydrology and hydric soils is "inaccurate and irresponsible" and displays only a "basic introductory understanding of how wetlands occur on the landscape (and how to identify them)." Exhibit B at p.2,¶¶2-3. We further wish to point out that the Bredemeyer Report makes false claims about the lack of vegetative adaptations that occur when FAC or FACW indicator species are exposed to wetlands conditions. Photographs in the Weiskotten Report, ` such as the image to the right in Figure 1, clearly , show multi-trunked maples with buttressed trunks w. within the subject wetland,which are the exact kind of morphological adaptations one would expect to find in a vegetative community adapting to wetland conditions. See NYSDEC Manual, p. 6 n.1, p.32 "Table 1: Adaptations of Plants that Grow in Permanently or Periodically Flooded or Saturated Soils;"p.53 "Appendix F: Field Key to New York State Wetland Delineation." A copy of Appendix F Figure 1: Photo taken February 9, 2023 showing maple trees in upper wetland with multiple from the NYSDEC Manual is attached as Exhibit C. buttressed tree trunks. Source: Weiskotten Report, See also Exhibit B, Weiskotten Letter 2/13/2024 at dated 211412023. AV") 3f Town of Southold Board of Trustees February 14,2024 Page 4 of 7 p.4("The lack of adventitious roots does not change the FAC indicator status of Red or FACW for Silver Maple and does not diminish other wetland hydrology indictors found at the site such as water-stained leaves, buttressed tree trunks, surface water, saturation, water marks, and drainage patterns."). Moreover, the Bredemeyer Report contains incorrect conclusions regarding the presence, predominance, and significance of FACW and FAC species in the subject wetland. For example, the Bredemeyer Report wrongly states that Silver Maple (Ater saccharinum) is a FAC species. This statement is directly contradicted in Appendix B of the Bredemeyer Report itself, which contains the USDA-NRSC Data sheet stating that Silver Maple facer saccharinum) is a FACW in the Northeast. See Bredemeyer Report, Appendix B at 2. The NYSDEC Manual in its "Appendix A: Field Forms - Freshwater Wetland Plant List and Field Inspection Sheet" also corroborates that in New York, Silver Maple is a FACW species and Red Maple(Ater rubrum)is a FAC species. See Exhibit D. Mr.Weiskotten further explains in his letter that"the Northcentral and Northeast wetland regional map indicates the project site is not within the Coastal Plain region, and Silver Maple is in fact FACW species,"however, "[a] species being FAC versus FACW does not remove it from being a wetland indicator species,and the difference between FAC and FACW is of no consequence in a wetland delineation." See Exhibit B at p.3. In conclusion, we submit that the Bredemeyer Report is yet another example of this Applicant's continued pattern of bad faith misrepresentations and shoddy submissions to this Board: first, with respect to the existence and location of the bluff line in the court-annulled Wetlands Permit No. 9455, and now with respect to the very existence of this wetland, which the Applicant himself claimed was a wetland and depicted it on its site plans as an"intermittent pond" in order to justify shifting its construction project well into the 100-ft. bluff setback. See Exhibit E,Applicant's site plans dated April 1,2019 and November 16, 2017. These plans also show the bluff line that was improperly recharacterized by Trustee Bredemeyer as a "bank," which led to the Supreme Court's annulment of the permit. Mr. Weiskotten concluded his review of the Bredemeyer Report with the following summary: It is my professional opinion that after reviewing the Bredemeyer Review Report,it does not contain any compelling arguments or data that would change any of the findings of the Wetlands Delineation Report dated 2/14/23 that I prepared, which primarily found that there is a ponded vernal pool on-site that flows northeast under a pathway berm and through a drainage channel into a small emergent marsh and eventually under a driveway and into a Common Reed (Phragmites) stand to the east. The Bredemeyer Report's wetland review has a complete lack of attention paid to other wetland indicators such as hydrology (water-stained leaves, shallow roots, buttressed tree trunks, A P V 1 024 Town of Southold Board of Trustees February 14,2024 Page 5 of 7 drainage patterns) and any discussion at all regarding hydric soils (soil profiles, horizons, chromas and hues, and possible reduction features). These features are critical to properly identifying wetlands in the field, and this report does not support a suitable effort to disclaim the presence of wetlands on the property. Many of the points made are anecdotal and subjective and do not support the lack of wetlands being found on-site. See Exhibit B,p.4. Mr. Kimack's insinuations in his prior correspondence that our Firm and our clients are prevented from raising the existence of this wetland now because of our involvement in opposing Permit No. 9455 is nothing more than a desperate attempt to deflect attention away from the Applicant's inconsistent representations(and misrepresentations)to this Board. First,in our prior opposition,our efforts were focused on Mr.Bredemeyer's recharacterization of the bluff as a bank. The testimony of our expert,Robert Grover, a coastal scientist, focused on the adverse impacts to the bluff posed by the Applicant's project and to address the unjustified recharacterization of the bluff as a bank in order to evade bluff setback requirements. In this Application,we have retained a freshwater wetlands expert to specifically review whether this low lying area is a freshwater wetlands based on standard science-based wetland delineation methods. This is something that was not done in connection with Pen-nit No. 9455. Moreover, retaining an expert to confirm the existence of a freshwater wetland that is also located on our clients'property at 1515 Birdseye can hardly be called self-serving since we are effectively acknowledging that 1515 Birdseye contains the same environmental conditions and protected natural features as 1501 Birdseye that constrain development. Finally,we request that this letter be made part of the record of this Application. We understand from communications with the Trustees' office staff that the Trustees are still processing this Application as one for an administrative wetlands permit. This is disconcerting since the Applicant was advised by the Trustees after their work session on August 15, 2022 to submit a full wetlands permit application. See Exhibit E. The Applicant was again reminded by email on December 21,2022 to submit a full wetlands application,and the Applicant refused. See Exhibit F. Thereafter, the Trustees' adopted a resolution directing the Applicant to pay the consultant fee pursuant to §275-7. The mere fact that the Trustees have determined they need independent, expert advice to review this Application clearly demonstrates that this project does not qualify as an administrative wetlands permit pursuant to Town Code §275-5(B).1 The Our prior submissions to the Board dated September 21, 2022, February 8, 2023, February 9, 2023,and February 14,2023 have addressed in detail all the legal reasons contained within the Town Code as to why this Application cannot be processed as an administrative wetlands permit,including the simple fact that there is no administrative option for a CEHA permit in Town Code Chapter 111,and the Applicant seeks to excavate and install an I/A sanitary system seaward of the 100-ft bluff setback, clear and install bluff/beach access path,and clear and grub over 3000 sq.ft.seaward of the CEHA line,and also clear and grade within the 100-foot bluff setback. The Applicant has couched these activities as requiring an 1"i7 1 1 202 Town of Southold Board of Trustees February 14,2024 Page 6 of 7 Applicant was directed again in a letter signed by President Goldsmith, dated May 24, 2023, to remit the payment for the Trustees' selected consultant because, "[t]he assessment is necessary in order to move forward with your pending application. Failure to remit payment will delay the application process." Trustees staff have also informed us that they do not intend to enter our submissions into the record, which is: (i) a disturbing denial of our clients' due process rights; (ii) not in keeping with municipal document retention policies and FOIL; and (iii) conflicts with the Town Clerk's oft cited mantra that our office need not submit FOIL requests to the Town for responsive records in the Trustees'possession because all documents are supposedly uploaded to Weblink/Laserfiche. In fact, this latter assumption by the Town Clerk appears to be incorrect, as our last letter dated February 6, 2024, has yet to be uploaded to Weblink/Lasherfiche in this application. A copy of this letter bearing the Trustees date stamp is enclosed. While Trustees may have initially tabled this Application in August 2022,the Applicant's continued refusal to comply with the Trustees' directions has directly resulted in the continued tabling of the Application. We submit this Application should be considered withdrawn pursuant to Town Code §275-8(G) since more than four months have passed since the Applicant protested against the Board's determination requiring submission of a full application and to require an independent consult of the Board's choosing. As such, we reiterate our request that this letter, as well as our February 6, 2024 letter, be entered into the record of this Application. In sum, and for the foregoing reasons, it would be arbitrary and capricious and an abuse of discretion for the Trustees(i)to consider the Bredemeyer Report, (ii) to not follow through and require an independent analysis, or (iii) to handle this application administratively and without a public hearing given the history and extensive opposition submitted on behalf of multiple neighbors who will no doubt be impacted by this development. Sincerely, MARTH/F. kA Enclosures Cc: Paul DeChance,Town Attorney Hon. Lori Hulse, Counsel to the Board of Trustees Administrative Wetlands Permit pursuant to Chapter 275("Wetlands"),when,in fact,they require a Coastal Erosion Permit pursuant to Chapter 111,for which the applicant has never applied.See Exhibit F where the Applicant's Agent admits they seek relief pursuant to Chapter 111 and not Chapter-275: "The 100 feet from the bluff is the only jurisdiction the Board has...there is no additional jurisdiction under [Chapter] 275 for the property." (Emphasis added). Simply put, the Applicant's argument that it is entitled to an administrative wetlands permit is legally indefensible. Town of Southold Board of Trustees February 14,2024 Page 7 of 7 List of Exhibits: Exhibit A — Matter of John Josephson, et al. v. Town of Southold Board of Trustees and 1505 Birdseye Road LLC,Index No. 004826/19(Suffolk County Sup. Ct. April 4, 2022) Exhibit B—Letter from Kurt Weiskotten,M.S., dated February 13, 2024 Exhibit C—NYSDEC Manual Appendix F: Field Key to New York State Wetland Delineation Exhibit D—NYSDEC Manual Appendix A:Field Forms-Freshwater Wetland Plant List and Field Inspection Sheet Exhibit E—Applicant's site plans dated April 1, 2019 and November 16, 2017 Exhibit F—Email from Elizabeth Cantrell to Michael Kimack,Esq., August 16,2022 Exhibit G—Email correspondence between Michael Kimack,Esq. and Diane DiSalvo,December 22,2022 t i,�dY`• EXHIBIT A APR 1 1 20PA, FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 04 04 2022 04:07 PM INDEX NO. 004826/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 38 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2022 SUPREME COURT—STATE OF NEW YORK TRIAL TERM,PART 56 SUFFOLK COUNTY PRESENT: Hon. Carmen Victoria St. George Justice of the Supreme Court x In the Matter of the Application of Index No. JOHN JOSEPHSON,CAROLINA ZAPF,PAMELA 004826/19 VALENTINE,WILLIAM MATASSONI,and INTERWELLEN PROPERTY PARTNERS,LLC, Petitioners, For a Judgment pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, -against- Motion Seq: 001 MG Decision/Order TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BOARD OF TRUSTEES,and 1505 BIRDSEYE ROAD,LLC, Respondents. x The following papers numbered 1 - 157 having been read on this proceeding pursuant to Article 78: Papers Numbered Notice of Petition,Petition,with Exhibits 1 -24 Petitioners' Memo of Law in Support 25 -42 Respondent Birdseye's Affirmation 43 - 58 in Opposition Respondent Birdseye's Answer 59- 64 Respondent Board of Trustees' Affirmation 65 - 77 in Opposition Respondent Board of Trustee's Answer 78 - 83 Administrative Return 84 - 137 Petitioners' Reply 138 - 157 1 of 7 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 04 04 2022 04:07 PM INDEX NO. 004826/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 38 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2022 Petitioners John Josephson, Carolina Zapf,Pamela Valentine,William Matassoni, and Interwellen Property Partners,LLC (collectively"petitioners")commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR Article 78 seeking a judgment annulling,rescinding and setting aside the May 15, 2019 resolution adopted by the respondent Town of Southold Board of Trustees(the "Trustees")which granted respondent 1505 Birdseye Road,LLC ("Birdseye")a wetlands permit for construction of a two-level house on property located at 1505 Birdseye Road, Orient,Town of Southold, Suffolk County,New York(the"property"). Each of the petitioners owns property next to,or in close proximity to,Birdseye's property,which is an undeveloped parcel that borders the Long Island Sound. Petitioners contend that the May 5, 2019 resolution violates Town Code Sections 280- 116 and 273-3 which prohibit construction within 100 feet from the top of a bluff. Petitioners' claim that in granting the wetlands permit,the Trustees relied on Birdseye's improper and unsubstantiated re-designation of the bluff,which runs parallel to the northern property line bordering the Long Island Sound. Specifically,petitioners maintain that the"top of bluff"had had been previously established during review of Birdseye's 2018 application to the Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals ("ZBA"),which voted unanimously to deny Birdseye's application to construct a house within 100 feet from the top of the bluff. Petitioners now contend that Birdseye returned within months of the ZBA denial,this time with an application to the Trustees for a wetlands permit to construct a house on the same parcel,and that in its review of the wetlands application the Trustees failed to give deference to the ZBA,and failed to adhere to its own determination regarding the location of the bluff line. According to petitioners,the Trustees instead relied upon Birdseye's re-designation of one half of the"top of bluff'as a"top of bank,"and that this change in designation from"bluff"to"bank"made it unnecessary for Birdseye to comply with the bluff setbacks set forth in the Town Code, thereby resulting in the Trustees granting Birdseye a wetlands permit to construct a house in excess of 6,000 square feet within 100 feet from the "top of bluff,"in violation of Town Code. According to the verified petition,Birdseye applied to the ZBA in November 2017 for relief from Town Code §280-116 requiring that buildings on lots where there exists a bluff be set back 100 feet from the top of the bluff. During the course of its review, the ZBA held two public hearings and heard extensive testimony regarding the precise location of the top of the bluff, including testimony from petitioner's expert Robert Grover,Vice-President and Director of Environmental Coastal Sciences at Greenman-Pedersen,Inc. Mr. Grover conducted a site inspection and testified that the top of the bluff on the property runs parallel to the Coastal Erosion Hazard Line("CEHL")for the entire width of the property. Then, during the first hearing,and at the request of the ZBA,Mr. Grover drew the top of the bluff line on Birdseye's survey. The petitioners further contend that,during its review,the ZBA received comments from the Town Engineer which revealed that the top of the bluff had actually shifted further landward, toward the eastern portion of the property, rather than what was noted by Birdseye on its ZBA application. Then, at the request of the ZBA, Trustee John Bredemeyer,went to the property and reflagged the top of the bluff, and the bluff line determined by Trustee Bredemeyer matched the location that Mr. Grover had noted during the ZBA public hearing,which runs parallel to the Coastal Erosion Hazard Line,and extends the entire width of the property. As a result,Birdseye 2 2 of 7A"�it � i 6 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 04 04 2022 04:07 PM INDEX NO. 004826/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 38 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2022 revised its survey,and submitted the revised survey to the ZBA,dated April 9,2018,which delineated the top of the bluff line flagged by Trustee Bredemeyer, i.e., further landward than where it was depicted in the original survey. Birdseye's revised survey also indicated that the bluff line extended the entire width of the property. On June 25,2018, after two public hearings and evaluation of all the evidence before it, the ZBA issued its unanimous decision denying Birdseye's application for relief from the bluff setback, finding that the granting of the variances would produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties, as well as adversely impacting the physical and environmental condition in the neighborhood. The ZBA noted that Birdseye's updated survey, and the site inspection by members of the ZBA and Trustees, showed that the proposed structure would actually be located only 36.5 feet from the top of the bluff,not 50 feet as set forth in the original application, and would be plainly in contravention of the code that requires a minimum setback of 100 feet from the top of a bluff. Petitioners then assert that in an attempt to avoid the 100-foot bluff setback,Birdseye re- designated the eastern half of the bluff as a bank, since a bank is not subject to setback requirements set forth in the code. Petitioners' maintain Birdseye hired a new surveyor who designated a part of the bluff line,previously flagged by Trustee Bredemeyer and adopted by Birdseye in the 2018 ZBA proceeding, so that the eastern half of the "top of bluff"became became a"top of bank,"as reflected in the survey dated August 12,2018 that Birdseye submitted with its wetlands permit application. Petitioners contend there is no testimony or proof to support the re- designation of the bluff to a bank, or to rebut the designation of the top of bluff,which was universally acknowledged by all parties to be a bluff during the course of the ZBA proceeding. As part of Birdseye's wetlands application,the Trustees held a public hearing on May 15, 2019. Petitioners,appearing by counsel, submitted written comments in opposition to the application, including the evidence presented to the ZBA showing that the"top of bluff' extended across the entire width of the property, as well as the written and oral expert testimony of its expert,Mr. Grover. Birdseye, appearing by counsel,did not offer any expert testimony in support of the application. Despite requests by petitioner's counsel to leave the record open for additional comment, including submissions by those neighbors unable to attend the hearing, and to allow Mr. Grover an opportunity to revisit the property to rebut the renaming of the eastern part of the bluff,the record was closed. Then, immediately after closing the hearing the Trustees took an immediate vote and granted the application. On that same day the two-page resolution approving the application was signed by the Trustees, and Birdseye was issued a wetlands permit. The Trustees' two-page resolution dated May 15, 2019 includes a recitation of the Birdseye project and two minor references to the"top of bluff/bank"and"top of bluff as flagged by Inter Science,converging with the top of bank as flagged by John Bredemeyer,Town Trustee."Although the bluff line was briefly mentioned during the May 15, 2019 hearing,no explanation was given on the record as to how the bluff line that had been reflagged by Trustee Bredemeyer and adopted by all parties in the ZBA proceeding,now became a"bluffibank." Further,while the resolution refers to the"top of bank as flagged by John Bredemeyer"there was no discussion at the hearing, or proof in the Administrative Return,that Trustee Bredemeyer 3 3 of 7 M.HI I FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 04 04 2022 04 :07 PM INDEX NO. 004826/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 38 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2022 actually re-visited the property and reflagged the"top of bank." Instead the only testimony at the public hearing to explain the re-designation was offered by the applicant's counsel,who spoke in conclusory terms about the involvement of the Trustees,the Town Attorney, and Town Engineer, and a purported"agreement"between counsel for Birdseye and the Trustees regarding the "convergence point"where the bluff and the bank meet.Notably missing from the opposition is any specific reference in the record as to how the bluff line flagged by Trustee Bredemeyer and adopted by the Trustees in the ZBA proceeding suddenly became a bank in Birdseye's wetlands application. Where, as here,the administrative determination at issue was made after informational public hearings, as opposed to a quasi-judicial evidentiary hearing,the"arbitrary and capricious" standard of CPLR 7803(3) applies (see Matter of Moy v. Board of Trustees of Town of Southold, 61 AD3d 763, 764 [2d Dept 2009];Matter of Zupa v Board of Trustees of Town of Southold, 54 AD3d 957, 957 [2d Dept 2008]). Thus,the sole question before this Court is whether the Trustees' determination was made in violation of lawful procedure,was affected by an error of law,or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion(see CPLR 7803[31; Matter of Gernatt Asphalt Products v Town of Sardinia, 87 NY2d 668, 688 [1996];Perry v Brennan, 153 AD3d 522, 524-525 [2d Dept 2017];Matter of Moy,supra;Matter of Halperin v City of New Rochelle,24 AD3d 768 [2d Dept 2005]). In the context of an Article 78 proceeding brought to review an administrative determination of a quasi- legislative, quasi-administrative body like a zoning board or the board of trustees of a village, a court may annul the determination only if it was arbitrary and capricious, affected by an error of law, or irrational (see Matter of Scherbyn v Wayne-Finger Lakes Bel. of Coop. Educ. Servs., 77 NY2d 753 [1991];Matter of Cowan v Kern,41 NY2d 591 [1977];Matter of Pell v Board of Education, 34 NY2d 222 [1974];Matter of Baker v Village of Elmsford, 70 AD3d 181 [2d Dept 2009];Matter of Moy,supra;Matter of Halperin v City of New Rochelle,supra). "Arbitrary action is without sound basis in reason and is generally taken without regard to the facts" (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ.,supra at 231). "A decision of an administrative agency which neither adheres to its own prior precedent nor indicates its reason for reaching a different result on essentially the same facts is arbitrary and capricious" (Matter of Charles A. Field Delivery Service Inc. v Roberts, 66 NY2d 516, 516-17 [1985]). In opposition,the Trustees submit the affirmation of counsel who argues that the Trustees' grant of Birdseye's application for a wetlands permit was not arbitrary and capricious, that the Trustees considered the application and analyzed the statutory factors set forth in Town Code §275-12 and,based on evidentiary proof,the Trustees determined that the balance weighed in favor of the issuance of the wetlands permit. The Trustees' counsel further maintains that the Trustees' determination regarding the bluff/bank line is rationally based and in conformance with Town Code §275; the Trustees classified the bank and bluff in accordance with the definitions in the code,and the finding of the ZBA is not binding upon the Trustees. The Wetlands Law of the Town of Southold is set forth in §275 of the Town Code. The standards for issuance of a wetlands permit are set forth in §275-12, which states in pertinent part that the Trustees may adopt a resolution directing the issuance of a wetlands permit only if it determines that the operations applied for will not substantially: 4 4 of 7 APH i ir-141L FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 04 04 2022 04 :07 PM INDEX NO. 004826/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 38 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2022 A. Adversely affect the wetlands of the Town. B. Cause damage from erosion,turbidity or siltation. C. Cause saltwater intrusion into the fresh water resources of the Town. D. Adversely affect fish, shellfish or other beneficial marine organisms, aquatic wildlife and vegetation or the natural habitat thereof. E. Increase the danger of flood and storm-tide damage. F. Adversely affect navigation on tidal waters or the tidal flow of the tidal waters of the Town. G. Change the course of any channel or the natural movement or flow of any waters. H. Weaken or undermine the lateral support of other lands in the vicinity. I. Otherwise adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the Town. J.Adversely affect the aesthetic value of the wetland and adjacent areas. Contrary to the Trustees' counsel's assertion,there is nothing in the record to establish that the Trustees analyzed the statutory factors set forth in Town Code §275-12. There is no factual recitation or findings of fact set forth in the May 15,2019 resolution, and neither the resolution,nor the transcript of the May 15, 2019 hearing, set forth any analysis of these factors by the Trustees. Town Code §275-12 clearly states that the Trustees"may"grant a wetlands permit"only if'the Trustees determine that the application will not substantially affect any of the ten statutory facts set forth in §275-12 A-J. While the May 15, 2019 resolution includes a cursory finding by the Trustees that the application would not affect the health safety and general welfare of the people of the town,the record is devoid of any analysis, or consideration of the nine remaining statutory factors. Clearly there exists a distinction between a wetlands permit application brought before the Trustees, and an application for variance relief brought before the ZBA. The Trustees' argument that it is not bound by the findings of the ZBA completely overlooks petitioners' argument that in this instance the Trustees failed to adhere to their own determination regarding the bluff line reached during the course of the ZBA proceeding. The ZBA decision,which petitioners submitted to the Trustees at the wetlands hearing on May 15,2019 specifically notes: On March 2,2018, the top of the bluff was reflagged by the Trustees and their flags were consistent with the Suffolk County LIDAR map provided by the Southold Town Engineer, and the"corrected top of bluff line"hand drawn on [Birdseye's] survey . . . [R. 11] The Trustees' designation of the bluff line was also acknowledged by Michael Domino, President of the Board of Trustees, in his April 13, 2018 memo to the ZBA: This is a follow-up to the Board of Trustees field inspection of April 11,2018 of 1501 Birdseye LLC wherein we discussed: the survey received April 9, 2018 showing the top of bluff line as determined by area Trustee John Bredemeyer.. . ." [R. 44] 5 5 of 7 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 04 04 2022 04:07 PM INDEX NO. 004826/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 38 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2022 No explanation is offered as to why the Trustees failed to adhere to their own prior determination regarding the flagging of the bluff line that was clearly established and adopted by all parties during the ZBA proceeding. Birdseye's contention that it was not necessary to distinguish between the bluff and the bank in its ZBA application is without merit. The submitted record makes those distinctions apparent. It is clear from references in the ZBA proceeding that the bank line was depicted on the January 2, 2013 survey that accompanied Birdseye's application to the ZBA, and that the accuracy of the bank line was, in fact,referenced by the ZBA in its June 25,2018 decision ("there was testimony ... relating to the accuracy of the top of the bank/bluff as depicted on [Birdseye's] survey of January 2, 2013"') [R. 11,p.2], and in letters submitted by petitioners in opposition to the ZBA application [R. 9,p. 1, 3]. It was also referenced in the August 7,2017 letter from Birdseye's counsel,in what appears to be his first correspondence with the Trustees requesting a pre-application site visit, in which he refers to the"top of bank" [R. 24]. Birdseye's counsel's characterization that the March 1, 2018 ZBA hearing was adjourned to have the trustee"reflag the easterly portion of the property," is somewhat disingenuous. Although the ZBA did adjourn the meeting, it was not simply to reflag the easterly portion,but rather to reflag the top of the bluff. While Birdseye's counsel appears to question the accuracy of Trustee Bredemeyer's reflagging of the bluff line,he concedes that Birdseye's own surveyor revisited the location and revised their survey on April 9, 2018 showing the top of bluff line,and Trustee Bredemeyer's bluff line,running together across entire property line from west to east. [R. 45] Birdseye's argument that their surveyor used in the ZBA proceeding merely followed Trustee Bredemeyer's flags and did not make a distinction between the bluff and the bank is conclusory and is not supported by any proof in the record. Birdseye offers this unsupported claim in an attempt to explain its later survey submitted to the Trustees with its wetlands application, conducted by a different surveyor,re-designating the bluff line to a bluff/bank line. Birdseye's argument that the Trustees provided guidance as to what constitutes a bluff and a bank is also conclusory and unsupported by the record. Birdseye refers to a letter from its counsel to the Trustees dated August 14, 2018, and the response from Trustee Domino dated September 21, 2018. Counsel's assertion that the survey submitted with its wetlands application "was reviewed by the Trustees,in collaboration with the Town Engineer, Michael Collins, and Assistant Town Attorney, [and] based on that review trustees determined that the new survey was an accurate depiction of the convergence point of the bluff/bank and the setback was in keeping with the description in their September 21,2018 letter to Birdseye"is entirely without support in the record. Of note is the undated email sent by Birdseye's counsel to a Trustee Assistant,purportedly outlining what the Building Department requires in order to complete their review of the wetlands application(see Ex. L annexed to Birdseye Affirmation in Opposition). Although the email contains references to Mike Verity [Southold Chief Building Inspector] and the fact that the building inspector wants "verification from the Board in writing that what is being presented on the site plan conforms to the Trustees determination," as well as"verification from the trustees"that the setback on Birdseye's site plan is accurate,neither the email,nor any Despite references to the January 2,2013 survey submitted by Birdseye to the ZBA,the Court was unable to locate it in the Administrative Return. 6 6 of 7 APH 1 I �, FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 04 04 2022 04:07 PM1 INDEX NO. 004826/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 38 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2022 written verification from the Trustees, is included in the Administrative Return submitted by the Trustees. As noted,the Court's review of the record indicates there is no analysis by the Trustees of the statutory factors set forth in Town Code §275-12,nor any reason given by the Trustees for not adhering to their own prior determination regarding the bluff line flagged by Trustee Bredemeyer and acknowledged by the Trustees during the ZBA proceeding. Accordingly,the May 15, 2019 resolution by the Town of Southold Board of Trustees granting 1505 Birdseye Road, LLC's application for a wetlands permit for construction of a two-level house on property located at 1505 Birdseye Road, Orient is arbitrary and capricious and without a rational basis. Thus, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the petition pursuant to CPLR Article78 is granted and the May 15, 2019 resolution adopted by the Town of Southold Board of Trustees granting respondent 1505 Birdseye Road, LLC's application for a wetlands permit is annulled and vacated.' Dated: April 4,2022 Riverhead,New York f ARMEN VIC ORIA ST R ,J.S.C. FINAL DISPOSITION [X] NON-FINAL DISPOSITION [ ] Petitioners'request for costs of this proceeding is denied. APR , 1 2 7 7 of 7 EXHIBIT B APR GPIgineermg I Design 1 1lariviin �C;<jt�trt.icsiar;lfen�gerneni February 13, 2024 Board of Trustees Town of Southold Town Hall Annex 54375 Route 25 Southold, NY 11971 Re: "Freshwater Wetlands Review"dated February 2,2024, by John Bredemeyer, III Wetlands Application of 1505 Birdseye Road LLC 1505 Birdseye Road,Orient, New York(SCTM#1000-17-1-14) Dear President Goldsmith and Board of Trustees Members: GPI has been retained by John Josephson,who owns properties at 1515 Birdseye Road,900 Birdseye Road, and 700 Birdseye Road, to provide various environmental services. Last year, I visited the site and conducted a Wetlands Delineation at Mr. Josephson's property at 1515 Birdseye. This culminated in a Wetlands Delineation Report, dated February 14, 2023, in which my findings concluded that the low-lying area on Mr. Josephson's property, which also extends into 1505 Birdseye Road is a freshwater wetland. This report was provided to this Board on February 14, 2023. The subject of this letter is to provide the Board with my comments and observations on the "Freshwater Wetland Review" document dated February 2, 2024, and prepared by John Bredemeyer III, which was submitted by the applicant. This document was stamped received by the Trustees on February 6, 2024. The Bredemeyer report alleges that the low-lying depression located on 1505 and 1515 Birdseye Road is not a freshwater wetland,which is a conclusion that is not supported by aspects of the Bredemeyer Report itself or my 2/14/2023 Delineation Report. I have been an established environmental professional in New York State for over 40 years, the last ten (10) as a Sr. Environmental Scientist with GPI. GPI is a full-service engineering firm with an exceptional staff of 1,700+professionals working for numerous public and private clients.Our Corporate Headquarters are in Babylon, Long Island. I have personally conducted hundreds of environmental site and project plan reviews and countless wetland and waterway delineations and assessments and mitigation projects.I have been on the Board of Directors of the New York State Wetlands Forum for over ten years. My CV has been previously provided to the Board. After a thorough analysis of the Bredemeyer Report, I would like to provide the following comments regarding this report's inadequacy in refuting the existence of wetland conditions at the Applicant's property: 1. There is no cover sheet which identifies the author or if this is an Environmental Site Assessment Report, a Wetland Delineation Report, a simple findings document, or something else. There is no Table of Contents directing the reader to what type of document this is. Over 50 she Uni< <SaiOs wvv.cjpiner.a7m _a!i<n zorzi f � a 2. The opening paragraph of the document states that "It endeavors to provide all necessary information for the Southold Board of Trustees to make a wetland determination". To the contrary, I find that this document is lacking in many areas and does not constitute a document complete enough for a local board to make wetland determinations. Wetland determinations, using the three-parameter approach, should be made in the field by qualified wetland scientists or by representatives from regulatory agencies such as the US Army Corps of Engineers(COE) or the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). 3. The second paragraph of the Bredemeyer Report states that"Freshwater determinations are most easily performed in the presence of abundant and diverse plant indicators...from obligate floating vegetation... to obligate emergent vegetation ... to obligate trees on the upland perimeter." This is a very elementary depiction of the wetland delineation process that only represents a basic introductory understanding of how wetlands occur on the landscape (and how to identify them). This section of the Bredemeyer Report does not mention hydrologic regimes and hydric soil indictors that must also be considered in addition to identifying only vegetation. Any complete site wetland review will look for the three parameters of wetland conditions. Concentrating on wetland vegetation solely, and on Obligate and Facultative Wet species in particular, is inaccurate and irresponsible. The author mentions a "paucity of FAC species", however, many wetland situations may consist of only FAC species, and will certainly meet the definition of a wetland. 4. Hydrology, Physiography, Waters, Weather Section: This section of the Bredemeyer Report describes the numerous ways a swale and/or ponded depression on the property exhibits varying levels of water depth and saturation. Contrary to the point the author is trying to establish refuting the existence of a wetland, these descriptions are, in fact, typical of a wetland area occupying a position in the landscape. These references alone indicate that a wetland likely occurs on the site. It should be noted that a wetland does not need to exhibit standing water for long periods of time to qualify as a wetland. Wetlands can persist with as little as two weeks of standing water or saturated soil conditions during the growing season (at proper frequency and duration to establish wetland conditions). This amount of hydrology is enough to support and sustain hydrophytic vegetation and hydric soils on a wetland site. The references in this section of the Report to a collapsed drain-pipe and earthen path/road contributing to ponding are irrelevant with respect to whether a wetlands exists. Although man- made features may alter the landscape, they may also result in regulated wetlands forming over time that exhibit wetland characteristics. The report's discussions of adjacent properties, watersheds, land use practices, and "leaf-out" impacts on evapo-transpiration are also irrelevant to wetland presence or absence and are merely anecdotal and subjective. 5. Vegetation Section: The discussion in this section of the Bredemeyer Report supports the principle that wetlands do not need to be "wet" throughout the year, rather for a few weeks during the growing season to establish wetland conditions. This has been proven to be the case forthe ponded vernal pool at this location,and the Bredemeyer Report supports a finding of a ponded vernal pond. The report's mention of dead, large upland tree species adjacent to the wetland depression also does not support the assertion that the pool is not a wetland. To the contrary,the discussion here GPI supports a saturated and ponded condition existing as a vernal pool. The upland species at the "rim" above the wetland/pool are of no consequence to the authors argument that there is no wetland present. As described above, the beach path or earthen road does not eliminate the possibility of a regulated wetland being found on-site. The final paragraph indicates that the Silver Maple is a FAC species in the Coastal Plain. A study of the Northcentral and Northeast wetland regional map indicates the project site is not within the Coastal Plain region, and Silver Maple is in fact FACW species. A species being FAC versus FACW does not remove it from being a wetland indicator species, and the difference between FAC and FACW is of no consequence in a wetland delineation. 6. Discussion Section: Most of the points made and discussed in this section of the Bredemeyer Report are anecdotal and irrelevant with respect to accurate wetland delineation. Any discussion here is not sufficient to determine that wetlands do not exist in the ponded area (nor downstream) and the Wetland Delineation Report prepared by Kurt Weiskotten dated 2/14/23 shows sufficient evidence of wetland conditions existing. The swale area should be looked at(and was) using not just vegetation (as suggested by this report in using the "vegetative code" in Chapter 275 of the Southhold Town Code) but also by utilizing the 1995 NYSDEC Manual and the routine method for delineation wetlands following the 1987 Corps Manual, including collection of vegetation information, excavation of soil data holes, documentation of hydrology, completion of COE data sheets, and photographic evidence. This report did not include any of these data points typically used in identifying wetlands. In fact, any delineation method used on this site should not rely on the method of using primarily vegetation and should proceed under the COE delineation methodology using the three-parameter approach for a wetland of this size. Bullet 1) Discussion of the maple species genetic origins is irrelevant to investigation of wetland occurrence—their indicator status is FAC and FACW. Bullet 2)The maples within the ponded area do show buttressed trunks and root extensions which are indications of ponded water and stressed conditions. Bullet 3)The absence of other wetland vegetation or shrubs does not eliminate this area as a functioning wetland. The species assemblage is what it is—the plant community for that location under those conditions.The tree species present are FAC and FACW and therefore are wetland indicators. Bullet 4) Regardless of any"competitive advantage" or of the ponded area being artificially impounded, the site has supported wetland conditions for some time and these are not reasons for this to be called non-wetland. SILVER MAPLE (Acer soccharinum) IS NOT THE SOURCE OF MAPLE SYRUP—that is the Sugar Maple (Acer saccharum) - an Upland species. Not knowing the difference between these two species is suspect. Bullet 5)A subjective "insecure watershed" is irrelevant to wetland delineation. Bullet 6)The lack of adventitious roots does not change the FAC indicator status of Red or FACW for Silver Maple and does not diminish other wetland hydrology indictors found at the site such as water-stained leaves, buttressed tree trunks, surface water, saturation, water marks, and drainage patterns. Bullet 7) The absence of OBL species does not mean the area is not a wetland — FAC and FACW species(Silver Maple)are also found within wetlands,often without any OBL species. These facts are in no way an indication of insufficient water supply over time. Bullet 8) Dead trees are often an indication of an overly saturated site in the landscape. The dead upland trees may have dropped into the wetland from the adjacent upland fringe. 7. Summary Section: The absence of shrubs or emergent vegetation does not mean the area is not a wetland, rather it means the area is a wetland dominated by trees. Often-times wetlands are delineated without one or more of the typically vegetation forms present—this does not mean the area is not a wetland. Consider a cattail marsh —the absence of woody plant material does not suggest the area is non-wetland. As previously described above, the presence of man-made structures does not remove the area as being wetland,and the area continues to qualify under the jurisdiction of Chapter 275, and certainly within the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers, which hasn't even been discussed in this document. Conclusion: It is my professional opinion that after reviewing the Bredemeyer Review Report, it does not contain any compelling arguments or data that would change any of the findings of the Wetlands Delineation Report dated 2/14/23 that I prepared, which primarily found that there is a ponded vernal pool on-site that flows northeast under a pathway berm and through a drainage channel into a small emergent marsh and eventually under a driveway and into a Common Reed (Phragmites)stand to the east. The Bredemeyer Report's wetland review has a complete lack of attention paid to other wetland indicators such as hydrology(water-stained leaves,shallow roots, buttressed tree trunks,drainage patterns)and any discussion at all regarding hydric soils (soil profiles, horizons, chromas and hues, and possible reduction features). These features are critical to properly identifying wetlands in the field, and this report does not support a suitable effort to disclaim the presence of wetlands on the property. Many of the points made are anecdotal and subjective and do not support the lack of wetlands being found on-site. Sincerely, ) Kurt Weiskotten, M.S., Sr, Environmental Scientist, Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. Air H Cc: David Dubin, Esq. Martha F. Reichert, Esq. Faye t EXHIBIT C A Y 3 1 F APPENDIX F FIELD KEY TO NEW YORK STATE WETLAND DELINEATION (see Manual for more detailed explanation) Vegetation Field Indicators of Wetland (adapted from Tiner 1993) Having established the dominant species for each stratum,hydrophytic vegetation is considered present if any of the following are present: (1) FACW or wetter species comprise more than 50 percent of the dominant species of the plant community and no FACU or UPL species are dominant,or; (2) OBL perennial species collectively represent at least 10 percent areal cover in the plant community and are evenly distributed throughout the community and not restricted to depressional microsites,or; (3) One or more dominant plant species in the community has one or more of the following morphological adaptations: hypertrophied lenticels,buttressed stems or trunks,multiple trunks,adventitious roots, shallow root systems,or other locally applicable adaptation,or; (4) The presence of unbroken expanses of peat mosses(Sphagnum spp.)and other regionally applicable species of bryophytes over persistently saturated soil. The presence of any of the above-listed hydrophytic vegetation characteristics typically indicates a wetland. Thus,an area that exhibits any of these indicators can be considered a wetland without detailed examination of hydrology and/or soils,provided significant unusual hydrologic modifications are not evident. In some areas,particularly in transition zones dominated by FAC species,the wetland boundary may be particularly difficult to delineate using vegetation alone. If none of the above vegetation indicators of wetland is found,but more than 50 percent of the dominant species of all strata are FAC or some combination of FAC and wetter species(including OBL,FACW+, FACW-,FAC+); then investigation and verification of hydrology and/or hydric soils is required to locate a wetland boundary. Primary Hydrologic Indicators [taken from"Data Form: Routine Wetland Determination(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)] Any one of the following primary hydrologic characteristics(along with hydrophytic vegetation)indicates the presence of a wetland: 1. Visual observation of inundation. 2. Visual observation of soil saturation. 3. Water marks. 4. Drift lines. 5. Water-borne sediment deposits. 6. Wetland drainage patterns. A,.,s 53. Secondary Hydrologic Indicators Any two or more of the following secondary hydrologic characteristics(along with hydrophytic vegetation) indicates the presence of a wetland. 1. Oxidized zones around living roots and rhizomes(rhizospheres.) 2. Water-stained leaves. 3. Surface-scoured areas. 4. Dead vegetation. In the absence of any one of the primary hydrologic indicators or any two of the secondary indicators,AND if more than 50 percent of the dominant plant species of all strata at the site are any combination of OBL, FACW,or FA species(including FACW+, FACW-, FAC+),AND there is no indication of recent significant hydrologic modification,THEN investigation and verification of hydric soils is required to locate a wetland boundary. If the area has been significantly disturbed hydrologically,refer to the section on disturbed areas(page 23). Soil Field Indicators of Wetland (adapted from Tiner, 1993) Several field indicators are available for determining whether a given soil meets the definition of hydric soils. Any one of the following typically indicates that hydric soils are present: 1. Organic soils(all Histosols except Folists)present;or 2. Histic epipedon(e.g.,organic surface layer 8-16 inches thick)present; or, 3. Sulfidic material(112S,odor of"rotten eggs")present within 12 inches of the soil surface;or, 4. Gleyed, low chroma(ie. chroma 2 or less with mottles or chroma 1 or less with or without mottles) horizon or dominant ped faces present immediately below(within 1 inch)the surface layer and within 18 inches of the soil surface;or, 5. Nonsandy soils with a low chroma matrix(chroma of 2 or less)within 18 inches of the soil surface and one of the following present within 12 inches of the surface: (a) iron and manganese concretions or nodules. (b) distinct or prominent oxidized rhizospheres along several living roots; (c) low chroma mottles;or, 6. Sandy soils with one of the following present: (a) thin surface layer(1 inch or greater)of peat or muck where a leaf litter surface mat is present; (b) surface layer of peat or muck of any thickness where a leaf litter surface mat is absent; (c) a surface layer(A-horizon)having a low chroma matrix(chroma of 1 or less and value of 3 or less)greater than 4 inches thick; (d) vertical organic streaking or blotchiness within 12 inches of the surface; (e) easily recognized(distinct or prominent)high chroma mottles occupy at least 2 percent of the low chroma subsoil matrix within 12 inches of the surface; (f) organic concretions within 12 inches of the surface; (g) easily recognized(distinct or prominent)oxidized rhizospheres along living roots within 12 inches of the surface; (h) a cemented layer(orstein)within 18 inches of the soil surface;or, 7. Other regionally applicable,field-verifiable soil properties associated with prolonged seasonal high water tables. 54. EXHIBIT D .ii gym• III INNER; U L¢L 3 m E U m ¢ 3 U U 0 3 Q p LL U LL ¢ E 10 U m u y LL @ y U ry LL d > N O .0 O U C LL w J LL 7 > J U p 9 d !- N c!QL O VI O m c =O LL L¢L 0 W r>0 C C .r@. @ •` L U D . d @ �+ - r O 2 N c O N@ 1 ow ' r -', ui o Q o f @ v it' I. 0A u cc u N u LLI N J@ N o J Dui w 3m .c0 80 R o c o y o o� E o a m E O o s N oz '> i E a LLF- c0 E d c Q O@ YO Y m c ll LL E C a 0 @ O 0 0 0 0 OU L L C C d@ N O N w m LL pl I I �I p p p p UI c p XI U)I W z J J E J J N Q O m m m m J m to E O O U O m 0 m a Q J J J J E O p m p'� U m pW. v v O@ 3 c_ m = m V¢ p o 0 0 J m0 E a 0 ,O Q m d Q m 9 LL L 0 CO Q m U ` O O Q iy J y:°.me m m@@ L m > J U O E LL- LL O o N O E 0 J l¢l U > i J o y J 6 J O C 9 E J 0 p C E E m o > J m V E U J @ V a N@ y c p d m @ 7 J m U.- 7 0 0 N m U d J E m c J J m m m a J m0 `o o o. a u. m 0 .`w Q COO m c 0°- o d p O o v 0 a c O x an d a m J oo E 0m 0_ONmp EcyuoaN ay°i EnJa LLOm oEm u� o � W a LL O or} d@ N ,O 'O d a p ` N m N O N C m N d C d `@ a 10 U v a d 3 d a'- a c a d E d d y E E y c d m °'. d N w N E E c._ c m '0 o u v O m �ouo. d j' N V o•v_ @ c c@0 o OL N �? do o d li u all, mm Q ma> N � m13 '_� Ec LtL �$ Larun o. om `. �'= m�y c10moEx0 o A E ll, @@ a N d c m E o @- O N u E'c c _ y p E u o N F V N 0 u rn m c d _`m m? E E L m m d `m L o« m m E'c m 0 u 00 o m-cc m o w E v` 0 m a Z E ' m.L m ur > > o._ u d O o c a= m E u o Q N o m> m N J ` . c N�?N.O.o N X °' u O J.mc E z z°0 - E v w m c j C L>m m E m s o m O m c r m o 0 o N E u U w N u m E '0 Q m H •cyum uo -o- u= N a z .o o� � m _ ` E v.` mo_ ddEYm3 oroao ad d_ d W N O y C C a U. r (� w y E m d C r2 N O @ p�J m 'p N (/� Oi C O N U d d O C 7 7 N N N >"O L (n m an d N O y (0 d ` a G W'V U N ` d 9 m 0 @ O. d m N C W Y a d U d 0 0 U) O J a 1o3a `m m m uyi m o art Nn(nJ d rnm c °�mm0 f mO�i c=L Vl a m m o'0> E m o d w d d o L U-o B d 0 m'm a m d 3 m m or o m >.r o L @ m- d - d N N U- N m O-= N T > 22 d-LL= O> Z d d d d'- d O 22 C �'C m fn d LL a m N z U C LL d L 6.'-2 (` d m C V= d m L->Z Q x 2 d o E d m m 3 0�3 -do @ 3 �' 3 Y=a m E d J C m m d y. @ m d d d .,d. C Y m C O@_'O a:C @ d d a O C c L y L O"0 d p, Y E a a'a'a« 3 3 L o aZi '6 @ f0- °m c @ s o o ami.�' m o o @ E m om om I m E . o.°c o w m cnmcn�O Ncn Uk- >33��> :, mUU❑LL 2_1��ZZO_LL'cn rn U) Qm mUUUJJJO dd°.�O_'LL(n z IIIIIII LL llllipl m IIII1011 Q J F W m m m Q J m O O u-I LL J m w of P > m ;� E >m0J m J Om E r J > J O 'I ` >O m J 'O p� m U Q _ U m 3 3 U m J d �- m m o Q m.n 0 m L p o c o ? J¢0 U Q 3 0 J E 3 J m >O u J 3 m J 7 mm LL Ul U¢ LL U mm an d p Om0 LL'� C.OJ > J m N m J mm S J y0 9>LLLL>> N Q C 00 ¢ .^O N U �� m cmiv-O�JU�� N m09'.c-0-0 Qmm J EO m E N > N>•y LL d N N N E LL O d E U J @@ O m¢ O c LL O J N J p > >wUU yQ c E > > u 0 iyjQmJ u a c m0�' EQJ :.' yOm 3 ca7 W C d ¢¢ d >'0 7 C J_N O w O J LL p m._ E m m" y U m LL m J m J:° m ` h d a p p c p ` m J o p E LL t� N LL v o= u 0@ m m 0 m•- o m L o v O m u o c -Q ° O m L m@ o m a U d @ V m J d N m m.. m m d C = O y a. d`._ N` m_ LL C p.E L. a.O y y N Q @ U J LL p E m d > p•- = " m m Lam' am0 c T o _u. Q C O_ L_m a'` m.- m N N 9 m m O O m C E E C d U y 7 N a U @ d O c �. N N@ m V ELL m ` O N p O N p E O > a m d O y m E W N. N. « d N p N a N i, 7 N o o N u't y > > m =Y N N O E c ` u 0 0 10 m m a > u u S u._ d m m '0 a«' E o.N 0 w d 0 'e rn y u F '� d y o.m @ W .se m ` y m a A` d- 10 m o > G C > N a N N @ r+ .O m A y > N- d N@ m E.L+ N Y m 7 w N px x o` E L a y O N V U m E k 0 p O N N _ Ur U m E 0 0 N d N C9 L a u W d 'C .L. : n. _ 0 m Q' m Q u N @ o E y to > >m'-6 o d N o 0 0 d N d O J m 0- N.c m d E c y d E 0 3 c `m L m Nm 0 2 E 10 '0'E a a E o E u y o m a v m-o r f7 m u¢ u m o rn 0 y o w N E d@ 0 c N y@ m o.c 'CE Ec a d o•- m a mo d mom_ o� EN ra U LL 0 m m d m 0 d.t mo c E Y m J m L 0 C7 m m C�J U J J- c c 3 V- a c E uJ c '--0i u a m a m •0 o d in `a.�.v_ d a� m @ 0L m E._ c LL o @� c.- Ex N d m m E m 3 a o a a a d u m u c Q m w F-CO d.m 3 3@ m E in o `m @ m o o > v -o m.c rn U LL m u d Y o. O N to a J d aN-pd C7m0 °m E Em t 3 °'0to E m m~ 3W� `ma -o•co [2 a °w � u a o w m d d= a a d m o E d a�- Y LL U 0 ° o m�- m yr o M E - T= d a d@ @ N m m M d rn a 3 m d w-o m m E � c U N W 0 o m > �m y� 2 y w U m 2 0 Z y LL F =m d-o= m Q U 0 3 w m m@ m 2 0 0 d m e N m'o > d o d L V rn ll. d N m 3 t- c - a '0 3 E a g d d -` rn rn m m 3 O�i 3 m�.a a i r d@ E '-K in m m H~ N m ¢'c a c y `m a `�'o udi m N N d N N C=' d 0 c >- 3 T T- m m m m m '0 m o o d 3 d-°_ o�U 3 - m aS OS d U Q W OOO� Op DU dd dJ " dd da@ QY �� T>da =LL3 dd NCCCC�mY� CL �1dN mod �LLLwDOm= N d d m 3? o>> > > > > @ m E o 0 0 o.` d o m o=o 0 0@ m m m d c o E m °-Odi adi O m > > > m m m m x Z w QIQ¢Q0mImlmlmmmlmlmmlmmmlppoU�LLI� I I�'IE�JJIJJ�� I�I�I�I�I�I��I0 L,2'Ll ¢w wI ��I��I�I��I�I W a a 3J Q J Q LQL UQ U Jm 3 L¢L O m LL 1Q U O U m LL L¢l.p J U U E O J 0 7 N C ULL ¢ c 3 3 0 m m N m¢�i 3< u3i"- m p d 3 LL U@ p U a Y p o O LL 3 U y 0 c O O U c O J c LL y < Q N U l¢L C 3 LQL V LL@ C 0 E N@ LQIULL N = `m" CLL U V N0 U m 9 O V-9 Q N O U U LL W> 'O p m LL@ y c 0 O m V O U N Y VI 0 LL N N> ¢¢ O > VI C O E d @ 7 LL @ N 3 LL yr > N wL V O d 0 7 p9 U3 U-J3 m E O Q U O m N c o¢ c d@ U O c °U LL.LL 3 0 u U u ^ o_> u v c a E.c @ P p o w m U m¢ 0 m LL N 9 c d N m U u a E c¢ O N C J @ O C d N 7 E d U > E@ d'c c m¢¢-0 0 LL E Q'- o m m y o m E u_B c d@ u m¢ E c 0 0 0 E 0=LL> n Q- ._ C m d N °LL LL m e () LL a h- m m y U m p J U d•C @ rn U J 'C U LL N m N u' E U >- E LL N w p m 'O •_ m m C m Q` IO y y d o O¢ C'O O E U N N m d@ O C G J 7 E U'y m c N._a u 0 `m d u m c iy,. u 0 @ E r U c LL rn m e E y 0 o O w c c.c '� 01 m a 0'C 3¢ E c o- u u u E' u g @ o' ` N a ¢;? o u d@'u 0 m E `d E u N 3 L Y N o `O> a > o LL 'C @ 7 d d E N m E'c U N O y Q LL m ` m C 9= 0 L E > 7 d 7 T U C 7 N U 0 d= d m o o m m > U'c u d o m 0 m E E O u m_d c > U > .E O m m a N m 4 u m > > > Z N o E o m a@ LL¢ m y m d d v g c c E. N- 3 a Eca._ w Na >> c v LL•00 o'vQx y o O m m O E O a N N `a m E m O m 7 a m d C C N C O L m Q a N E a d - O U a O m 0 C a LL @ a @ x d 'c m N m d N m m N E m= E d m .L+ 20 !T O X d U c C Y w V d E T. N .0 IC d O y L O V v U._ d Q om_ J L Y>a N NJ U a @ a m d d e d O m C m U T N d y E d J ` O L o.._ 2•c m v 7 2] U 0 >r m E -2 U U d m d 0 U 3 2 6 d fn 'p a�.+L y m L K C K(n_ m C >i 'O O.` O fn O E a w e a E E u Q d 3 E d�e a E N Or E d m m N�e-o m L O >.N a c d t T S Q LL m L L m Q Z Q N C m Y V > U d U N y k LL E 3 > - o mQ d 7 O'E NU ov¢ o d Se @m= ai U JJ - yGdT0330'CEUw N� >�� Ed@ and @ C d3 N �.� mLL' dd �Yd�JLN@L N� Oj@CN m 27, m~C7YQz 3 E N�] cyi d W Kfn.o 3 W ro 3m�om -a to�� as `mE °oQ�n uoi Z`� a`�'ro�U�ima oi> > 3a" ND.0 m(7 a c'ci -mo a'C°Q m E E E o.a m s Y Oi a m 2 2 c@i o '° d U N z o m ` w`m OS o c a m a N W adi 0 > E o o o_ ¢¢"¢llm133 ciwiic�=x°� OOoaa°Ln n n n3 a ¢�'mm3m'cLicicio°wc� �i=��a ° nU,U,>3>3333 �) IIIIIillllllllllllllllllll N IIIILLIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIILLIIIIII EXHIBIT E A I-I I :L DF_ 5SECTION 1 @BEACH ACCESS:- �� Q IEk VD i 3)._i <u i♦ Mi/hD;9•E 9E'Er:amC.'o / ... r .... Jk'. •r' '� LL 2ffi 18G SECTION DETAIL I..i`-'d .�'��;,. _@IPE WOOD EDGE STEPS ---7.acv 4� :! ,ds sEF.aE eacFo �� APPI L: v BOARD I.US AES ?ON'd C' SoUl Hot r c -1 1 enmm�cves ors .�` f. � I^vATE: - '< 4 e TEST HOLE I d rausrdw:orsve :• ✓ - n a N ---._ __... �r r LOT COVERAGE -BUILDABLE AREA(LANDWARD OF CEHL LINE) 35.698 SF R('I (,.�C"ci.au l/i;! 'r " -MAX.LOT COVERAGEf20%OF BUILDABLE ARIA) 20%OF35696 SF= n MC.v ''/" •'" ' TOTAL BUILDING COVERAGE: l TYP.SECTION @LEACHING POOL SITE PLAN ((G RASS SWALE DETAIL) ",ELL DESK>,YER: ARCHITECT OF RECORD: PROJECT: DRAWING MLE: im N.: 17,05 C A R L 0 S SITE PLAN Z A P A T A SHccf SHM D.aE: APR.Oi.201v ORIENT HOUSE `�, NO.: Andrew Pollock Ar nitc,af' S T U D 1 0 1505 BIRDSEYE ROAD e 1 1 ORIENT NY11957 A. 1 00, o�ao J7-- 1-101, STRAW BALE DIKE DETAILS 9ai r -a ,`wr,Q o � y"• eufFA.Y � " LGnhA6ACf.'CW �.®" eN BY�Op r - SILT FENCE DETAILS kAcsurmBrana 4 m I • FENCE DETAILS S -.. EROSWN CONTROL$LLT FENCE StlAROtBaOBiG� •• ••� Y � �-.,: ��' OISiuRB.ANCE ; �T AREATD BE GEARED OF DEBRIS.OEM Awpf OR DYING rNEES I .... .. .. 1 '�— '-_ « TREES kENWEO iN CONBTRUCrtON ZPVE. '� { °._.�.i ,� aEuovE GREENBRUR VEC.ETAT�N.TRUI TREEs.ar rov of BLt�F. - BEACH ACCESS DETAILS ' SITE PLAN ( - - ,..--...._.—.. `FfIICE - ArAlrCTOFRECOM 780i JQANNCME: 8wc: 1705 C A R L 0 S SITE PLAN DAfE NOV.16.2017 Z A P A T A ORIENT HOUSE _`'-'{ Andrew Potbdc;�rc�+l=c, PC '` c CLEARANCE DIAGRAM XtI S T U D I O 1505 BIRDSEYE ROAD vt A. 00�L�ram.. " ' ORIENT NY11957 1< � EXHIBIT F 1E. � 2024 Cantrell, Elizabeth From: Cantrell, Elizabeth Sent: Tuesday,August 16,2022 9:26 AM To: mkimack2@verizon.net Subject: 1505 Birdseye Road LLC application Good Morning, Last night during the Board of Trustees work session,the Board determined that the above mentioned project is to be tabled from tomorrow night's public hearing agenda and will require a Wetland Permit application as well as more information. Along with the Wetland Permit application,the Board is requesting that the project plans are updated to depict the existing swale/intermittent pond that exists on the property as well as flagging the landward edge of wetland vegetation for a site inspection.The Board is requesting a.full landscaping plan for all proposed work on the property including existing and proposed elevations of the property to show the grade change due to the fill being brought in and graded out. Due to the intermittent pond,this proposed project may be within Trustee jurisdiction. If it is,please add to the project description all details of the proposed dwelling,driveway,sanitary system, patios,etc. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to ask. Sincerely, Senior Office Assistant Town of Southold Board of Trustees Office:631-765�1892 Email:elizabethc@southoldtownny.gov Ai22 1 EXHIBIT G DiSalvo, Diane From: mkimack2@verizon.net Sent: Thursday,December 22,2022 10:36 PM To: DiSalvo, Diane Subject: RE: 1505 Birdseye Road LLC Hi Diane: The original permit approved the buffer zone and the disturbance area. We are only adding about 2200 SF to the disturbance area bases upon having to stay back 100 ft.from the bank We developed a landscape plan for the drainage area because a Board member suggested there may be a wetland on the property. I'm sure they meant the drainage area. As such, I had Cole environmental Services conduct a full evaluation which has concluded that area does not qualify as either a vernal pond or a wetland area.Since the analysis finds no"wetland "area, I don't want to be put in the position i!"M!"M!"Mmictiondiction that would require the full application. We will provide a landscape plan for that area that is in keeping with the intent of the owner to be a steward of the land by providing Proactive Restoration undertaken solely for the benefit of the natural environment and not associated with compensatory mitigation or other regulatory requirements. From:DiSalvo,Diane<diane.disalvo@town.southold.ny.us> Sent:Thursday, December 22,2022 8:37 AM To:'mkimack2@verizon.net'<mkimack2@verizon.net> Subject:RE: 1505 Birdseye Road LLC I assume the application you are referring to as being submitted is the Administrative application we received on July 26, 2022? Please confirm. If so we would need an additional check in the amount of$150.00. We await your revised project description and the Cole Environmental site plan and report which you referred to. Thank You Diane From: rnkirnack2tc)verizovner<rvl<imack2@veriton.ncjt> Sent:Wednesday, December 21,2022 2:45 PM To:DiSalvo, Diane<diane.disaly@town.soothold.ny.us> Subject: RE: 1505 Birdseye Road LLC Hi Diane: did submit the application.We were holding up going to a hearing because a board member raised the Issue as to whether there was any wetlands on the property.We have engaged Cole Environmental services To address that issue.They have just completed their site plan and report which will be reviewed and submitted as a part of the application which should be in your possession. I will also revise the project description accordingly. bests ,i r 1� l IFrom:DiSalvo,Diane<diane.disalva town.southold.n .us> Sent:Wednesday,December 21,2022 9:54 AM To:'mkimack2 @verizon.net'<mkimack2 aver zon,net> Subject: 1505 Birdseye Road LLC Just as an FYI—we are in receipt of the plans you dropped off on December 2,2022—we still require a Wetland permit application from you. Diane z AI , I ! ' i Michael A. Kimack ATTORNEY AT LAW P.O. Box 1047 Southold,N.Y.11971 MAfl — 7 2024 Cell No. 516-658-6807 " March 1, 2024 Re: 1505 Birdseye Road LLC 1505 Birdseye Road, Orient SCTM : 1000-17-1-4 To: Board of Town Trustees: I am in receipt of your letter of February demanding we submit a check in the amount of $1875.00 so you can hire your own third party professional for an environmental assessment review. I would point out to the Board that there has already been a third party non biased review of the premises ( on several occasions ) and that non biased party found that there is no wetland on the property. That non biased party is your own Board. From the beginning of the application process, started five years ago, The Board of Trustees was asked to visit the site beginning with a preapplication request. There were more visits when, subsequent to the Zoning appeal process, which denied a variance to be less than 100 feet from the top of bluff, I filed for a wetland permit. At that time, the Board relied upon their own two members for wetland determinations. They were Michael Domino and John Bredemeyer. Their recommendation to the Board was that the site did not contain a freshwater wetland . I will remind you that our adversarial adjoining property owner's own expert also testified before the Zoning Board that there was no wetland. The Board issued a wetland permit based upon there being no wetland issue. That permit was challenged in court by the adjoining property owner and, to my surprise, won. As a result, the permit was annulled. My client again redesigned the dwelling to conform to the 100 foot bluff setback. For some reason I fail to understand, someone raised the question as to whether there was a freshwater wetland on the property. Understanding a new Board had been sworn in, I requested a preapplication site visit and went over the history of the property. I had asked Mike Domino to join us and he reiterated his earlier findings that the site did not contain a freshwater wetland. To further verify that fact, I requested Cole Environmental conduct an evaluation. I specifically told Cole to let me know if we had a wetland. Their report was a verification of the Board's prior findings that the site did not contain a wetland. With all that said, the Board then rejects their own Board's prior finding, the finding of a respected environmental company and for the final irony, the very Board member's (who the Board had relied upon for wetland determinations) report that reverified his determination on behalf of the Board when he was a sitting member. I have struggled to make sense out of your decision to disregard all determinations of no wetland on the property and require your own"expert" make another determination. I can find no reasonable reason for the Board's insistence. I am aware that, from the moment I filed the Trustee Administrative permit application, the attorney and consulting firm for the adversarial adjoining property owner, began bombarding the trustee's attorney with the inference the property contains a wetland. They even showed their own determination of a wetland on their adjacent property butting right up to the property line. It is obvious, from our prospective, that your decision to disregard your own prior determination of no wetland ( and our experts ) has not been based upon any measure of an honest belief on your part that it remains an open question requiring you to find someone who will render a non biased report.. What is more troubling is that the inference of a wetland on my client's property came from the very same firm that testified there was none. This is the only conclusion we can arrive at, given the facts known to me to date. You have chosen to put my client in harm's way by unnecessarily creating a circumstance wherein he is being forced to pay for another" expert" who you would consider "non biased simply because he was hired by you. By your action, you consequently state that our experts are thus " biased". Given the pressure being applied by the adversarial neighbor's attorney and their expert, and what we believe has been their role in influencing your actions by providing their own version of inferring a wetland on my client's property , you can hardly expect my client to believe the outcome of your expert's report will be in line with all prior decisions that there is no wetland on the property. A report that may determine a wetland will just reinforce our belief that being non biased did not play a role in the decision making. Sincerely, Michael A. Kimack, Agent MAI 7 202-4 } ; AH E, ,.�I s l , SENbER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION ■ Complete items 1,2,and 3. A. Signature ■ Print your name and address on the reverse X ❑Agent so that we can return the card to you. 1 ❑Addressee ■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, B.flecelved by(Printed Name) C.Date of Delivery or on the front if space permits. 1. Article.Addressed to: D. Is delivery address different from Item 1? ©Yes 0 If YES,enter delivery address below: ❑No m 6 /0 ( ( I I I�I I I)(III II I(III I)I I II II II II El Service Type ❑priority Mail Express® ❑. Adult Signature ❑Registered MaIITM O Adult Signature Restricted Delivery ❑Registered Mail Restricted Certified Mail® Delivery 9590 9402 6831 1074 8747 97 Certified Mail Restricted Delivery ❑Signature ConfirmationTM O Collect on Delivery 0 Signature Confirmation 2. Article Number(Transfer from service label) ❑Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery Restricted Delivery Mall 7 012 2 210 0002 0350 7460 ll Restricted Delivery -- PS Form 3811,JUIy 2020 PSN 7530-02-000-9053 DomesttdRkim Receipt R e ' i i f i ! i ' � I �B t i 2024 t VAR - 4 ■ Complete items 1,2,and 3. tIsdelivery ure ■ Print your name and address on the reverse Agent so that we can return the card to you. Addressee ■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, B. eb ed Nam to of elivery or on the front if space permits. 27. Article Addressed to: address different from item t? 10 Y s If YES,enter delivery address below: ❑No Pew Yore, Y/W1 d I I I I II I III I �I II I �I i III !I 13 AdultServicei Type O Registered Mall Express® li ❑Adult Signature ❑Registered Mai1T"� 6 Adult Signature Restricted Delivery ❑Certified WHO Registered Mail Restricted 9590 9402 6881 1074 8747 80 ❑Certified Mall Restricted Delivery ❑signature Confirmation- °+W'rd""'h ❑Collect on Delivery ❑Signature confirmation fQ"f'^^� ❑Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery Restricted Delivery 7 012 2 210 0002 0350 7 4 5 3 left Restricted Delivery Nb Form:33811,July 2020 PSN 7530-02-000 9053 Domestic Return Receipt Glenn Goldsmith, President s Town Hall Annex �® 54375 Route 25 A. Nicholas Krupski,Vice President �® �® P.O. Box 1179 Eric Sepenoski Southold, New York 11971 Liz Gillooly Telephone(631) 765-1892 Elizabeth Peeples �O Fax(631) 765-6641 ®��C®uN11,� BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD February 27, 2024 Michael Kimack P.O. Box 1047 Southold, NY 11971 RE: 1505 BIRDSEYE ROAD, LLC 1505 BIRDSEYE ROAD, ORIENT SCTM# 1000-17-1-4 Mr. Kimack: On February 6, 2024, the Office of the Board of Trustees received your hand delivered Freshwater Wetlands Review environmental assessment report prepared by John M. Bredemeyer, III. Be advised that this environmental assessment report will not be accepted by the Board of Trustees. As per our previous letter dated May 24, 2023, the hiring of a third-party licensed professional for an environmental assessment review is to be through the Board of Trustees, and as per Town Code Chapter 275-7. At this time you have until March 11, 2024 to comply by submitting the estimated environmental assessment fee in the form of a certified check or money order made out to Town of Southold in the amount of$1,875.00. If the Board of Trustees Office does not receive the fee by end of day March 11, 2024, the current open application will be deemed abandoned. Sincerely, 4— 4" Glenn Goldsmith, President cc: 1505 Birdseye Road, LLC Martha F. Reichers Twomey RA' Latham Partner 631.727.2180 x305 5 N E A , K E L L E Y, DUBIN & Q U A R T A R A R O, LLP mreichert@suffolklaw.com 33 West Second St. P.O.Box 9398 Riverhead,NY 11901 February 14, 2024 VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS FFn t 1 Board of Trustees ' Town of Southold Town Hall Annex 54375 Route 25 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Wetlands Application of 1505 Birdseye Road LLC 1505 Birdseye Road, Orient,New York (SCTM 1000-17-1-4) Dear President Goldsmith and Members of the Board of Trustees: My paralegal unsuccessfully attempted to hand deliver the enclosed letter(dated February 14, 2024) to the Board of Trustees and the Board's Attorney Lori Hulse, Esq. this morning. She arrived at the Board's Office at 11:59am but the office door was closed and locked. While we understand the Board's Office closes at Noon on public meeting days, we were surprised to find the office door closed and locked prior to that time. A copy of our February 14, 2024 letter was successfully hand delivered to the Town Attorney's Office. We respectfully request that the enclosed February 14, 2024 letter to the Board of Trustees and letter dated February 6, 20024 to the Board be added to the Record for 1505 Birdseye Road and a copy delivered to the Board's Attorney Lori Hulse, Esq. Thank you. Very truly your, , ,7 r i MARTO� F. REICHERT� MFR/dq Enc. Martha F. Reichert Partner Twomey 176 Latham NY BAR 631.727.2180 x305 S H E A, K E L. L E Y, DUB IN & QUAR T A R A R O, LLP mreichert@suffolklaw.com 33 West Second St. P.O.Box 9398 Riverhead,NY 11901 February 14, 2024 f VIA EMAIL AND BY HAND FEB 1 5 2024 Board of Trustees Town of Southold Town Hall Annex 54375 Route 25 � Southold,NY 11971 Re: Wetlands Application of 1505 Birdseye Road LLC 1505 Birdseye Road, Orient,New York(SCTM# 1000-17-1-14) Dear President Goldsmith and Members of the Board of Trustees: This office represents John Josephson and Carolina Zapf, the owners of 1515 Birdseye Road and 900 Birdseye Road; Pamela Valentine and William Matassoni, the owners of 1525 Birdseye Road and 1675 Birdseye Road; Interwellen Property Partners, LLC, the owner of 700 Birdseye Road; and Andrew Jordan, the owner of 1105 Birdseye Lane in their continued opposition to the above-referenced Application currently pending before the Trustees. We submit this letter in opposition the Applicant's submission on February 6,2024 of a purported"Freshwater Wetlands Review" dated February 2, 2024 and prepared by John M. Bredemeyer, III (the "Bredemeyer Report"). We request that this report be rejected in its entirety by the Trustees for the following reasons discussed herein. L The Bredemeyer Report is Self-Servinz & Does Not Provide the Trustees with Independent Expert Analysis We note that the Trustees bid out their request for an independent wetlands expert to several environmental consultants specializing in freshwater wetlands delineation, and that Mr. Bredemeyer was not one of the consultants included in their bid solicitations. As such, this report may not be used or relied upon by the Trustees as a substitute for the Trustees' determination that the Applicant is required to pay the consultant fees for expert opinions,as required by the Trustees pursuant to Southold Town Code §275-7. Furthermore, Mr. Bredemeyer's report clearly states that his report was,submitted on behalf of the Applicant's principal Carlos Zapata and Carlos Zapata Studio and at the request of the Applicant's agent, Michael A. Kimack, Esq. Mr. Bredemeyer's loyalties are clearly with the Applicant, and therefore, he cannot provide the independent,expert analysis to the Trustees that is contemplated in Chapter 275 when the Trustees determined that they required independent, expert advice to review this Application. a Town of Southold Board of Trustees February 14,2024 0 24 Page 2 of 7 IL The Bredemever Report Violates the Town's Ethics Code Not only is the Bredemeyer Report not the work product of an independent, third party consultant retained by the Trustees, but it also violates the Town of Southold's Code of Ethics in Town Code Chapter 26. Specifically, Mr. Bredemeyer's appearance before the Board in this Application in the form of this report violates Town Code §26-14, which states: A Town officer or employee shall not appear or practice before the Town as to particular matters on which the Town officer or employee personally worked while in Town service..." (Emphasis added). Here, Mr. Bredemeyer's prior service as an elected official on the Board of Trustees and his well- documented substantial and personal involvement with this property during his time of public service unequivocally prohibits his appearance or representation of the owner of this property no matter how much time has passed since leaving public service. In fact, the extent of Mr. Bredemeyer's involvement with this particular property and this Applicant is discussed at length in the decision of the Hon. Carmen Victoria St. George in Matter of John Josephson, et al. v. Town of Southold Board of Trustees and 1505 Birdseye Road LLC, Index No. 004826/19 (Suffolk County Sup. Ct. April 4, 2022), in which former Trustee Bredemeyer's efforts to recharacterize the property's"bluff'as a"bank"and the Trustees'reliance on his findings were expressly found by the Court to be "arbitrary and capricious and without a rational basis."His actions and his findings were the reason the Supreme Court annulled Wetlands Permit No. 9455,which was approved by the Trustees in 2019. A copy of this decision is attached as Exhibit A. Given that a court of law has already determined that Mr.Bredemeyer's prior dealings with this property were without a basis in fact, how can the Trustees now give countenance to an improper report prepared by an ethically compromised consultant with a dubious record of making arbitrary determinations specifically on this property? To do so would undermine the credibility and rational basis of any findings the Board makes with respect to the instant Application. III. The Bredemever Report is Scientifically DeFcient and Fails to Follow Standard Wetlands Delineation Methodolozies As we noted in our February 14, 2023 letter to the Board regarding this Application, our clients retained the services of Mr. Kurt Weiskotten, M.S., a Senior Environmental Scientist at Greenman-Pederson, Inc. ("GPI"), and an accomplished wetlands expert with nearly 40 years of wetlands experience. Mr. Weiskotten performed a field inspection on February 9, 2023 and prepared a Wetlands Delineation Report, dated February 14, 2023, which was submitted to the Board on February 14, 2023 and stamped received on February 15, 2023 (the "Weiskotten Report"). Using standard wetlands delineation methodologies,the Weiskotten Report conclusively found multiple indicia of a freshwater wetland straddling the Applicant's property and our clients' property at 1515 Birdseye. Those indicia include the presence of: (i) hydrophytic vegetation; (ii) Town of Southold Board of Trustees 1 February 14, 2024 Page 3 of 7 hydric soils; and (iii) wetlands hydrology in the upper wetland located between 1505 and 1515 Birdseye Road. The Weiskotten Report concluded this is a forested freshwater wetlands and a vernal pond. By contrast,the Bredemeyer Report, in addition to being self-serving and unethical, is also scientifically unreliable and deficient with respect to determining the issue of whether a freshwater wetlands is present on the Applicant's property. The Bredemeyer Report fails to follow the standard wetlands delineation methodologies and data collection needed to make consistent and accurate wetlands delineations. Two such benchmark manuals used by qualified wetlands delineation experts are the NYSDEC's Freshwater Wetlands Delineation Manual (July 1995 Edition) (the "NYSDEC Manual")and the 1987 Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual(the"Army Corps Manual") and its 2012 Northeast US Regional Supplement. The NYSDEC Manual, which is largely based on the Army Corps Manual, explains the importance of using these established methodologies because the "[d]elineation methods outlined herein ... will provide for legally defensible and reproducible wetland boundaries ... However, to depart from methods outlined in this Manual is to enter the realm of `Best Professional Judgement' and the reasons for doing so must be well documented." NYSDEC Wetlands Delineation Manual,p. 5. (Emphasis added). Attached in Exhibit B,is a supplemental letter by Mr. Weiskotten dated February 13,2024 setting forth his review and detailed section-by-section analysis of the Bredemeyer Report. Mr. Weiskotten found that Mr.Bredemeyer's concentration on wetland vegetation without considering hydrology and hydric soils is "inaccurate and irresponsible" and displays only a "basic introductory understanding of how wetlands occur on the landscape (and how to identify them)." Exhibit B at p.2,¶¶2-3. We further wish to point out that the Bredemeyer Report makes false claims about the lack of vegetative adaptations that occur when FAC or FACW indicator species are exposed to wetlands conditions. Photographs in the Weiskotten Report, such as the image to the right in Figure 1, clearly show multi-trunked maples with buttressed trunks within the subject wetland,which are the exact kind of morphological adaptations one would expect to find in a vegetative community adapting to wetland conditions. See NYSDEC Manual p. 6 n.l p.32 "Table 1: Adaptations of Plants that Grow in ;F' • ," _.�� " Permanently or Periodically Flooded or Saturated Soils;" p.53 "Appendix F: Field Key to New York State Wetland Delineation." A copy of Appendix F Figure 1: Photo taken February 9, showing maple trees in upper wetland with multiple from the NYSDEC Manual is attached as Exhibit C. buttressed tree trunks. Source: Weiskotten Report, See also Exhibit B, Weiskotten Letter 2/13/2024 at dated 211412023. 1 Town of Southold Board of Trustees FEB 1 F 2024 February 14,2024 Page 4 of 7 p.4("The lack of adventitious roots does not change the FAC indicator status of Red or FACW for Silver Maple and does not diminish other wetland hydrology indictors found at the site such as water-stained leaves, buttressed tree trunks, surface water, saturation, water marks, and drainage patterns."). Moreover, the Bredemeyer Report contains incorrect conclusions regarding the presence, predominance, and significance of FACW and FAC species in the subject wetland. For example, the Bredemeyer Report wrongly states that Silver Maple (Acer saccharinum) is a FAC species. This statement is directly contradicted in Appendix B of the Bredemeyer Report itself, which contains the USDA-NRSC Data sheet stating that Silver Maple (acer saccharinum) is a FACW in the Northeast. See Bredemeyer Report, Appendix B at 2. The NYSDEC Manual in its "Appendix A: Field Forms - Freshwater Wetland Plant List and Field Inspection Sheet" also corroborates that in New York, Silver Maple is a FACW species and Red Maple(Acer rubrum) is a FAC species. See Exhibit D. Mr. Weiskotten further explains in his letter that"the Northcentral and Northeast wetland regional map indicates the project site is not within the Coastal Plain region, and Silver Maple is in fact FACW species,"however, "[a] species being FAC versus FACW does not remove it from being a wetland indicator species,and the difference between FAC and FACW is of no consequence in a wetland delineation." See Exhibit B at p.3. In conclusion, we submit that the Bredemeyer Report is yet another example of this Applicant's continued pattern of bad faith misrepresentations and shoddy submissions to this Board: first, with respect to the existence and location of the bluff line in the court-annulled Wetlands Permit No. 9455, and now with respect to the very existence of this wetland, which the Applicant himself claimed was a wetland and depicted it on its site plans as an"intermittent pond" in order to justify shifting its construction project well into the 100-ft. bluff setback. See Exhibit E,Applicant's site plans dated April 1, 2019 and November 16, 2017. These plans also show the bluff line that was improperly recharacterized by Trustee Bredemeyer as a "bank," which led to the Supreme Court's annulment of the permit. Mr. Weiskotten concluded his review of the Bredemeyer Report with the following summary: It is my professional opinion that after reviewing the Bredemeyer Review Report, it does not contain any compelling arguments or data that would change any of the findings of the Wetlands Delineation Report dated 2/14/23 that I prepared, which primarily found that there is a ponded vernal pool on-site that flows northeast under a pathway berm and through a drainage channel into a small emergent marsh and eventually under a driveway and into a Common Reed (Phragmites) stand to the east. The Bredemeyer Report's wetland review has a complete lack of attention paid to other wetland indicators such as hydrology (water-stained leaves, shallow roots, buttressed tree trunks, r i • j F R 12024 Town of Southold Board of Trustees February 14,2024 Page 5 of 7 drainage patterns) and any discussion at all regarding hydric soils (soil profiles, horizons, chromas and hues, and possible reduction features). These features are critical to properly identifying wetlands in the field, and this report does not support a suitable effort to disclaim the presence of wetlands on the property. Many of the points made are anecdotal and subjective and do not support the lack of wetlands being found on-site. See Exhibit B,p.4. Mr. Kimack's insinuations in his prior correspondence that our Firm and our clients are prevented from raising the existence of this wetland now because of our involvement in opposing Permit No. 9455 is nothing more than a desperate attempt to deflect attention away from the Applicant's inconsistent representations (and misrepresentations)to this Board. First, in our prior opposition,our efforts were focused on Mr.Bredemeyer's recharacterization of the bluff as a bank. The testimony of our expert, Robert Grover, a coastal scientist, focused on the adverse impacts to the bluff posed by the Applicant's project and to address the unjustified recharacterization of the bluff as a bank in order to evade bluff setback requirements. In this Application,we have retained a freshwater wetlands expert to specifically review whether this low lying area is a freshwater wetlands based on standard science-based wetland delineation methods. This is something that was not done in connection with Permit No. 9455. Moreover, retaining an expert to confirm the existence of a freshwater wetland that is also located on our clients' property at 1515 Birdseye can hardly be called self-serving since we are effectively acknowledging that 1515 Birdseye contains the same environmental conditions and protected natural features as 1501 Birdseye that constrain development. Finally, we request that this letter be made part of the record of this Application. We understand from communications with the Trustees' office staff that the Trustees are still processing this Application as one for an administrative wetlands permit. This is disconcerting since the Applicant was advised by the Trustees after their work session on August 15, 2022 to submit a full wetlands permit application. See Exhibit E. The Applicant was again reminded by email on December 21,2022 to submit a full wetlands application, and the Applicant refused. See Exhibit F. Thereafter, the Trustees' adopted a resolution directing the Applicant to pay the consultant fee pursuant to §275-7. The mere fact that the Trustees have determined they need independent, expert advice to review this Application clearly demonstrates that this project does not qualify as an administrative wetlands permit pursuant to Town Code §275-5(B).1 The ' Our prior submissions to the Board dated September 21, 2022, February 8, 2023, February 9, 2023,and February 14,2023 have addressed in detail all the legal reasons contained within the Town Code as to why this Application cannot be processed as an administrative wetlands permit, including the simple fact that there is no administrative option for a CEHA permit in Town Code Chapter 111,and the Applicant seeks to excavate and install an I/A sanitary system seaward of the 100-ft bluff setback, clear and install bluff/beach access path,and clear and grub over 3000 sq. ft. seaward of the CEHA line,and also clear and grade within the 100-foot bluff setback. The Applicant has couched these activities as requiring an Town of Southold Board of Trustees February 14,2024 Page 6 of 7 Applicant was directed again in a letter signed by President Goldsmith, dated May 24, 2023, to remit the payment for the Trustees' selected consultant because, "[t]he assessment is necessary in order to move forward with your pending application. Failure to remit payment will delay the application process." Trustees staff have also informed us that they do not intend to enter our submissions into the record, which is: (i) a disturbing denial of our clients' due process rights; (ii) not in keeping with municipal document retention policies and FOIL; and (iii) conflicts with the Town Clerk's oft cited mantra that our office need not submit FOIL requests to the Town for responsive records in the Trustees'possession because all documents are supposedly uploaded to Weblink/Laserfiche. In fact, this latter assumption by the Town Clerk appears to be incorrect, as our last letter dated February 6, 2024, has yet to be uploaded to Weblink/Lasherfiche in this application. A copy of this letter bearing the Trustees date stamp is enclosed. While Trustees may have initially tabled this Application in August 2022, the Applicant's continued refusal to comply with the Trustees' directions has directly resulted in the continued tabling of the Application. We submit this Application should be considered withdrawn pursuant to Town Code §275-8(G) since more than four months have passed since the Applicant protested against the Board's determination requiring submission of a full application and to require an independent consult of the Board's choosing. As such, we reiterate our request that this letter, as well as our February 6, 2024 letter, be entered into the record of this Application. In sum, and for the foregoing reasons, it would be arbitrary and capricious and an abuse of discretion for the Trustees (i)to consider the Bredemeyer Report, (ii) to not follow through and require an independent analysis, or (iii) to handle this application administratively and without a public hearing given the history and extensive opposition submitted on behalf of multiple neighbors who will no doubt be impacted by this development. Sincerely, 3 is MARTH F. flICHE Enclosures A 2024 Cc: Paul DeChance, Town Attorney Hon. Lori Hulse, Counsel to the Board of Trustees Administrative Wetlands Permit pursuant to Chapter 275("Wetlands"),when,in fact,they require a Coastal Erosion Permit pursuant to Chapter 111,for which the applicant has never applied.See Exhibit F where the Applicant's Agent admits they seek relief pursuant to Chapter 111 and not Chapter 275: "The 100 feet from the bluff is the only jurisdiction the Board has...there is no additional jurisdiction under [Chapter] 275 for the property." (Emphasis added). Simply put, the Applicant's argument that it is entitled to an administrative wetlands permit is legally indefensible. Town of Southold Board of Trustees February 14,2024 Page 7 of 7 List of Exhibits: Exhibit A —Matter of John Josephson, et al. v. Town of Southold Board of Trustees and 1505 Birdseye Road LLC, Index No. 004826/19 (Suffolk County Sup. Ct. April 4,2022) Exhibit B—Letter from Kurt Weiskotten, M.S., dated February 13, 2024 Exhibit C—NYSDEC Manual Appendix F: Field Key to New York State Wetland Delineation Exhibit D—NYSDEC Manual Appendix A: Field Forms-Freshwater Wetland Plant List and Field Inspection Sheet Exhibit E—Applicant's site plans dated April 1, 2019 and November 16, 2017 Exhibit F—Email from Elizabeth Cantrell to Michael Kimack, Esq., August 16, 2022 Exhibit G—Email correspondence between Michael Kimack,Esq. and Diane DiSalvo,December 22, 2022 a 1 2 02 EXHIBIT A FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 04 04 2022 04:07 PM INDEX NO. 004826/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 38 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2022 SUPREME COURT—STATE OF NEW YORK TRIAL TERM,PART 56 SUFFOLK COUNTY PRESENT: Hon. Carmen Victoria St. George Justice of the Supreme Court x In the Matter of the Application of Index No. JOHN JOSEPHSON,CAROLINA ZAPF,PAMELA 004826/19 VALENTINE,WILLIAM MATASSONI,and INTERWELLEN PROPERTY PARTNERS,LLC, Petitioners, For a Judgment pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, -against- Motion Seq: 001 MG Decision/Order TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BOARD OF TRUSTEES,and 1505 BIRDSEYE ROAD,LLC, Respondents. x The following papers numbered 1 - 157 having been read on this proceeding pursuant to Article 78: Papers Numbered Notice of Petition,Petition,with Exhibits 1 -24 Petitioners' Memo of Law in Support 25 -42 Respondent Birdseye's Affirmation 43 - 58 in Opposition Respondent Birdseye's Answer 59- 64 Respondent Board of Trustees' Affirmation 65 -77 in Opposition Respondent Board of Trustee's Answer 78 - 83 Administrative Return 84- 137 Petitioners' Reply 138 - 157 _ FEB 1 5 2024, 1 of 7 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 04 04 2022 04:07 PM INDEX NO. 004826/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 38 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2022 Petitioners John Josephson,Carolina Zapf,Pamela Valentine, William Matassoni,and Interwellen Property Partners,LLC(collectively"petitioners")commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR Article 78 seeking a judgment annulling,rescinding and setting aside the May 15,2019 resolution adopted by the respondent Town of Southold Board of Trustees(the "Trustees")which granted respondent 1505 Birdseye Road,LLC ("Birdseye")a wetlands permit for construction of a two-level house on property located at 1505 Birdseye Road, Orient,Town of Southold, Suffolk County,New York(the"property").Each of the petitioners owns property next to,or in close proximity to,Birdseye's property,which is an undeveloped parcel that borders the Long Island Sound. Petitioners contend that the May 5,2019 resolution violates Town Code Sections 280- 116 and 273-3 which prohibit construction within 100 feet from the top of a bluff.Petitioners' claim that in granting the wetlands permit,the Trustees relied on Birdseye's improper and unsubstantiated re-designation of the bluff,which runs parallel to the northern property line bordering the Long Island Sound. Specifically,petitioners maintain that the"top of bluff'had been previously established during review of Birdseye's 2018 application to the Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals ("ZBA"),which voted unanimously to deny Birdseye's application to construct a house within 100 feet from the top of the bluff. Petitioners now contend that Birdseye returned within months of the ZBA denial,this time with an application to the Trustees for a wetlands permit to construct a house on the same parcel, and that in its review of the wetlands application the Trustees failed to give deference to the ZBA,and failed to adhere to its own determination regarding the location of the bluff line. According to petitioners,the Trustees instead relied upon Birdseye's re-designation of one half of the"top of bluff'as a"top of bank," and that this change in designation from"bluff'to"bank"made it unnecessary for Birdseye to comply with the bluff setbacks set forth in the Town Code, thereby resulting in the Trustees granting Birdseye a wetlands permit to construct a house in excess of 6,000 square feet within 100 feet from the"top of bluff,"in violation of Town Code. According to the verified petition,Birdseye applied to the ZBA in November 2017 for relief from Town Code §280-116 requiring that buildings on lots where there exists a bluff be set back 100 feet from the top of the bluff. During the course of its review,the ZBA held two public hearings and heard extensive testimony regarding the precise location of the top of the bluff, including testimony from petitioner's expert Robert Grover,Vice-President and Director of Environmental Coastal Sciences at Greenman-Pedersen,Inc. Mr. Grover conducted a site inspection and testified that the top of the bluff on the property runs parallel to the Coastal Erosion Hazard Line("CEHL")for the entire width of the property. Then, during the first hearing, and at the request of the ZBA,Mr. Grover drew the top of the bluff line on Birdseye's survey. The petitioners further contend that, during its review,the ZBA received comments from the Town Engineer which revealed that the top of the bluff had actually shifted further landward, toward the eastern portion of the property,rather than what was noted by Birdseye on its ZBA application. Then,at the request of the ZBA, Trustee John Bredemeyer,went to the property and reflagged the top of the bluff, and the bluff line determined by Trustee Bredemeyer matched the location that Mr. Grover had noted during the ZBA public hearing,which runs parallel to the Coastal Erosion Hazard Line,and extends the entire width of the property. As a result,Birdseye 2 2 of 7 C 2024, FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 04 04 2022 04 :07 PM INDEX NO. 004826/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 38 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2022 revised its survey, and submitted the revised survey to the ZBA, dated April 9,2018,which delineated the top of the bluff line flagged by Trustee Bredemeyer, i.e., further landward than where it was depicted in the original survey. Birdseye's revised survey also indicated that the bluff line extended the entire width of the property. On June 25,2018, after two public hearings and evaluation of all the evidence before it, the ZBA issued its unanimous decision denying Birdseye's application for relief from the bluff setback, finding that the granting of the variances would produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties, as well as adversely impacting the physical and environmental condition in the neighborhood. The ZBA noted that Birdseye's updated survey, and the site inspection by members of the ZBA and Trustees, showed that the proposed structure would actually be located only 36.5 feet from the top of the bluff,not 50 feet as set forth in the original application, and would be plainly in contravention of the code that requires a minimum setback of 100 feet from the top of a bluff. Petitioners then assert that in an attempt to avoid the 100-foot bluff setback,Birdseye re- designated the eastern half of the bluff as a bank, since a bank is not subject to setback requirements set forth in the code. Petitioners' maintain Birdseye hired a new surveyor who designated a part of the bluff line,previously flagged by Trustee Bredemeyer and adopted by Birdseye in the 2018 ZBA proceeding, so that the eastern half of the"top of bluff'became a"top of bank,"as reflected in the survey dated August 12, 2018 that Birdseye submitted with its wetlands permit application.Petitioners contend there is no testimony or proof to support the re- designation of the bluff to a bank, or to rebut the designation of the top of bluff,which was universally acknowledged by all parties to be a bluff during the course of the ZBA proceeding. As part of Birdseye's wetlands application,the Trustees held a public hearing on May 15, 2019. Petitioners,appearing by counsel, submitted written comments in opposition to the application, including the evidence presented to the ZBA showing that the"top of bluff' extended across the entire width of the property, as well as the written and oral expert testimony of its expert,Mr. Grover. Birdseye,appearing by counsel, did not offer any expert testimony in support of the application. Despite requests by petitioner's counsel to leave the record open for additional comment, including submissions by those neighbors unable to attend the hearing, and to allow Mr. Grover an opportunity to revisit the property to rebut the renaming of the eastern part of the bluff,the record was closed. Then,immediately after closing the hearing the Trustees took an immediate vote and granted the application. On that same day the two-page resolution approving the application was signed by the Trustees, and Birdseye was issued a wetlands permit. The Trustees' two-page resolution dated May 15, 2019 includes a recitation of the Birdseye project and two minor references to the"top of bluff/bank"and"top of bluff as flagged by Inter Science, converging with the top of bank as flagged by John Bredemeyer,Town Trustee."Although the bluff line was briefly mentioned during the May 15, 2019 hearing,no explanation was given on the record as to how the bluff line that had been reflagged by Trustee Bredemeyer and adopted by all parties in the ZBA proceeding,now became a"bluff/bank." Further,while the resolution refers to the"top of bank as flagged by John Bredemeyer"there was no discussion at the hearing, or proof in the Administrative Return,that Trustee Bredemeyer 3 3 of 7 +.� C 2 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 04 04 2022 04:07 PM INDEX NO. 004826/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 38 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2022 actually re-visited the property and reflagged the"top of bank." Instead the only testimony at the public hearing to explain the re-designation was offered by the applicant's counsel,who spoke in conclusory terms about the involvement of the Trustees,the Town Attorney, and Town Engineer, and a purported"agreement"between counsel for Birdseye and the Trustees regarding the "convergence point"where the bluff and the bank meet.Notably missing from the opposition is any specific reference in the record as to how the bluff line flagged by Trustee Bredemeyer and adopted by the Trustees in the ZBA proceeding suddenly became a bank in Birdseye's wetlands application. Where, as here,the administrative determination at issue was made after informational public hearings, as opposed to a quasi-judicial evidentiary hearing,the"arbitrary and capricious" standard of CPLR 7803(3)applies (see Matter of Moy v. Board of Trustees of Town of Southold, 61 AD3d 763,764 [2d Dept 2009];Matter of Zupa v Board of Trustees of Town of Southold, 54 AD3d 957,957 [2d Dept 2008]). Thus,the sole question before this Court is whether the Trustees' determination was made in violation of lawful procedure,was affected by an error of law,or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion(see CPLR 7803[31; Matter of Gernatt Asphalt Products v Town of Sardinia, 87 NY2d 668, 688 [1996];Perry v Brennan, 153 AD3d 522, 524-525 [2d Dept 2017];Matter of Moy,supra•,Matter of Halperin v City of New Rochelle,24 AD3d 768 [2d Dept 2005]). In the context of an Article 78 proceeding brought to review an administrative determination of a quasi-legislative, quasi-administrative body like a zoning board or the board of trustees of a village, a court may annul the determination only if it was arbitrary and capricious,affected by an error of law, or irrational (see Matter of Scherbyn v Wayne-Finger Lakes Bel. of Coop. Educ. Servs.,77 NY2d 753 [1991];Matter of Cowan v Kern,41 NY2d 591 [1977];Matter of Pell v Board of Education, 34 NY2d 222 [1974];Matter of Baker v Village of Elmsford,70 AD3d 181 [2d Dept 2009];Matter of Moy,supra;Matter of Halperin v City of New Rochelle,supra). "Arbitrary action is without sound basis in reason and is generally taken without regard to the facts" (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ.,supra at 231). "A decision of an administrative agency which neither adheres to its own prior precedent nor indicates its reason for reaching a different result on essentially the same facts is arbitrary and capricious"(Matter of Charles A. Field Delivery Service Inc. v Roberts, 66 NY2d 516, 516-17 [1985]). In opposition,the Trustees submit the affirmation of counsel who argues that the Trustees' grant of Birdseye's application for a wetlands permit was not arbitrary and capricious, that the Trustees considered the application and analyzed the statutory factors set forth in Town Code §275-12 and,based on evidentiary proof,the Trustees determined that the balance weighed in favor of the issuance of the wetlands permit. The Trustees' counsel further maintains that the Trustees' determination regarding the bluff/bank line is rationally based and in conformance with Town Code §275;the Trustees classified the bank and bluff in accordance with the definitions in the code, and the finding of the ZBA is not binding upon the Trustees. The Wetlands Law of the Town of Southold is set forth in §275 of the Town Code. The standards for issuance of a wetlands permit are set forth in §275-12, which states in pertinent part that the Trustees may adopt a resolution directing the issuance of a wetlands permit only if it determines that the operations applied for will not substantially: 4 4 of 7 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 04 04 2022 04:07 PM INDEX No. 004826/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 38 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2022 A. Adversely affect the wetlands of the Town. B. Cause damage from erosion,turbidity or siltation. C. Cause saltwater intrusion into the fresh water resources of the Town. D. Adversely affect fish, shellfish or other beneficial marine organisms, aquatic wildlife and vegetation or the natural habitat thereof. E. Increase the danger of flood and storm-tide damage. F. Adversely affect navigation on tidal waters or the tidal flow of the tidal waters of the Town. G. Change the course of any channel or the natural movement or flow of any waters. H. Weaken or undermine the lateral support of other lands in the vicinity. I. Otherwise adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the Town. J. Adversely affect the aesthetic value of the wetland and adjacent areas. Contrary to the Trustees' counsel's assertion,there is nothing in the record to establish that the Trustees analyzed the statutory factors set forth in Town Code §275-12. There is no factual recitation or findings of fact set forth in the May 15,2019 resolution,and neither the resolution,nor the transcript of the May 15, 2019 hearing, set forth any analysis of these factors by the Trustees. Town Code §275-12 clearly states that the Trustees"may"grant a wetlands permit"only if'the Trustees determine that the application will not substantially affect any of the ten statutory facts set forth in §275-12 A-J. While the May 15, 2019 resolution includes a cursory finding by the Trustees that the application would not affect the health safety and general welfare of the people of the town,the record is devoid of any analysis,or consideration of the nine remaining statutory factors. Clearly there exists a distinction between a wetlands permit application brought before the Trustees, and an application for variance relief brought before the ZBA. The Trustees' argument that it is not bound by the findings of the ZBA completely overlooks petitioners' argument that in this instance the Trustees failed to adhere to their own determination regarding the bluff line reached during the course of the ZBA proceeding. The ZBA decision,which petitioners submitted to the Trustees at the wetlands hearing on May 15,2019 specifically notes: On March 2,2018,the top of the bluff was reflagged by the Trustees and their flags were consistent with the Suffolk County LIDAR map provided by the Southold Town Engineer, and the"corrected top of bluff line"hand drawn on [Birdseye's] survey. . . [R. 11] The Trustees' designation of the bluff line was also acknowledged by Michael Domino, President of the Board of Trustees, in his April 13,2018 memo to the ZBA: This is a follow-up to the Board of Trustees field inspection of April 11, 2018 of 1501 Birdseye LLC wherein we discussed: the survey received April 9, 2018 showing the top of bluff line as determined by area Trustee John Bredemeyer.. . ." [R. 44] 5 FED 11 5' `r.02 5 of 7 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 04 04 2022 04:07 PM INDEX N0. 004826/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 38 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2022 No explanation is offered as to why the Trustees failed to adhere to their own prior determination regarding the flagging of the bluff line that was clearly established and adopted by all parties during the ZBA proceeding. Birdseye's contention that it was not necessary to distinguish between the bluff and the bank in its ZBA application is without merit. The submitted record makes those distinctions apparent. It is clear from references in the ZBA proceeding that the bank line was depicted on the January 2, 2013 survey that accompanied Birdseye's application to the ZBA, and that the accuracy of the bank line was,in fact,referenced by the ZBA in its June 25,2018 decision ("there was testimony ... relating to the accuracy of the top of the bank/bluff as depicted on [Birdseye's] survey of January 2,2013"') [R. 11,p.2],and in letters submitted by petitioners in opposition to the ZBA application [R. 9,p. 1, 3]. It was also referenced in the August 7, 2017 letter from Birdseye's counsel, in what appears to be his first correspondence with the Trustees requesting a pre-application site visit,in which he refers to the"top of bank" [R. 24]. Birdseye's counsel's characterization that the March 1,2018 ZBA hearing was adjourned to have the trustee"reflag the easterly portion of the property,"is somewhat disingenuous. Although the ZBA did adjourn the meeting, it was not simply to reflag the easterly portion,but rather to reflag the top of the bluff. While Birdseye's counsel appears to question the accuracy of Trustee Bredemeyer's reflagging of the bluff line,he concedes that Birdseye's own surveyor revisited the location and revised their survey on April 9, 2018 showing the top of bluff line,and Trustee Bredemeyer's bluff line,running together across entire property line from west to east. [R. 45] Birdseye's argument that their surveyor used in the ZBA proceeding merely followed Trustee Bredemeyer's flags and did not make a distinction between the bluff and the bank is conclusory and is not supported by any proof in the record. Birdseye offers this unsupported claim in an attempt to explain its later survey submitted to the Trustees with its wetlands application,conducted by a different surveyor,re-designating the bluff line to a bluff/bank line. Birdseye's argument that the Trustees provided guidance as to what constitutes a bluff and a bank is also conclusory and unsupported by the record. Birdseye refers to a letter from its counsel to the Trustees dated August 14,2018, and the response from Trustee Domino dated September 21,2018. Counsel's assertion that the survey submitted with its wetlands application "was reviewed by the Trustees, in collaboration with the Town Engineer,Michael Collins,and Assistant Town Attorney, [and]based on that review trustees determined that the new survey was an accurate depiction of the convergence point of the bluff/bank and the setback was in keeping with the description in their September 21, 2018 letter to Birdseye" is entirely without support in the record. Of note is the undated email sent by Birdseye's counsel to a Trustee Assistant,purportedly outlining what the Building Department requires in order to complete their review of the wetlands application(see Ex. L annexed to Birdseye Affirmation in Opposition). Although the email contains references to Mike Verity[Southold Chief Building Inspector] and the fact that the building inspector wants"verification from the Board in writing that what is being presented on the site plan conforms to the Trustees determination,"as well as"verification from the trustees"that the setback on Birdseye's site plan is accurate,neither the email,nor any Despite references to the January 2,2013 survey submitted by Birdseye to the ZBA,the Court was unable to locate it in the Administrative Return. 6 6 of 7 q 1 ^0 i F� FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 04 04 2022 04:07 PM INDEX NO. 004826/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 38 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2022 written verification from the Trustees, is included in the Administrative Return submitted by the Trustees. As noted,the Court's review of the record indicates there is no analysis by the Trustees of the statutory factors set forth in Town Code §275-12,nor any reason given by the Trustees for not adhering to their own prior determination regarding the bluff line flagged by Trustee Bredemeyer and acknowledged by the Trustees during the ZBA proceeding. Accordingly,the May 15, 2019 resolution by the Town of Southold Board of Trustees granting 1505 Birdseye Road,LLC's application for a wetlands permit for construction of a two-level house on property located at 1505 Birdseye Road, Orient is arbitrary and capricious and without a rational basis. Thus, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the petition pursuant to CPLR Article78 is granted and the May 15, 2019 resolution adopted by the Town of Southold Board of Trustees granting respondent 1505 Birdseye Road,LLC's application for a wetlands permit is annulled and vacated.1 Dated: April 4,2022 Riverhead,New York r ARMEN VIC ORIA ST R ,J.S.C. FINAL DISPOSITION[X] NON-FINAL DISPOSITION[ ] 13 '? ' 2'0;24 Petitioners'request for costs of this proceeding is denied. 7 7 of 7 EXHIBIT B GPIEngineering I Design I Planning I Construction Management February 13, 2024 Board of Trustees 1 5 ."023v Town of Southold Town Hall Annex 54375 Route 25 Southold, NY 11971 - Re: "Freshwater Wetlands Review"dated February 2,2024, by John Bredemeyer, III Wetlands Application of 1505 Birdseye Road LLC 1505 Birdseye Road,Orient, New York(SCTM#1000-17-1-14) Dear President Goldsmith and Board of Trustees Members: GPI has been retained by John Josephson,who owns properties at 1515 Birdseye Road,900 Birdseye Road, and 700 Birdseye Road, to provide various environmental services. Last year, I visited the site and conducted a Wetlands Delineation at Mr. Josephson's property at 1515 Birdseye. This culminated in a Wetlands Delineation Report, dated February 14, 2023, in which my findings concluded that the low-lying area on Mr. Josephson's property, which also extends into 1505 Birdseye Road is a freshwater wetland. This report was provided to this Board on February 14, 2023. The subject of this letter is to provide the Board with my comments and observations on the "Freshwater Wetland Review" document dated February 2, 2024, and prepared by John Bredemeyer III, which was submitted by the applicant. This document was stamped received by the Trustees on February 6, 2024. The Bredemeyer report alleges that the low-lying depression located on 1505 and 1515 Birdseye Road is not a freshwater wetland,which is a conclusion that is not supported by aspects of the Bredemeyer Report itself or my 2/14/2023 Delineation Report. I have been an established environmental professional in New York State for over 40 years, the last ten (10) as a Sr. Environmental Scientist with GPI. GPI is a full-service engineering firm with an exceptional staff of 1,700+professionals working for numerous public and private clients.Our Corporate Headquarters are in Babylon, Long Island. I have personally conducted hundreds of environmental site and project plan reviews and countless wetland and waterway delineations and assessments and mitigation projects. I have been on the Board of Directors of the New York State Wetlands Forum for over ten years. My CV has been previously provided to the Board. After a thorough analysis of the Bredemeyer Report, I would like to provide the following comments regarding this report's inadequacy in refuting the existence of wetland conditions at the Applicant's property: 1. There is no cover sheet which identifies the author or if this is an Environmental Site Assessment Report, a Wetland Delineation Report, a simple findings document, or something else. There is no Table of Contents directing the reader to what type of document this is. Over 50 offices throughout the United States www.gpinet.com An Equal Opportunity Ern&yer 1 5 2M/i.. 2. The opening paragraph of the document states that "It endeavors to provide all necessary information for the Southold Board of Trustees to make a wetland determination". To the contrary, I find that this document is lacking in many areas and does not constitute a document complete enough for a local board to make wetland determinations. Wetland determinations, using the three-parameter approach, should be made in the field by qualified wetland scientists or by representatives from regulatory agencies such as the US Army Corps of Engineers(COE)or the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). 3. The second paragraph of the Bredemeyer Report states that"Freshwater determinations are most easily performed in the presence of abundant and diverse plant indicators...from obligate floating vegetation... to obligate emergent vegetation ... to obligate trees on the upland perimeter." This is a very elementary depiction of the wetland delineation process that only represents a basic introductory understanding of how wetlands occur on the landscape (and how to identify them). This section of the Bredemeyer Report does not mention hydrologic regimes and hydric soil indictors that must also be considered in addition to identifying only vegetation. Any complete site wetland review will look for the three parameters of wetland conditions. Concentrating on wetland vegetation solely, and on Obligate and Facultative Wet species in particular, is inaccurate and irresponsible. The author mentions a "paucity of FAC species", however, many wetland situations may consist of only FAC species, and will certainly meet the definition of a wetland. 4. Hydrology, Physiography, Waters, Weather Section: This section of the Bredemeyer Report describes the numerous ways a swale and/or ponded depression on the property exhibits varying levels of water depth and saturation. Contrary to the point the author is trying to establish refuting the existence of a wetland, these descriptions are, in fact, typical of a wetland area occupying a position in the landscape. These references alone indicate that a wetland likely occurs on the site. It should be noted that a wetland does not need to exhibit standing water for long periods of time to qualify as a wetland. Wetlands can persist with as little as two weeks of standing water or saturated soil conditions during the growing season (at proper frequency and duration to establish wetland conditions). This amount of hydrology is enough to support and sustain hydrophytic vegetation and hydric soils on a wetland site. The references in this section of the Report to a collapsed drain-pipe and earthen path/road contributing to ponding are irrelevant with respect to whether a wetlands exists. Although man- made features may alter the landscape, they may also result in regulated wetlands forming over time that exhibit wetland characteristics. The report's discussions of adjacent properties, watersheds, land use practices, and "leaf-out" impacts on evapo-transpiration are also irrelevant to wetland presence or absence and are merely anecdotal and subjective. 5. Vegetation Section: The discussion in this section of the Bredemeyer Report supports the principle that wetlands do not need to be "wet" throughout the year, rather for a few weeks during the growing season to establish wetland conditions. This has been proven to be the case for the ponded vernal pool at this location,and the Bredemeyer Report supports a finding of a ponded vernal pond. The report's mention of dead, large upland tree species adjacent to the wetland depression also does not support the assertion that the pool is not a wetland. To the contrary,the discussion here Page 2 supports a saturated and ponded condition existing as a vernal pool. The upland species at the "rim" above the wetland/pool are of no consequence to the authors argument that there is no wetland present. As described above, the beach path or earthen road does not eliminate the possibility of a regulated wetland being found on-site. The final paragraph indicates that the Silver Maple is a FAC species in the Coastal Plain. A study of the Northcentral and Northeast wetland regional map indicates the project site is not within the Coastal Plain region, and Silver Maple is in fact FACW species. A species being FAC versus FACW does not remove it from being a wetland indicator species, and the difference between FAC and FACW is of no consequence in a wetland delineation. 6. Discussion Section: Most of the points made and discussed in this section of the Bredemeyer Report are anecdotal and irrelevant with respect to accurate wetland delineation. Any discussion here is not sufficient to determine that wetlands do not exist in the ponded area (nor downstream) and the Wetland Delineation Report prepared by Kurt Weiskotten dated 2/14/23 shows sufficient evidence of wetland conditions existing. The swale area should be looked at(and was) using not just vegetation (as suggested by this report in using the "vegetative code" in Chapter 275 of the Southhold Town Code) but also by utilizing the 1995 NYSDEC Manual and the routine method for delineation wetlands following the 1987 Corps Manual, including collection of vegetation information, excavation of soil data holes, documentation of hydrology, completion of COE data sheets, and photographic evidence. This report did not include any of these data points typically used in identifying wetlands. In fact, any delineation method used on this site should not rely on the method of using primarily vegetation and should proceed under the COE delineation methodology using the three-parameter approach for a wetland of this size. Bullet 1) Discussion of the maple species genetic origins is irrelevant to investigation of wetland occurrence—their indicator status is FAC and FACW. Bullet 2)The maples within the ponded area do show buttressed trunks and root extensions which are indications of ponded water and stressed conditions. Bullet 3)The absence of other wetland vegetation or shrubs does not eliminate this area as a functioning wetland. The species assemblage is what it is—the plant community for that location under those conditions.The tree species present are FAC and FACW and therefore are wetland indicators. Bullet 4) Regardless of any"competitive advantage" or of the ponded area being artificially impounded, the site has supported wetland conditions for some time and these are not reasons for this to be called non-wetland. SILVER MAPLE (Acer saccharinum) IS NOT THE SOURCE OF MAPLE SYRUP—that is the Sugar Maple (Acer saccharum) -an Upland species. Not knowing the difference between these two species is suspect. Bullet 5)A subjective "insecure watershed" is irrelevant to wetland delineation. Page 3 GPI 1 #.,R 1 , 2024, Bullet 6)The lack of adventitious roots does not change the FAC indicator status of Red or FACW for Silver Maple and does not diminish other wetland hydrology indictors found at the site such as water-stained leaves, buttressed tree trunks, surface water, saturation, water marks,and drainage patterns. Bullet 7) The absence of OBL species does not mean the area is not a wetland — FAC and FACW species(Silver Maple)are also found within wetlands,often without any OBL species. These facts are in no way an indication of insufficient water supply over time. Bullet 8)Dead trees are often an indication of an overly saturated site in the landscape. The dead upland trees may have dropped into the wetland from the adjacent upland fringe. 7. Summary Section: The absence of shrubs or emergent vegetation does not mean the area is not a wetland, rather it means the area is a wetland dominated by trees. Often-times wetlands are delineated without one or more of the typically vegetation forms present—this does not mean the area is not a wetland. Consider a cattail marsh —the absence of woody plant material does not suggest the area is non-wetland. As previously described above, the presence of man-made structures does not remove the area as being wetland, and the area continues to qualify under the jurisdiction of Chapter 275, and certainly within the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers, which hasn't even been discussed in this document. Conclusion: It is my professional opinion that after reviewing the Bredemeyer Review Report, it does not contain any compelling arguments or data that would change any of the findings of the Wetlands Delineation Report dated 2/14/23 that I prepared, which primarily found that there is a ponded vernal pool on-site that flows northeast under a pathway berm and through a drainage channel into a small emergent marsh and eventually under a driveway and into a Common Reed (Phragmites) stand to the east. The Bredemeyer Report's wetland review has a complete lack of attention paid to other wetland indicators such as hydrology(water-stained leaves,shallow roots, buttressed tree trunks,drainage patterns)and any discussion at all regarding hydric soils (soil profiles, horizons, chromas and hues, and possible reduction features). These features are critical to properly identifying wetlands in the field, and this report does not support a suitable effort to disclaim the presence of wetlands on the property. Many of the points made are anecdotal and subjective and do not support the lack of wetlands being found on-site. Sincerely, Kurt Weiskotten, M.S., Sr, Environmental Scientist,Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. Cc: David Dubin, Esq. Martha F. Reichert, Esq. Page 4 GPI EXHIBIT C APPENDIX F FIELD KEY TO NEW YORK STATE WETLAND DELINEATION (see Manual for more detailed explanation) Vegetation Field Indicators of Wetland (adapted from Tiner 1993) Having established the dominant species for each stratum,hydrophytic vegetation is considered present if any of the following are present: (1) FACW or wetter species comprise more than 50 percent of the dominant species of the plant community and no FACU or UPL species are dominant,or; (2) OBL perennial species collectively represent at least 10 percent areal cover in the plant community and are evenly distributed throughout the community and not restricted to depressional microsites,or; (3) One or more dominant plant species in the community has one or more of the following morphological adaptations: hypertrophied lenticels,buttressed stems or trunks,multiple trunks,adventitious roots, shallow root systems,or other locally applicable adaptation,or; (4) The presence of unbroken expanses of peat mosses(Sphagnum spp.)and other regionally applicable species of biyophytes over persistently saturated soil. The presence of any of the above-listed hydrophytic vegetation characteristics typically indicates a wetland. Thus,an area that exhibits any of these indicators can be considered a wetland without detailed examination of hydrology and/or soils,provided significant unusual hydrologic modifications are not evident. In some areas,particularly in transition zones dominated by FAC species,the wetland boundary may be particularly difficult to delineate using vegetation alone. If none of the above vegetation indicators of wetland is found,but more than 50 percent of the dominant species of all strata are FAC or some combination of FAC and wetter species(including OBL,FACW+, FACW-,FAC+);then investigation and verification of hydrology and/or hydric soils is required to locate a wetland boundary. Primary Hydrologic Indicators [taken from"Data Form: Routine Wetland Determination(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)] Any one of the following primary hydrologic characteristics(along with hydrophytic vegetation)indicates the presence of a wetland: 1. Visual observation of inundation. 2. Visual observation of soil saturation. 3. Water marks. 4. Drift lines. 5. Water-borne sediment deposits. 6. Wetland drainage patterns. is q� 53 Secondary Hydrologic Indicators Any two or more of the following secondary hydrologic characteristics(along with hydrophytic vegetation) indicates the presence of a wetland. 1. Oxidized zones around living roots and rhizomes(rhizospheres.) 2. Water-stained leaves. 3. Surface-scoured areas. 4. Dead vegetation. In the absence of any one of the primary hydrologic indicators or any two of the secondary indicators,AND if more than 50 percent of the dominant plant species of all strata at the site are any combination of OBL, FACW,or FA species(including FACW+, FACW-, FAC+),AND there is no indication of recent significant hydrologic modification,THEN investigation and verification of hydric soils is required to locate a wetland boundary. If the area has been significantly disturbed hydrologically,refer to the section on disturbed areas(page 23). Soil Field Indicators of Wetland (adapted from Tiner, 1993) Several field indicators are available for determining whether a given soil meets the definition of hydric soils. Any one of the following typically indicates that hydric soils are present: 1. Organic soils(all Histosols except Folists)present; or 2. Histic epipedon(e.g.,organic surface layer 8-16 inches thick)present;or, 3. Sulfidic material(H,S,odor of"rotten eggs")present within 12 inches of the soil surface;or, 4. Gleyed,low chroma(ie. chroma 2 or less with mottles or chroma 1 or less with or without mottles) horizon or dominant ped faces present immediately below(within 1 inch)the surface layer and within 18 inches of the soil surface;or, 5. Nonsandy soils with a low chroma matrix(chroma of 2 or less)within 18 inches of the soil surface and one of the following present within 12 inches of the surface: (a) iron and manganese concretions or nodules. (b) distinct or prominent oxidized rhizospheres along several living roots; (c) low chroma mottles;or, 6. Sandy soils with one of the following present: (a) thin surface layer(1 inch or greater)of peat or muck where a leaf litter surface mat is present; (b) surface layer of peat or muck of any thickness where a leaf litter surface mat is absent; (c) a surface layer(A-horizon)having a low chroma matrix(chroma of 1 or less and value of 3 or less)greater than 4 inches thick; (d) vertical organic streaking or blotchiness within 12 inches of the surface; (e) easily recognized(distinct or prominent)high chroma mottles occupy at least 2 percent of the low chroma subsoil matrix within 12 inches of the surface; (f) organic concretions within 12 inches of the surface; (g) easily recognized(distinct or prominent)oxidized rhizospheres along living roots within 12 inches of the surface; (h) a cemented layer(orstein)within 18 inches of the soil surface;or, 7. Other regionally applicable,field-verifiable soil properties associated with prolonged seasonal high water tables. 54. EXHIBIT D F IF E '( APPENDIX A: FIELD FORMS-FRESHWATER WETLAND PLANT LIST AND FIELD INSPECTION SHEET Trees Emergent/Wet Meadow/Understory _Skunk Cabbage Svmplocarpus foetidus OBL Bryophytes _Smartweed Polvgonum spp.OBUFACW _Ash,Black Fraxinus nigra FACW _Arrow Arum Peltandra virginica OBL _Spearmint Mentha spicata FACW Sphagnum spp. _Ash,Green Fraxinus pennsylvanica FACW _Arrowhead Sagittaria spp.OBL _Speedwell,Marsh Veronica americana OBL _Aspen,Trembling Populus tremuloides FACU _Arrow-leaved Tearthumb Polvgonum sagittatum OBL _Spikerush Eleocharis spp.OBUFACW+ Ferns and Allies _Birch,Gray Betula populifolia FAC _Aster,Purple Stem Aster puniceus OBL Spiraea Spiraea spp. FAC&FACW _Birch,Yellow Betula allechaniensis FAC Groundsel-Tree Baccharis halimifolia FAC St.Johnswort,Marsh Triadenum yirginicum OBL Clubmoss,Bog Lvcopodium inundatum OBL _Cedar,A.White Chamaecvparis thvoides OBL _Bedstraws Galium sp.mostle FACW&OBL _Swamp Candles Lvsimachia terrestris OBL _Horsetail,Variegated Eguisetum variegatum FACW _Cedar,N.White Thuia occidentalis FACW _Beggar Tick Bidens spp.OBUFAC/FACW _Sweet Flag Acorus calamus OBL _Horsetail,Water E.fluviatile OBL _Cottonwood,Eastern Populus deltoides FAC _Blackberry,Dwarf Rubus pubescens FACW _Three-square Scirpus americanus OBL _Horsetail,Rough E.hyemale FACW _Elm,American Ulmus americana FACW _Bluegrass,Fowl Poa palustris FACW _Turtlehead Chelone glabra OBI _Horsetail,Marsh E.palustre FACW _Fir,Balsam Abies balsamea FAC Bluejoint Calamagrostis canadensis FACW _Vervain Verbena sp.FACW Scouring-rush,Dwarf E.scirpoides FAC _Gum,Black Nyssa svlvatica FAC Boneset Eupatorium perfoliatum FACW Water-horehound(Bugleweed)Lvcopus spp.OBL Hemlock,Eastern Tsuaa canadensis FACU _Bulrush,Common Scirpus atrovirens OBL _Water Plantain Alisma spp.OBL _Chain Fern,Netted Lorinseria areolata FACW Eastern _Hornbeam,American Carpinus caroliniana FAC _Bulrush,Soft Stem Scirpus validus OBL _Waterwillow Decodon verticillatus OBL _Chain Fern,Virginia Anchistea virginica OBL Larch,Eastern Larix laricina FACW _Bulrush,Hard Stem Scirpus acutus OBL _Willow Herb Epilobium spp.OBL/FAC/FACW _Cinnamon Fern Osmunda cinnamomea FACW _Maple,Red Acer rubrum FAG Burreed,Giant Sparganium eurvcarpum OBL _Woolgrass Scirpus cyperinus spp.FACW Clinton's Fern Drvopteris clintoniana FACW m_Maple,Silver Acersaccharinu FACW' _Burreed,Narrow-leaved Sparganium emersum OBL _Yellow-eyed Grass Xvris sp.OBL _Crested Shield Fern D.cristata FACW _Oak,Burr Quercus macrocarpa FAC Burreeds Sparganium spp.OBL _Interrupted Fern Osmunda claytoniana FAC ____._:Oak,Pin Quercus palustris FACW _Cardinal Flower Lobelia cardinalis FACW Floating Leaved/Submergent _Marsh Fern Thelvpteris palustris FACW _Oak,Swamp White Quercus bicolor FACW _Cattails Typha latifolia,T.angustifolia,T.x glauca _Ostrich Fern Matteuccia struthiopteris FACW Eastern_Pine,Easte White Pinus strobus FACU OBL Bladderworts Utricularia spp.OBL _Royal Fern Osmunda regalis OBL _Poplar,Balsam Populus balsamifera FACW _Cinquefoil,Marsh Potentilla palustris OBI Chara Chara sop.OBL" Sensitive Fern Onoclea sensibilis FACW _Shadbush,Serviceberry Amelanchier arborea FAG _Dock,Swamp Rumex verticillatus OBL Coontail Ceratophvllum demersum OBL _Spruce,Black Picea mariana FACW _Forget-me-not Mvosotis scorpioides OBL _Duckweed,Lesser Lemna minor OBL _Spruce,Red P.rubens FACU _Goldenrod Solidago spp.various —Frog's-Bit Hvdrocharis morus-ranae OBL _Sycamore,American Platanus occidentalis FACW Hedgey-Hyssop Gratiola sp.OBI _Hearts,Floating Nvmphoides cordata OBL _Willow,Black Salix nigra FACW _Iris,Wild Iris versicolor OBL _Lily,White Water Nvmphaea odorata OBL _Jewelweed Impatiens capensis FACW _Lily,Yellow Pond Nuphar spp.OBL Shrubs and Vines(see also Bog Mat) _Joe-Pye-Weed,Spotted Eupatorium Milfoil,Water Myriophyllum spp.OBL maculatumFACW _Naiad Naias spp.OBL _Alder,Speckled Alnus incana ssp.rugosa FACW _Joe-Pye-Weed,Green-stemmed E.ourpureum FAC Nitella Nitella spp.OBL' Azalea,Swamp Rhododendron viscosum OBL _Lily,Wild Calla Calla palustris FACW _Pondweeds Potomogeton spp. OBL _Birch,Low Betula pumila OBL _Lobelia,Ontario Lobelia kalmii OBL Ribbongrass Vallisneria americana OBL _Blueberry,Highbush Vaccinium corvmbosum _Lobelia,Water L.dortmanna OBL _Saxifrage,Golden Chrvsosplenium americanum FACW Loosestrife,Purple Lvthrum salicaria FACW OBL Buttonbush Cephalanthus occidentalis OBL _Mannagrass,Slender Glviceria melicaria OBL Smartweed,Water Polvgonum amphibium OBL Chokeberry,Black Aronia melanocarpa FAC _Mannagrass,Canada Glviceria canadensis OBL _Starwort,Water Callitriche sp.OBL —Granberry-bush Viburnum trilobum FACW _Mannagrass,Pale Torrevochloa pallida OBL Watermeal Wolffia spp.OBL _Currant,Black Ribes americanum FACW _Mannagrass,Fowl Glviceria striata OBL _Watershield Brasenia schreberi OBL - - _Dogwood,Red Osier Comus sericea FACW _Marigold,Marsh Caltha palustris OBL - _Elder,American Sambucus canadensis FACW Meadowrue Thalictrum sp.FAC/FACW _Gale,Sweet Mvrica gale OBL _Milkweed,Swamp Asclepias incarnata OBL Bog Mat(Use only if mat is present) _Gooseberries Ribes lacustre,R.glandulosum FACW _Millet,Wild Echinochloa spp.FACW _Honeysuckle,Swamp Fly Lonicera oblongifolia OBL _Mint,Water Mentha aquatica OBI _Aster,Bog Aster nemoralis FACW r '. s,- _Inkberry Ilex qlabra FACW Monkeyflower Mimulus spp.OBL Bladderwort Utricularia spp.OBL — _Leathedeaf Chamaedaphne calvculata OBL _Orchid,Purple Fringed Platanthera Psvchodes _Bogbean Menvanthes trifolia OBL _Maleberry Leonia ligustrina FACW FACW Cottongrass Eriophorum spp. OBL Mountainholly Nemopanthus mucronatus OBL _Parsnip,Water Sium sauve OBI _Cranberry,Small Vaccinium oxycoccos OBL Pepperbush,Sweet Clethra alnifolia FAC Pickerelweed Pontederia cordata OBL _Cranberry,Large Vaccinium macrocarpon OBL _Rose,Swamp Rosa palustris OBL _Pipewort Eriocaulon septangulare OBL _Labrador Tea Ledum groenlandicum OBL Spicebush Lindera benzoin FACW —Reed-Meadow Grass Glviceria arandis OBL _Laurel,Bog Kalmia polifolia OBL _Sweetbells Leucothoe racemosa FACW _Reed Canary Grass Pharlaris arundinacea _Laurel,Sheep Kalmia angustifolia FAC _Sweetgale Mvrica gale OBL FACW/OBL Leatherleaf Chamaedaphne calvculata OBL _Viburnum,(Arrowwood)Viburnum recognitum Reedgrass Phragmites australis FACW _Orchid,Fringed White Platanthera blephariglottis FACW _Rice Cut-grass Leersia oryzoides OBL OBL _Viburnum,(Wildraisin)Viburnum cassinoides FACW _Rice,Wild Zizania aquatica spp.OBL _Pink,Grass Calopoclon tuberosus FACW _Water-willow Decodon verticillatus OBL _Rush,River Scirpus fluviatilis OBL _Pitcher Plant Sarracenia purpurea OBL _Willow,Pussy Salix discolor FACW _Rush,Slender Juncus debilis OBL Pogonia,Rose Pogonia ophioglossoides OBL _Willows Salix spp.FAC/FACW/OBL _Rush,Soft Juncus effusus FACW Rhodora Rhododendron canadense FACW Winterberry,Holly Ilex verticillata FACW _Saxifrage,Swamp Saxifraga pennsylvanica OBL _Rosemary,Bog Andromeda glaucophylla OBL _Witch-hazel,American Hamamelis virginiana FAC _Sedge,Tussock Carex stricta OBL —Few-seeded Sedge Carex oligosperma OBL _Sedge,Three-way Dulichium arundinaceum OBL _Sundews Drosera spp.OBL _Sedges Carex spp.mostly FACW&OBL _Skullcap Scutellaria spp.OBL EXHIBIT E Y N,ewuE -Ef'ECCC , G 0 SECTION BEACH ACCESS a. 10 11, � F` er c s *; xrstca.srxs+amr - - .. ,9v wV.0 CCEs.%k0u I.zvv y... fn31"aTu,G31"fe � i ::;:ii t r - 11c., e a SECTION DETAIL Q]5� e*` IPE WOOD EDGE STEPS — r nn Ikll,lF.. CH.R, .. .. O " ;S71 ADDR /' _.... BOARD C 'i?..JS�EES -,TOWN Or 5OUTHOM I , 1 t��4 oaaweecs ne+sF m .t� r�/ _- t TEST HOLE ., ._. �c L 1 r r U 66 —BE.AICI - > )y R� k BE Ali;E- R x N��JC LOT COVERAGE -LOT AREA: J.cN..0 I, t I •, .BUILDABLE AREA(LANDWARD OF CEHL LINE) 95,6%SF StE IC E<Al JJN4ED V�L t J 4FnCF: 0/9/I� . MAX,LOT COVERAGE(20W OF BUILDABLE AREA) 20%OF 35.898 SF-L�3,, [.M1:�'Atu(;.lit O TOTAL BUILDING COVERAGE: n TyP.SECTION�LEACLING POOL SITE PLAN .._... "L, a (GRASS SU LE DETAIHI 5'rE4 DESGNER: ARCHECfOFRECORD'. PROJECT: DRAWINGMIE JCDBN.: 1715 c A R L O S i SITE PLAN Aek.e: iv Z A P A T A ORIENT HOUSE Andrew Pollock Arc heel,PC S T U D i 0 1505 BIRDSEYE ROAD U ....��,m, K A.100.1 ORIENT NY11957 O110 EKE:CGRXE.L.CA y0� - w� w�aTrm C T.uxata• STRAW BALE DIKE DETAILS s M t arm T --''---=— �w µ s� °•nh' oe,d.' �¢ ,� ;. i;"` - SILT FENCE DETAILS 4 $ • Sri I FENCE DETAILS 1 - EROfiDR DONTIroISILT EENDE SIWROUNOBIG CONSTRUCTIDN ••,,.',: PftOPOBED CORSTRUCigR KLNfIY AREA'. ,.:..•. " _- # i i ; AREA TO BE CLEAF£DOF DEERS.OFAD.w6l OROTM�G TREES .. •A"—"�/'"Y-"—>. TREESRE"A ED nI COtiSIRUCIX%T Z(#1E. � ",,,., REYDVE aREFRewnrt vETrarroR.TRuI TREES AT ropov e�uv.. BEACH ACCESS DETAILS g( <•FEtKE SITE PLAN - - ARCrMTOPRECIXM. 6RAWNUTL KB No: 1705 C A R L 0 S SITE PLAN �.16.2017 ORIENT HOUSE � " -'� Z A P A T A � �� CLEARANCE DIAGRAM Andrew Pollock Archie..PC S T U 0 1 0 1505 BIRDSEYE ROAD ORIENT A.100.2 MoORIENT NY11957 �':i' EXHIBIT F Cantrell, Elizabeth From: Cantrell, Elizabeth Sent: Tuesday,August 16,2022 9:26 AM To: mkimack2@verizon.net Subject: 1505 Birdseye Road LLC application Good Morning, Last night during the Board of Trustees work session,the Board determined that the above mentioned project is to be tabled from tomorrow night's public hearing agenda and will;require a Wetland Permit application as well as more information. Along with the Wetland Permit application,the Board is requesting that the project plans are updated to depict the existing swale/intermittent pond that exists on the property as well as flagging the landward edge of wetland vegetation for a site inspection. The Board is requesting a.full landscaping plan for all proposed work on the property including existing and proposed elevations of the property to show the grade change due to the fill being brought in and graded out. Due to the intermittent pond,this proposed project may be within Trustee jurisdiction. If it is,please add to the project description all details of the proposed dwelling,driveway,sanitary system,patios,etc. if you have any questions please do not hesitate to ask. Sincerely, Senior Office Assistant Town of Southold Board of Trustees Office:631.765-1892 Email:elizabethc@southoldtowmny.gov 1 EXHIBIT G DiSalvo, Diane From: mkimack2@verizon.net Sent: Thursday,December 22, 2022 10:36 PM To: DiSalvo, Diane Subject: RE: 1505 Birdseye Road LLC a Hi Diane: The original permit approved the buffer zone and the disturbance area. We are only adding about 2200 SF to the disturbance area bases upon having to stay back 100 ft.from the bank (IffiffiMwe developed a landscape plan for the drainage area because a Board member suggested there may be a wetland on the property. I'm sure they meant the drainage area. As such, I had Cole environmental Services conduct a full evaluation which has concluded that area does not qualify as either a vernal pond or a wetland area.Since the analysis finds no"wetland"area, I don't want to be put in the position !Moing a full application as if the Board has additional jurisdiction that would require the full application. We will provide a landscape plan for that area that is in keeping with the intent of the owner to be a steward of the land by providing Proactive Restoration undertaken solely for the benefit of the natural environment and not associated with compensatory mitigation or other regulatory requirements. From: DiSalvo,Diane<diane.disaivo@town.southold.ny.us> Sent:Thursday,December 22,2022 8:37 AM To:'mkimack2@verizon.net'<mkimack2@verizon.net> Subject:RE: 1505 Birdseye Road LLC I assume the application you are referring to as being submitted is the Administrative application we received on July 26, 2022? Please confirm. If so we would need an additional check in the amount of$150.00. We await your revised project description and the Cole Environmental site plan and report which you referred to. Thank You Diane From:mkimack2 r verr n.net<mkimack2 a@�v - izon.nct> Sent:Wednesday,December 21,2022 2:45 PM To:DiSalvo, Diane<diane.disalvo town.southold.ny.us> Subject:RE: 1505 Birdseye Road LLC Hi Diane: did submit the application.We were holding up going to a hearing because a board member raised the Issue as to whether there was any wetlands on the property.We have engaged Cole Environmental services To address that issue.They have just completed their site plan and report which will be reviewed and submitted as a part of the application which should be in your possession. I will also revise the project description accordingly. bests 1 I-From:DiSalvo,Diane<diane.disalvo@town.southold.ny.us> Sent:Wednesday,December 21,2022 9:54 AM To:'m kimack2 @verizon.net'<mkimack2@verizon.net> Subject:1505 Birdseye Road LLC Just as an FYI—we are in receipt of the plans you dropped off on December 2,2022—we still require a Wetland permit application from you. Diane 2 Martha F.Reichert Partner Twomey Latham hV BAR A 631.727.2180 x305 S H E A, K E L L E Y, DUBIN & Q U A R T A R A R O, L L i n.. mreichert@suffolklaw.eom r �� 33 West Second St P,0,Box 9398 February 6,2024 7 1 Riverhead,NY 11901 VIA EMAIL AND FEDERAL EXPRESS _ .__ Southold Tova_ r Board of Trustees Board of Trustees Town of Southold Town Hall Annex 54375 Route 25 Southold,NY 11971 Re: Wetlands Application of 1505 Birdseye Road LLC 1505 Birdseye Road,Orient,New York(SCTM#1000-17-1-14) Dear President Goldsmith and Members of the Board of Trustees: This office represents John Josephson and Carolina Zapf, the owners of 1515 Birdseye Road and 900 Birdseye Road; Pamela Valentine and William Matassoni, the owners of 1525 Birdseye Road and 1675 Birdseye Road; Interwellen Property Partners, LLC, the owner of 700 Birdseye Road; and Andrew Jordan, the owner of 1105 Birdseye Lane in their continued opposition to the above-referenced Application currently pending before the Trustees. It has been nearly one-year since the Trustees tabled their review on February 15, 2023 in order to hire an independent environmental consultant pursuant to Town Code §275-7(D). It has been over eight months since the Trustees directed the Applicant, in their letter dated May 24, 2023,to remit the$1,875.00 environmental assessment fee. It has been over six months since our office last wrote to the Trustees requesting that the Application be denied in the face of the Applicant's continued failure to pay the requisite fee and to cooperate in the review of its Application. Since that time, the Applicant has made no attempt whatsoever to comply with the Trustees'requirements. Furthermore,the Applicant is now time-barred from seeking any kind of administrative review or appeal of the Trustees' determination to require an independent environmental consultant. Given that this file has lain dormant since our July 11, 2023 letter, it appears our clients have shown more diligence and interest in this Application than the Applicant. As such, we respectfully request that the Trustees consider this application inactive and abandoned. We further request that this Application be denied and dismissed at the next regular meeting of the Trustees, and removed from the Trustees' roster of pending applications. Thank you for your attention. Please include this letter in the record of this matter. Sincerely, MAR HA F. 41CIERT Cantrell, Elizabeth From: Kim-Marie Coruzzi <kcoruzzi@suffolklaw.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 6,2024 1:22 PM To: Cantrell, Elizabeth Cc: David Dubin;Martha Reichert Subject: Wetlands Application of 1505 Birdseye Road LLC: Premises: 1505 Birdseye Road,Orient Attachments: Letter to Southold Trustees 02-06-2024 FINAL.pdf Good Afternoon Ms.Cantrell, With reference to the above matter,attached please find attorney Martha Reichert's letter. A copy is being sent today to the Board of Trustees via Federal Express. Thank you. Kim-Marie Coruzzi Legal Assistant to Martha Reichert and Allison Singh H;B i; 02A, Twomey, Latham, Shea, Kelley, Dubin &Quartararo LLP 33 West Second Street, P.O. Box 9398, Riverhead, NY 11901 0: (631)727-2180 Ext. 283 kroruzzsuifolklanv com. I www.suffolklaw.com Twomey Latham H EE v GEi_E r. C''J BIN S 7 J AR TAHAB i L_. Be Well Advised.° IIVIPORT,A(N _Jhcl ramciltS ; ,ni -rn1J irlC 3 M a110,F 1 i'rn_;;9r,corifidentlal.TlieV are int-nded For Lh:na;n d n clh,Dieiitii�l Unly f roU Ia __in vc,d 0i.; nail h", nolli ire -.� I,_r Ir> pedlar: I, ucI do i n( li,clu.,the rllt�i.-!rl i?or niak?c�pie�;tii_,fP;i. ATTENTION:This email came from an external source.Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. i Martha F.Reichert T�lVo�'1' eu F Partner dd 't�Y. v ana 631.727.2180 x305 SHEA, KELLEY, OUBtN & QUARTARA'RO, LLP mrelchert@suffolklaw.com .33 0.resl Second St RO-Box H393 February 6,2024 Rl%erhead,Ni 11901 VIA EMAIL AND FEDERAL Exmss Board of Trustees FEB _ 6 202 �:as Town of Southold Town Hall Annex 54375 Route 25 „cr�11:�C;lc' �uiNtl j Southold,NY 11971 ' " t` Re: Wetlands Application of 1505 Birdseye Road LLC 1505 Birdseye Road,Orient,New York(SCTM#1000-17-1-14) Dear President Goldsmith and Members of the Board of Trustees: This office represents John Josephson and Carolina Zapf, the owners of 1515 Birdseye Road and 900 Birdseye Road; Pamela Valentine and William Matassoni, the owners of 1525 Birdseye Road and 1675 Birdseye Road; Interwellen Property Partners, LLC, the owner of 700 Birdseye Road; and Andrew Jordan, the owner of 1105 Birdseye Lane in their continued opposition to the above-referenced Application currently pending before the Trustees. It has been nearly one-year since the Trustees tabled their review on February 15,2023 in order to hire an independent environmental consultant pursuant to Town Code §275-7(D). It has been over eight months since the Trustees directed the Applicant, in their letter dated May 24, 2023,to remit the$1,875.00 environmental assessment fee. It has been over six months since our office last wrote to the Trustees requesting that the Application be denied in the face of the Applicant's continued failure to pay the requisite fee and to cooperate in the review of its Application. Since that time, the Applicant has made no attempt whatsoever to comply with the Trustees' requirements. Furthermore,the Applicant is now time-barred from seeking any kind of administrative review or appeal of the Trustees' determination to require an independent environmental consultant. Given that this file has lain dormant since our July 11, 2023 letter, it appears our clients have shown more diligence and interest in this Application than the Applicant. As such, we respectfully request that the Trustees consider this application inactive and abandoned. We further request that this Application be denied and dismissed at the next regular meeting of the Trustees, and removed from the Trustees' roster of pending applications. Thank you for your attention. Please include this letter in the record of this matter. Sincerely, MAR" I-IA F. R4icRT Cantrell, Elizabeth From: Dolores Quick <dquick@suffolklaw.com> Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2024 11:46 AM To: Cantrell, Elizabeth; Mudd, Jennifer Cc: Born, Sabrina; Franke, Diana; Noncarrow, Denis; Norklun, Stacey Subject: RE: Online Form Submittal: Request for Public Records Elizabeth, Thank you for getting back to us regarding our FOIL request. I'll re-calendar this for another 4 weeks or so. Have a good rest of the week, Dolores Dolores Quick,Paralegal Twomey Latham Shea Kelley Dubin&Quartararo, LLP 33 West Second Street,P.O.Box 9398 Riverhead,NY 11901 (631)727-2180 x294 Be Well Advised. Confidentiality Notice:The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be legally privileged and confidential.If you are not an intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any dissemination,distribution,or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error,please notify the sender and permanently delete the e-mail and any attachments immediately.You should not retain,copy,or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose,nor disclose all or any part of the contents to any other person.Thank you. From: Cantrell, Elizabeth <elizabethc@town.southold.ny.us> Sent:Thursday, February 8, 2024 11:38 AM To: Mudd,Jennifer<jennifer.mudd@town.southold.ny.us>; Dolores Quick<dquick@suffolklaw.com> Cc: Born, Sabrina <sabrina.born @town.southold.ny.us>; Franke, Diana <dianaf@town.southold.ny.us>; Noncarrow, Denis<denisn@southoldtownny.gov>; Norklun, Stacey<Stacey.Norklun @town.southold.ny.us> Subject: RE: Online Form Submittal: Request for Public Records Good Morning, Regarding your request for public records below, all five Board members have replied that they have had no electronic or other type of correspondence in regards to this application since your last request on 12/1/2013. Also, attached is correspondence that was hand delivered, sent via email and LISPS on February 61h and 71"of 2024. There is no other type of electronic or hand delivered correspondence other than what is attached from 12/1/2023 to date pertaining to this application. Eft{tzrinistrarive,Assismm 'Down. of 8outlAold hoard iA l mist <<>; Office: 631-76--1892 Email elizabethc@southoldtownny.gov From: Mudd,Jennifer<jennifer.mudd@town.southold.ny.us> Sent:Tuesday, February 6, 2024 9:39 AM 1 To: Cantrell, Elizabeth <elizabethc@town.southold.ny.us> Cc: Born, Sabrina <sa bring.born @town.southold.ny.us>; Franke, Diana <dianaf@town.southold.ny.us>; Mudd,Jennifer <iennifer.mudd@town.southold.ny.us>; Noncarrow, Denis<denisn@southoldtownny.Rov>; Norklun, Stacey <Stacey.Norklun@town.southold.ny.us> Subject: FW: Online Form Submittal: Request for Public Records Please respond directly to the applicant and copy the Town Clerk's Office on the response as well. Thank you, Jw Jennifer M. Mudd Sub-Registrar and Deputy Town Clerk Account Clerk Southold Town Clerk's Office 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971 Phone: 631-765-1800 ext. 1274 Fax: 631-765-6145 From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 6, 2024 9:38 AM To: Born, Sabrina <sabrina.born@town.southold.ny.us>; Mudd,Jennifer<iennifer.mudd@town.southold.ny.us>; Noncarrow, Denis<denisn@southoldtownny.gov>; Franke, Diana <dianaf@town.southold.ny.us> Subject:Online Form Submittal: Request for Public Records Request for Public Records First Name Dolores Last Name Quick Mailing Address Twomey Latham Shea Kelley Dubin & Quartararo, 33 W. 2nd Street City Riverhead State NY Zip 11901 Phone Number (631) 727-2180 x294 Email Address dguick(a-),suffolklaw.com Records TO BOARD OF TRUSTEES RE: Pending application for 1505 Birdseye Road, Orient, SCTM 1000-17-1-4 2 Any application documents including but not limited to electronic communications (emails, fax, texts), surveys, plans, correspondence, memos, site inspection reports, staff reports, decisions, denials, payment for third party inspector, and receipts filed since 12/1/2023 [THAT ARE NOT AVAILABLE ON TOWN WEBLINK]. Department Other Signature (enter your Dolores Quick name) of person making the request Do you agree? I Agree Email not displaying correctly?View it in your browser. ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. 3 Martha F.Reichert Partner Twomey V&', Latham N,BAI 631.727.2180 x305 S N F A K E_ Y 1) li B 1 N Q, 0 U A R I A R, A R 0 L 1. R mrelchert@suffolklaw.com 33 West Second St. P.O.Box 9398 February 6, 2024 Riverhead,NY 11901 FED - 7 2024 VIA EMAIL AND FEDERAL EXPRESS Board of Trustees Town of Southold Town Hall Annex 54375 Route 25 Southold,NY 11971 Re: Wetlands Application of 1505 Birdseye Road LLC 1505 Birdseye Road, Orient,New York(SCTM# 1000-17-1-14) Dear President Goldsmith and Members of the Board of Trustees: This office represents John Josephson and Carolina Zapf, the owners of 1515 Birdseye Road and 900 Birdseye Road; Pamela Valentine and William Matassom, the owners of 1525 Birdseye Road and 1675 Birdseye Road; Interwellen Property Partners, LLC, the owner of 700 Birdseye Road; and Andrew Jordan, the owner of 1105 Birdseye Lane in their continued opposition to the above-referenced Application currently pending before the Trustees. It has been nearly one-year since the Trustees tabled their review on February 15, 2023 in order to hire an independent environmental consultant pursuant to Town Code §275-7(D). It has been over eight months since the Trustees directed the Applicant, in their letter dated May 24, 2023, to remit the $1,875.00 environmental assessment fee. It has been over six months since our office last wrote to the Trustees requesting that the Application be denied in the face of the Applicant's continued failure to pay the requisite fee and to cooperate in the review of its Application. Since that time, the Applicant has made no attempt whatsoever to comply with the Trustees' requirements. Furthermore, the Applicant is now time-barred from seeking any kind of administrative review or appeal of the Trustees' determination to require an independent environmental consultant. Given that this file has lain dormant since our July 11, 2023 letter, it appears our clients have shown more diligence and interest in this Application than the Applicant. As such, we respectfully request that the Trustees consider this application inactive and abandoned. We further request that this Application be denied and dismissed at the next regular meeting of the Trustees, and removed from the Trustees' roster of pending applications. Thank you for your attention. Please include this letter in the record of this matter. Sincerely, A MAR HA �ICIERT Cantrell, Elizabeth From: Kim-Marie Coruzzi <kcoruzzi@suffolklaw.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2024 1:22 PM To: Cantrell, Elizabeth Cc: David Dubin; Martha Reichert Subject: Wetlands Application of 1505 Birdseye Road LLC : Premises: 1505 Birdseye Road, Orient Attachments: Letter to Southold Trustees 02-06-2024 FINAL.pdf Good Afternoon Ms. Cantrell, With reference to the above matter, attached please find attorney Martha Reichert's letter. A copy is being sent today to the Board of Trustees via Federal Express. Thank you. Kim-Marie Coruzzi Legal Assistant to Martha Reichert and Allison Singh Twomey, Latham, Shea, Kelley, Dubin & Quartararo LLP 33 West Second Street, P.O. Box 9398, Riverhead, NY 11901 0: (631) 727-2180 Ext. 283 kc,cars.azzi_t,I)s.IffOlkl -------- Twomeyw,,.i-Ti www.suffolklaw.com _ ____....._...._..- _. Be Well Advised." ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. i Martha EReichert Par!rwr � VA' am� ��n�� n&� ��M�� @ =� 631.727.2 180,3O5 ywsa' nsLL Ev' DUB IN m ooAarAoumm. LLp mmmxnn@yvo^m/ommm puoan�oo February 62024 - --- --------- VIA EMAIL AND FEDERAL EXPRESS ! { Board o[Trustees FEB � � X Town of Southold � 1 ' �" — " �vw� Town \�u | /\nn�z / U .~ 54375 Koutc25 Southold,LNY \ |97| Re: Wetlands Application mf&505 Birdseye RpmdK.K.0 Dear President Goldsmith and Members o[the Board ofTrustees: This office represents John Josephson and Cu,o|inaZan[ the owners of |5|5 Bindaeyc Road and 900 Bindacyc Road; Ponne|u Valentine and William Muiaoaoni, the owners of 1525 8irdaeyc Road and 1075 Ri,dsoye Road; lntenwo||cn Property Partners, [[C, the owner of700 0irdneye Road; and Andrew Jordan, the owner of 1105 Dirdueyc [uuc in their continued opposition to the above-referenced Application currently pending before the Trustees. It has been nearly one-year since the Trustees tabled their,cv(cvv on February 15` 2023 in order Cohire an independent environmental consultant pursuant ioTown Code 8275-7([}). It has been over eight months since the Trustees directed the Applicant, in their letter dated Muy24, 2023, io remit the $|,875.00 environmental assessment fee. U has been over six months since our office last vvroio to the Trustees requesting that the Application he denied in the face of the /lpp|iconi`a continued failure to pay the requisite hcc and to cooperate in the review of its Application. Since that time, the Applicant has noodc no attempt vvbatsoevc, to comply with the Tnuatcca` requirements. Furthermore, the /\pp|iouni is now time-barred from seeking any kind of administrative review or appeal of the T,um(ccs" determination to require an independent environmental consultant. Given that this O|o has lain dormant since our July \|, 2023 letter, it appears our clients have shown more diligence and interest in this Application than the Applicant. As such, we respectfully request that the Trustees consider this application inactive and abandoned. We further request that this Application be denied and dismissed at the next regular meeting o[the Trustees, and removed from the Trustees' roster of pending applications. Thank you for your attention. P|caoc include this letter inthe record of this matter. 8ince,o|y, Y2 P� R£TC0B}lT Freshwater Wetlands Review 1505 Birds Eye Road, Orient, NY 11957 This report is issued for 1505 Birdseye Road, Orient N.Y., by John Bredemeyer (brief bio appended), at the request of Michael A. Kimack, Esq. on behalf of Carlos Zapata & Carlos Zapata Studio. It endeavors to provide all necessary information for the Southold Town Board of Trustees to make a wetland determination. Freshwater wetland determinations are most easily performed in the presence of abundant and diverse plant indicators that exist over time as an assemblage in continuum from obligate submerged/floating vegetation to obligate shoreline emergent vegetation terminating in a mixture of obligate and facultative wetland shrubs and trees on the upland perimeter. This study examines a site containing a paucity of facultative upland wetland species (FAC), (see classification categories herein*), with the total absence of any obligate or facultative wetland species classified as: OBL or FACW, respectively. Detailed discussion of hydrology, physiography, waters, weather, vegetation and a summary follow: Hydrology, Physiography, Waters, Weather: This site exists as a foreshore, beach, bluff and upland Harbor Hills moraine deposit, with a swale running downhill from properties West and South through the subject property leading to a ponded depression which periodically fills with water to about six inches. The swale acts as a rainfall collection area from adjacent yards that consist of managed turf, shrubbery and mixed shrubby vegetation of approximately one acre. (See Appendix "A", OnX Map) Immediately East of the site, on an adjacent property, appears a man-made beach access path of earthen fill, that contains a collapsed drainpipe. Observations made onsite in January 2024, during a period of unusual rainfall of more than 150% of normal, reveal that this road and its collapsed drain acts like a dam to limit flow out of the ponded area, with limited flow through the collapsed drain. Rainfall and runoff from the swale are the sole source of water for the ponded area as groundwater is at least four feet deeper than its bottom throughout most of the year. Water levels in the ponded area are expected to remain highly variable due to natural cycles of rainfall/drought and the evapo-transpiration of resident plants during "leaf-out season". Of the numerous visits to the site, the January 2024 water levels were the deepest observed at about eight inches, whilst most observations in past summers reveal no standing water at all. It should be noted that land use activities undertaken on the swale, on properties of the neighbors, may adversely impact the swale and the quality and quantity of water retained in the ponded area without any governmental oversight. Such activities might potentially include gardening, turf management, pesticide and fertilizer applications, driveway repair or construction, shrub removal and cut and fill operations. (1) FEB 2024 i F3 ?_ Vegetation: *Standardized indicator categories used by all wetland regulatory agencies: • Obligate wetland (OBL) - Almost always occurs in wetlands under natural conditions (estimated probability > 99%). • Facultative wetland (FACW) - Usually occurs in wetlands (estimated probability 67% - 99%), but occasionally found in non-wetlands (estimated probability 1% - 33%). • Facultative (FAC) - Equally likely to occur in wetlands and non-wetlands (estimated probability 34% --- 66%) This property is largely populated by mature non-wetland tree species such as Wild Cherry, Black Locust and European Privet that exist adjacent to the ponded depression that contains several mature Red Maple, Acer rubrum, and Silver Maple, Acer saccharinum. In addition to mature upland trees, a scattering of small upland weeds and forbes exist above the "rim" of the ponded depression such as deer-browsed immature Eastern Holly, European Briar and Privet. The tree leaf canopy, in season, over the depression, is observed to be in excess of 85 percent. This supports the observation that the ponded depression periodically dries out during the "leaf out" season and summer droughts due to evapo-transpiration of plants, but remains wet during periods of heavy rainfall and longer in the winter when trees are not transpiring. The roots of the maples in the depression are sufficiently close to groundwater to provide a competitive advantage during drought conditions. The dead remains of a large number of obligate upland trees, Black Locust and Wild Cherry, are noted in various stages of decay in the depression. It remains a possibility that these trees succumbed to a lack of oxygen in their root zones from periodic flooding after the beach path was constructed. It is not likely that they succumbed to wind as the existence of the very large mature Silver Maple in the depression, a species known to be brittle, as well as the surviving very tall Black Locust and Wild Cherry above the depression, supports the notion that the Swale provides very substantial wind protection. The Red and Silver Maples onsite are classified as Facultative (FAC) as noted in the standard above. On the Eastern Coastal Plain, which includes New York, they are recognized by the USDA-NRCS and USFWS databases as FAC and not FACW (See Appendices "B&C", USDA- NRCS Plant Data Sheets) (2) Discussion: As chapter 275 of the Southold Town Code is essentially a "vegetative code", relying on the same plant lists as NYSDEC's Article 24 Freshwater Wetlands Act, any wetland determination requires an in-depth review of site vegetation in relation to onsite observations: 1) As members of the same genus, Acer; these maples are equally likely to exist in wetlands as non-wetlands at an estimated probability of 34%-66%, as noted above, and have similar cultural requirements. Both may/not have tap roots and adventitious roots; Silver Maples are noted as being brittle and subject to wind damage. Both may exist as wild escapees in domestic landscapes and or domesticated plants having reverted wild. We do not know the genetic origin of the maples onsite, whether true to a wetland biotype or not. 2) These maples onsite do not display adventitious root systems which result from flooding stress, imputing that they derive most of their sustenance through normal root expression, with tap roots likely into groundwater, a predominantly upland attribute. 3) The maples exist in a small cluster of minimal area, absent any associated emergent wetland vegetation or wetland shrubs upland or waterward of them, imputing this system is not a functional wetland. 4) The maples receive a competitive advantage from rainfall runoff down a swale that is impounded behind a man-made earthen path. The path altered the natural flow of waters to create an artificial impoundment with the limited capability of sustaining these FAC species. Silver Maple's ability to thrive in totally upland environments will be familiar to many as this species is the source of NY and Vermont maple syrup, where trees growing on hillsides are favored for gravity-based systems that harvest their tree sap. The species name saccharinum is Latin for "sweet". 5) The rain and runoff contributing areas are entirely upland and largely on the property of neighbors and subject to disturbance without oversight. This represents an insecure watershed. 6) The maples derive a competitive advantage during times of drought via their taproots into groundwater in the absence of adventitious roots, an upland trait. 7) The absence of any OBL and or FACW plants in the ponded area speaks to an insufficient water supply over time, necessary to support such definitive wetland plants, indicating a predominantly upland nature. 8) The remains of dead upland trees in the depression indicate a site that became too wet for their survival, likely as a result of the beach road construction. These do not appear to be windfalls as the swale provides very substantial wind protection. (3) FED 6 OP Summary: The removal of any one of the conditions conferring competitive advantage to the maples as described above would likely result in their death. Those conditions are predominantly non- wetland in nature. Additionally, the absence of any wetland slirttbs or emergent vegetation, as delineated in Chapter 275, anywhere onsite, indicates that it is a not a wetland. The foregoing, as well as the observed alteration of the natural flow of waters impounded behind the man-made beach path, all support a detennination that the site is beyond the jurisdiction of Chapter 275 as a tnan-made artificial system. Bredemeyer Bio: John Bredemeyer,a 35-year career employee with the Suffolk County Health Department Division of Environmental Quality-Office of Ecology (25 years) where he performed technical wetlands and estuarine research under the National Estuary Program-Peconic Bay including enumeration of harmful algal blooms, monitoring of atmospheric deposition of nutrients in rainfall as well as performing NYS-State Environmental Quality Review Act(SEQRA) reviews under the Suffolk County Sanitary Code, in addition to John's 22 years as a Southold Town Trustee administering Chapter 275-Wetlands, John headed the Southold Town Shellfish Advisory Committee. He draws on his experience with multi-agency studies and enforcement actions with: EPA, FDA, USDA-NRCS, NYSDEC and the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. John received a B.S from the NYS College of Agriculture at Cornell University with studies including Environmental and Microbial Ecology. John formerly an Adjunct Faculty Member of the Suffolk County Community College Department of Science and Mathematics assisted in the laboratory sciences, maintained salt and freshwater aquaria and raised hybrid Striped Bass. John as a volunteer, constructed a recirculating Brook Trout aquarium at Suffolk County's Peconic Dunes Camp. ` John M. Bredemeyer III February 2, 2024 (4) FEB i 202-4 O `y' v b C� rD o J � — O � S m �r N� a tis a - X r: r I"iry 1 r�rye u , s. X s e x v L a y a` ,f. u t _ r I a �� + 1• a Appendix B, USDA-NRCS Plant Fact Sheet (I of 2) Red Maple USDA - -NKS t)r-.,tA,stag,Departcreni of;,gr,cuitutv Plant Fact Sheet Idcr::rral IZe,.otrrcc`s r'ans.^vzt�on Service SILVERMAPLE are currently receiving greater attention,silver maple has been tested for this use in the Midwest. Aces•saccharinum L. Plant Symbol = ACSA2 Status Please consult the PLANTS Web site and your State Contributed bt:• USDA ArRCSNei, York.Stute Oflir•e Department of Natural Resources for this plant's current status(e.g. threatened or endangered species, state noxious status,and wetland indicator values). Description f. r .Ac•ersucchnr•inum L.,silver maple is one of the fastest growing deciduous trees of the eastern and midwestern lorests. Also called river maple,this ~: name derives from the common occurrence of the ^• species along our river systems. Silver maple shares many of its sites with red maple,but the two species are easily distinguished. Silver maple is typically a much larger tree with a much larger fruit(called a ";- samara),but the two species are the only native maples with spring seed dispersal. The leaves of silver maple are often larger and more deeply r fissured between lobes than those of red maple. Silver maple can grow 3-7 feet per year. z$ `` Adaptation and Distribution Silver maple is adapted wherever adequate moisture " is assured,but rows best on well drained but m i t a os IT:`William S.Tuauce river bottom Soils. It is rarely found at higher sm'arsNRC ritstANTS elevations in the uplands. The brittle nature of its %�rsnn�tu:s rt ANTS wood limits the longevity of the species where high winds or heavy ice accumulations are common. As a Uses pioneer species,silver maple is shade intolerant. Forest 13reff"ers:Silver maple is a natural for use in .riparian forest buffer installations due to its Silver maple is distributed throughout most of the adaptation to such sites. However it should be used eastern United States. For a current distribution map, as a relatively minor percentage of the species mix please consult the Plant Profile page for this species because of its tendency to outgrow other species and on the PLANTS Website. mature at an early age. Where silver maple is already present in nearby stands,it should not be planted as it Establishment will show up in short order anyway. This species is Silver maple is among the cosiest of trees to establish much preferred to box elder in any planting. from seed or transplants. Its rapid growth competes well with other plants,although grass and weed II' ldli%: Silver maple is not notable for its control will improve survival and allow for even attractiveness to wildlife,but as a source of fast better growth. The seed genninates rapidly,and shading,large woody debris,and litter in streams the streambanks underneath mature trees are ollen species'has few rivals. It seems to be a preferred covered with seedlings shortly atler seed dispersal in nesting species for Baltimore orioles, the late spring,especially along the waterline. The rapid growth means that seedlings are almost always Bigfuelr:The species is one of only a few that has the out-planted as 1-0 stock. growth rate for serious consideration for biofuel production. Though shrub willow and poplar hybrids Plant Marerials<hrtp:/%p Ian t-materials.nres.uscia.govf> Plant Fact Shect/Guide Coordination Page�iittp://plant-materials.arcs.itsda.gov/intranet/pfs.litml> National Plant Data Center:http:;7npde. 18da.gov> F .B /,. Appendix B, USDA-NRCS Plant Fact Sheet (2 of 2) Red Maple in New York rout the National ��!etland Plar�T Lisi Your search matched 2 records- Only accepted plants are included in this count- - Download Entire Set' � New York J Common Symbol Scientific Name Name Photos Wetland Indicator ACSA2 Aver saccharinum L. silver maple • FAC (Arid West) (12) • FAC (Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain) • FAC (Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast) • FAC (Great Plains) • FACW (Eastern Mountains and Piedmont) • FACW (Midwest) • FACW (Northcentral & Northeast) ACDA2 Acer dasycarpum Ehrh. ACSAL3 Acer saccharinum L. var. laciniatum Pax ACSAW Acer saccharinum L. var. wieri Rehder ARSA9 Argentacer saccharinum (L.) Small ACSA3 Acer saccharum Marshall sugar maple • UPL (Great Plains) (13) • FACU (Arid West) • FACU (Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain) • FACU (Eastern Mountains and Piedmont) • FACU (Midwest) • FACU (Northcentral & Northeast) • FACU (Western ( EB (3 Mountains, Valleys, and Coast) Appendix C, USDA-NRCS Plant Fact Sheet (I of 2) Silver Maple USDA WKS U0 Ullit"' NdWIM SelVice P l a n t Fact S he et RED MAPLE with your local NRCS Field Office,Cooperative Extension Service Office,Or state natural resource or Acer rubruin agriculture department regarding its status and use. Plant Symbol =ACRU Weed information is also available from the PLANTS Web site at plants.usda.gov. Contrihated hip: USDA NRCS Nevi Yol.k.State • Description Acei-rubruin L.,red maple,is a wide-ranging native tree that is very well adapted to most soil and site conditions, This species is one Of the early harbingers of fall as it turns color well in advance of other eastern deciduous trees,especially when it is located in wet sites. The fiery colors of fall are typically a brilliant red. Conversely,it is also one or the earliest flowering trees in the spring. Red maple has the smallest winged seeds(samaras)oral(native inaples,about 5/8-3/4 inches long. Also,the samaras ripen in the spring-a trait shared only with silver maple which has much larger samaras. This maple is a medium sized tree with fairly rapid growth(2-5 Willialn.s.Justice ft/yr),but not as fist as the much larger Sniithsoyiimi jnsjilulkm silver maple. growing �� NRCS RCS PLANTS Alternative Names Adaptation and Distribution swamp maple Red maple is adapted to wet sites where it associates with black ash,cottonwood,and black guru. Some Uses forested wetlands are referred to as maple swamps due to(licit-stands of red maple. However,red maple Erosion control:Red maple is available in quantity is also well adapted to well drained but moist soils of for revegetation work and landscaping. it is a valuable riparian buffer plant due most( upland sites where its companions are sugar map.le, y to it's beech,black cherry and the birches. This capability tolerance of wetter soils. makes this species a common tree in home landscapes where the fall colors can be displayed_ Red maple seeds provide food fors quirrels The range of red maple extends from Florida to the and some birds. The species is not preferred by deer Maritimes and west to Texas and Minnesota. Red its a browse source,so in heavy deer pressure this 111,IPIC is shade tolerant. species is over abundant in forest regeneration. For a current distribution map,please consult the Wood:The wood is not desirable for lumber or veneer. P Plant Profile age for this species on the PLANTS Website. Status Establishment Please consult the PLANTS Web site and your State Red maple seed is easily germinated in nature or in Department ol'Natural Resources for this plant's nurseries. The seed can be direct planted with no current status(e.g.threatened or endangered species. Pre-treatment. The seedlings have moderately fbsi state noxious status,and wetland indicator values). growth and are Usually OUtplanted as I year old or 2 Weediness year old bareroot stock. This plant may become weedy or invasive in some Management regions or habitats and may displace desirable Red maple seedlings must be protected from fire and 0 vegetation if not properly managed.Please consult livestock,and are greatly aided where weed and grass Plant Materials<Ilttp://plant-materials.nrcs.tisda.goN,/> Plant Fact Sheet/Guide Coordination Page<Ilttp://plant-iiialerials-iii-cs.tisda.lo.ov/intranct/pfs.litilli' National Plant Data Centel-<http://npdc.usda.gov> F I Z Appendix C, USDA-NRCS Plant Fact Sheet (2 of 2) Silver Maple in New York About the National W?tland Plant List Your search matched 1 records. Only accepted plants are included in this count. - Download Entire Set New —w York I Common Symbol Scientific Name fume Wetland indicator Photos ACRU Acer rtrbrurrr L. red maple FAC (Atlantic and Gulf (12) Coastal Plain) ACBA2 Acer barbatum Michx. P.P. Martha F.Reichert Associate NY BAR 631.727.2180 x305 e e lk law.comTwomey V& Latham 33 West Second St S H E A, K E L L E Y, DUBIN & Q U A R T A R A R O, LLP P.O,BOX 9398 Riverhead,NY 11901 suffolklaw corn July 11,2023 ll VIA EMAIL AND FEDERAL EXPRESS JUL 12 2023 Board of Trustees Town of Southold Town Hall Annex Southold Town 54375 Route 25 Board of Trustees Southold,NY 11971 Re: Wetlands Application of 1505 Birdseye Road LLC 1505 Birdseye Road,Orient,New York(SCTM# 1000-17-1-14) Dear President Goldsmith and Members of the Board of Trustees: This office represents John Josephson and Carolina Zapf, the owners of 1515 Birdseye Road and 900 Birdseye Road, Orient; Pamela Valentine and William Matassoni, the owners of 1525 Birdseye Road and 1675 Birdseye Road,Orient;and Interwellen Property Partners,LLC,the owner of 700 Birdseye Road, Orient, and Andrew Jordan, the owner of 1105 Birdseye Lane, Orient. It has been five months since the Trustees' tabled their review of the above-referenced Application so that an independent consultant could be retained pursuant to Town Code§275-7(D) to provide independent technical review regarding the presence of a freshwater wetland and the conflicting technical assessments by Cole Environmental and Greenman Peterson, Inc., which assessments are attached hereto. The Trustees selected J.M.O. Consulting as its consultant, and it has been nearly two months since the Trustees directed the Applicant to remit the consultant fee. As such, we respectfully request that that the Trustees order the Applicant to pay the consultant fee or face denial of its Application for failure to cooperate in the review of its Application. We thank the Trustees for their time and consideration of our comments. Please include this letter and its attachments in the record of this Application. Sincerely, Marth F. Reichert /Enclosure Cc: J.M.O. Consulting 1, 425 Montauk Highway 4, East Quogue, NY 11942 Environmental Consulting (631)369-9445 Wetland Project Management 1505 Birdseye Road Orient, NY 11957 SC:TM No.:1000-017-0100-004000 Cole Environmental Services(CES)was contacted to review the subject property,evaluate the vegetation present, and research the presence of wetlands regulated by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)and/or the Town of Southold. CES conducted site visits on August 19,2022, and September 9,2022,and November 8,2022. This report is to be used solely as a guide and is not intended to be all encompassing. While the information included in this report is based on scientific evidence, it is sourced from third parties, Please note that Cole Environmental Services makes no guarantees regarding the information detailed in this report. LOT DESCRIPTION The subject property, known as 1.505 Birdseye Road, Orient, NY, is located along the Long Island Sound, north of Gardiners Bay. The lot is approximately 1.37 acres which is approximately 59,067 square feet. The property is currently vacant. PRELIMINARY RESEARCH WETLANDS Prior to inspecting the site,CES reviewed the U.S. Fish&Wildlife Service(USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory Wetlands Mapper as well as the NYSDEC Environmental Resource Mapper. No wetlands were identified on the FWS National Wetlands Inventory maps, nor were any freshwater wetlands identified on the NYSDEC Freshwater Wetlands Inventory maps. No inland wetlands were identified on the NYSDEC Tidal Wetlands Maps, however,wetland areas identified as Littoral Zone(LZ)and Costal Shoals and Mudflats(SM)were identified on TW Map No 724- 558 along the coastal areas fronting Long Island Sound. Please see the map below. E G EI Y E C E � V E JAN - 3 2022 JUL 12 2023 Southold Town eoa�dor ,u; s Board of Trustees 425 Montauk Highway East Qungue, NY11942 Environmental Consulting (631)]69-9445 Wetland Project oNonog-enment SOILS CES Legend 0 I NF V w OECIIMWW� 0 ell LJ CE3o|soreviewedUnited3tatesDepartmentofAgricu|ture(USDA) Natura| Kesourcex[nnservadon Service Soil Survey. -------------- Soils CpE Carver and Plymouth soils 15 to 33%slopes-non- hydric MkC Montauk— _ ------------------' --'—Beaches and sand along-----------' These soils on this site are generally well drained and associated with glacial moraine coarse-loamy soils that generally do not flood. During a winter freeze, some ponding may occur in this vicinity. TOPOGRAPHY The subject property and surrounding area slope toward the southeastern portion of the subject property. This area of the property has a bermed section,which allows the neighboring property to gain access u,the shore. This berm/dirt road Is manmade, as evidenced by the presence of a clogged culvert that was observed onsite. Aerial photographs from ZOU1 show a clearly defined dirt roadway,that appears to come from a property just south, and terminates at the beach(Long Island Sound). This road isata higher point along the eastern property line, It Is likely that,while well drained,this low area is confined by the presence of the existing berm along the southeast property line. This confined bermed area may allow for temporary poncling of stormwater before the coarse soils allow for percolation. No water was observed at the site during the site visits. There is anecdotal evidence ofponding, however, the cause and length of time have not been documented, 425 Montauk Highway "' East Quogue,NY 11942 Environmental Consulting (631)369-9445 Wetland Project Management f y s a. At r+ 4 ' .i44' f 4&,�Vj Bemeed Path 2001Aerial x ER Low natural area, ' 4p, Intermltlently flooded. �l f'..•{f�ri+,. r C r.. . '�� 1315 '�°'� r�.rr"�A�~/1�: t:i�� {;rr ,ti Hl •Ed+ .} �e� f'.•�. rile f"* -t.�u Y�.7W !�'1?�', ilk"� �i�}k i��T � - �'ti�' 4 •.�^�f� �' r +r�i�ri�'� Y$�.� t �}�,�4��► �+�4'+��f�..;� r�; �ntr-�~s s+5 .�►ic� 1505 BIRD5EYE Rl)AD CREATED BY ORIENT,NY 11957 y.' COLE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES SCTM NO.:1000-01700-010"04000 10.13.22 2001 TOPOGRAPHIC AERIAL www.ColeEnvironmental5ervices.cam C EJ W E JUL 12 2023 Southold Town Board of Trustees f 425 Montauk Highway t East Quogue, NY 11942 Environmental Consulting (631)369-9445 Wetland Project Management ON-SITE FINDINGS When identifying vernal pools,there are key characteristics to consider. As the New York Natural Heritage Program (NYNHP)vernal pool guide notes,"vernal pools are intermittently to ephemerally ponded,small, shallow depressions"and"typically occupy a confined basin (i.e.,a standing waterbody without a flowing outlet)". While dry during the summer,they are typically flooded during the fall. CES visited the subject property on August 19(summer),September 9 (late summer), and November 8, (fall). While the slopes of the area direct storm water to the low-lying area in the southeastern section of the subject property, pooling water was not observed during any visit. Stormwater does not appear to be present for prolonged periods of time due to the permeability of the existing sandy and coarse substrate. This is supported by the lack of substantial tannin staining on the existing trees. Furthermore,a culvert,although currently blocked,was observed along the eastern property line. When functioning,the culvert would act as a flowing outlet. Vernal pools are also characteristically"surrounded by upland forest with trees that overhang the pool, providing a continuous leaf litter substrate,"which covers hydric soils. CES observed a lack of buildup of organic matter in the area in question. As previously mentioned,the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey documented non-hydric soils in the area. Additionallyr A test hole done in 2012 shows at the lowest point groundwater Is 4' below the surface,therefore,the low-lying area does not have hydrologic connection to groundwater. The coarse,non-hydric Carver Plymouth soils, and the high permeability of existing soils all allow for the water to percolate into the ground relatively quickly. Using these identifying characteristics,the low- lying area in the southeastern section of the property cannot be classified as a vernal pool. EXfSTING PLANT SPECIES ON SITE Silver Maple-Acer saccharinum Red Maple(Acer rubrum) Black Cherry(Prunus serotina) Multi-flora rose (Rosa multiflora*) Privet—(Ligustrum spp.*) Black Raspberry(Rubus occidentalis) Oriental Bittersweet(Celastrus orbiculatus*) Black Locust(Robinia pseudoacocia) Eo �r Poison Ivy(Toxicodendron radicans) Virginia Creeper(Parthenocissus quinquefolia) Goldenrod(Solidago spp.) JUL 1 2023 Pokeweed(Phytolacca americans) Mile-A-Minute (Persicaria perfoliate*) Southold Town Board of Trustees www.ColeEnvironmentalServices.com 425 Montauk Highway t _�� East Quogue, NY 11942 Environmental Consulting (631)369-9445 Wetland Project Management RECOMMENDATIONS Cole Environmental Services reviewed the initial site plan with the property owner and agent. CES's recommendation are reflected in the updated site plan. Native,non-fertilizer depended vegetation should be used on site to the maximum extent possible. Deep-rooted native vegetation should be planted specifically for areas fronting the bluff. The low-lying area should be preserved and protected by enhancing the surrounding buffer with native vegetation. Additionally,a significant number of invasive species were observed on-site. CES recommends the rernoval of the existing invasive species along with revegetation with native vegetation. D L'1 J U L 12 2023 Southold Town Board of Trustees www.ColeEnvironmenta]Services.com y ti 425 Montauk Highway - -- East Quogue, NY 11942 Environmental Consulting (631)369-9445 Wetland Project Management N Oo scuas REF;01 R-Jo-is-uo6z r mno-»-n.-oa .. .4CALh} Y— AO' K �. � •' "'ti'yW'G XOT ZeNF 45 fYAGCFi 1.'� �,5•�� A •.h..•PKUfNGY.N,iP'nN].cU.i]ii. --_ O is..Jvui luN.n>t•:l Y. ' �� d=^��c]u+'!tw sr�`r�a[ ra+�u•..w)...va':•v H. +1[JWp w+'4.'[ws ..n.•irn., f..JJ• ,K�k I"'..�V.h rr.•s w '-F •. u nV.G na]Lc lN,tl•q-"!U Jn" Qe.un•..I.n.G II.cY.J�JJ N]bv]Ek SO�..�R+A•ri.'.I/r.r yy {. OGSIId CiAY`NFL!'�i�•'r l�l.',I.C�,_. rY:tATJ�'S.Irt CL+NJ't:le5:N E.5'2uN IG:[^rt J 77, J i ! s.fs'�. rta' rl ..•. ..• 1 $fffi�„71!'IP-[7i1A1Y4[Vj �•`�yf�.� 's�mgp,1�. t,Y.�!i �, y� � .._. .. 40)'(:�'i4•, ,Iu.]6 4I]]!J)]I. _J is urr r• per, !� FY .� � ��!-+''�1 t� 1 rp.E '�'_ -1 ..__. .r LOT COvMACE i. aGa[.re.r nx:Ywa:xEE+=ln� UialY rv]„tWLr 1 w4.w•-.. rE]'e W!-altiFfi.1r'rik Y.aa.En.y'�r.115!f N 1 J"�X'' eCZ. i WW .wr E= 111u u.tteYJdC•iWal . rav t--`']I w. r c K'I[J'i 'fir z r 1 II'� ...]..•w . _...._...._:F...�_._.�._..... ul..u,....... ........�,r�,Y.r.,r�a..�...r.�._..__. ._,_ ..,Y,<:�•:..,r.-.._....��_....�......_...----..tir.,TM. .. .,, s� CES REVEGETATION/RESTORATION PLAN E V E www.ColeEnvironmentalServices.com J U L 22 2023 Southold Town Board of Trustees � I r 1`•� �f� `=: �� ''�fi]i +'.FJr ~�1y rr�� I 1 .' tl �t.s��tg;v vp+' ��' ' r�' 1I� �V[:r..s :i j'Y:_•�7��+"�a^{{{r � ## r L I ! `F� iJ+e'}r.�r��r;'1.�I�,��.y4 �I. ! r A p•� yr \,t SI'y }..E,. ri. ,'� L��r I��ur'�Y'rf'�L�r} . { t a4�.,,1F rr. "�a` .1, � ,['! i• rr r4��✓+f�� .'�' a'rY}'�'y, • 1"r S �1°' ' ; :i Fya�l �+ �r-'�,d•r� 1�- ' I 1r �; '�" VP J 1aj �� 1lha Sys}' r.•tea_,Vi lw.f' � '� I ' ' L. �!i� :r r?€ +fir �• r�4t t>r`�-0..f��F o 1. ; K r L • ,Sri ' �` ' . a < !M C y-t 1 r r • i i '`�'+,_ ""+ .'a•y r �, r'rr;a !.'_'y •L J a rF Y.tiNi i t 9 a L�q.frr �f�'r�' �. �1L. aL'. ry .J •'.r�'��'�v._� t L".y'1'! '� iS ,r.'. tal i t7—r { 1' 4�� t i ra•.R a.K 1 if • ; + �•1 r r '�y-��' da +I �r� r :� r V 'Y� r.3•Y '�{r�atr�,r '� �.. ', ��il I i•' £; �r x •� r , yy� '�*`i �� 1 It,i°s 4�i1 �ti r'R.•". � '.,.. •'r '� j'' r+'1 ��# rYr.i Y' �;°��rs 4'��r' •`0 4r {�� i j S r ' i i. i ' •.I• _ �r•'k•7y � .�i ` !., +r LH• i f�.r .y '� � s.i r ��fa' •t �r r 1 � .. !.. t s t rd} 1 a4 _ r t rrr.• r r Y. r� L Y:•��'+� �} �� ]r s �'�x.4 1' •. CL � S �fri _�'!{ysaE+' _ f . �+ : eY� >('�• rJf.1 C'a � i '� ..a 1 '� .�f 7r ! i1r �t � '.i. , !�r�k E C E I V E FebruaryGPI Engineering Design I Planning I Construction Management Wetland Delineation Report 1 1515 Birdseye Road Delineation Report • Orient, NY OWNER: John Josephson 1515 Birdseye Road, Southold, NY 11971 es On I la 11 ''NIA t c y S r • `te a • r 1 k`}si Atli U,a7'-s fp'i rt f t. Southold Town Board of Trustees WARNING: Alteration of this material in any way, unless under the direction of a comparable professional, i.e. Professional Engineer, is a violation of the New York State Education Law and/or Regulations and a Class 'A' misdemeanor. 1515 Birdseye Road Delineation Report I Southold, New York Table of Contents Ta b I. e o f C o n t e n t s ..........................................................2 1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................3 2.0 Project Description ............................ ............................................................3 3.0 Methodology................................................................................................3 4.0 Site Description ............................................................................................4 5.0 Wetlands Finding ..........................................................................................4 6.0 Summary and Conclusions ................................................................................5 Appendices.......................................... . .........................................................7 PhotoLog................................................ .......................... --.............._.............8 �D ' E J U L 1 2 2023 Southold Town Board of Trustees Wetland Delineation Report February 14th, 2023 page 1 2 C � � � � 1515 Birdseye Road Delineation Report Southold, New York 1 JUL 12 2023 1 .0 Introduction UD thold Town 7; d of T-ustees GPI has been retained to investigate the property owned by Mr. John Josephson at 1515 Birdseye Road in the Town of Southhold (Hamlet of Orient) NY, for the presence of wetlands and water resources. This investigation is in response to a previous site review and assessment of an adjacent property at 1505 Birdseye Road conducted by Cole Environmental Services (CES) of East Quogue, NY. While this report was undated, it was received by the Southold Board of Trustees on January 2nd, 2022. The report prepared by CES concerning the parcel adjacent to Mr. Josephson's was unclear regarding site conditions, plant communities, and wetland occurrence on-site. Although access is not granted to the 1505 parcel for a follow-up investigation to clarify site details, GPI environmental staff visited the adjacent 1515 Josephson property on February 9th, 2023. This visit was intended to assess environmental conditions, topographical settings, and wetland and water resource presence (or absence), and to use this information to project conditions existing on the adjacent 1515 property. 2.0 Project Description Wetland and waterways desktop and field assessments and a resulting field delineation were conducted in support of the landowner needs to identify and characterize the surface water resources and features within the project property. The purpose of this report is to document the findings regarding existing wetlands and their field conditions and characteristics and to describe the methods used to determine any wetlands on-site. This report should provide the resource documentation necessary for site planning and development and any coordination with regulatory agencies such as the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) or the US Army Corps of Engineers (COE) to make Jurisdictional Determinations (JD) and develop project specific requirements and potential permits for the any future utilization of the site. Likewise, the field work and reporting will aid in understanding conditions and resources on adjacent properties that may not have been fully characterized. 3.0 Methodology Prior to an on-site field visit, a desktop analysis using GIS data and on-line resources to identify any mapped federal or state wetlands was conducted to screen for land and water features before actual field work and delineations were undertaken. Aerial photography and various other GIS layers, soil surveys, quadrangle maps, and the NYSDEC Environmental Viewer and National Wetlands Inventory mapper were reviewed to assess potential field conditions and to refine the delineation process. Once sufficient background information was gathered, GPI environmental staff conducted a formal site visit. An initial walk over of the site was performed to gain an understanding of the lay of the land and to determine the general status of any water and wetland features found throughout the property. Extensive field inspections were conducted where wetland parameters appeared to exist. Any wetland features encountered were thoroughly reviewed using the methodology outlined in the 1987 Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and the 2012 Northeast US Regional Supplement. This method incorporates the three-parameter 8ppreac$v1i(f ydrop-hytict vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology), and is sufficin ne 9KYn��t��WAland/upland interface. The Routine Method p a g e il__3■■ 1515 Birdseye Road Delineation Report I Southold, New York was employed. Data plots were established in varying wetland habitats to document conditions and existence of the wetland delineation parameters. Data was recorded on data sheets summarizing these observations. Representative data sheets (and photos) are included in the Appendix. Soil test holes were excavated with a sharp-shooter spade throughout the site as necessary to aid in pinpointing the wetland-upland interface. Munsell Soil Chart readings were recorded to document upland and wetland soils. After analyzing vegetation, soils, and hydrology, the delineation process resulted in placing sequentially numbered colored flagging along the wetland/upland boundary. These flag points were subsequently picked up by a submeter accurate GPS unit. These flag features and other site features were used to create a site delineation map (see appendices). 4.0 Site Description The 1.269-acre parcel at 1515 Birdseye Road, sits on Terry Point just north of Route 25 (Main Road) in the Hamlet of Orient, NY. The property (Tax #1000-17-2-1.11) runs south from the Long Island Sound at sea level up and over a bluff to a high point of approximately 50 feet at the southern border of the parcel. At nearly the halfway point of the property, the land dips into a low swale at an elevation of approximately 10 feet above sea level. This swale and its accompanying wetland and drainage channel are described further in Section 5.0 — Wetland Findings. The land within the parcel is mostly shrub/scrub, often an impenetrable mix of Japanese Honeysuckle, Oriental Bittersweet, and Multi-floral Rose. A variety of hardwoods such as Black Cherry, Sweet Cherry, Black Locust, and Staghorn Sumac support these trailing vines. A dirt surface footpath traverses the land from south to north and provides access to the sound shore, where a cobble beach is found. Based on a review of the Natural Resource Conservation Service Web Soil Survey, the predominate soil types on site are Montauk Loam (MkC) and Carver and Plymouth soils (CpE). MkE is a course sandy loam formed on moraines and hills and is a well-drained non-hydric soil. CpE is also found on moraines and outwash plains and is mostly sand with an upper layer of decomposed organic matter. It is a well- drained non-hydric soil. There are signs of human activities occurring on the site. The dirt footpath appears to have been somewhat elevated artificially, and in the low-lying swale area, two separate drainage pipes have been installed to accommodate runoff and waterflow. A traverse of the upper bluff area was not undertaken as there was no way through the mass of vines and brush. It is unknown if there are any other man- made features in this area, and due to the elevation and landscape position of the bluff area, it is assumed that no wetlands occurred here. 5.0 Wetlands Finding Prior to conducting the field visit and on the ground delineation, a desktop screening for wetland presence or absence was conducted. A review of the on-line National Wetland Inventory wetland maps and the DEC Environmental Mapper indicated that no wetlands had been mapped in the subject parcel vicinity. However, it is not unusual for wetlands to occur in the landscape where they are not shown on NYSDEC and Federal resource maps. In nearly all situations, an on the ground formal field delineation Wetland Delineation Report v E February 141h, 2023 GPI J U L 12 2023 page l 4 Southold Town Board of Trustees 1515 Birdseye Road Delineation Report I Southold, New York is necessary to determine wetland absence/presence. This is certainly the case at this property. Aerial photography and contour map interpretation indicated that a drainage swale and drainage channel may flow through and off the site from west to east. This was shown by a dark line and vegetation community of likely Phragmites occurring just to the east of the driveway. With this background information in mind, finding wetlands on the parcel was anticipated. GPI Environmental staff were able to identify one wetland polygon within the low-lying swale previously discussed. The overall wetland polygon shape can be seen on the wetland delineation map in the Appendices. Based on soil test pits, vegetation sampling, and general analysis of overall site conditions, flagging was placed along the boundaries of the polygon and named Wetland A. The wetland flagging originates at a small pipe that drains under the driveway adjacent to the property. This emergent wetland area is identified as the Lower Wetland. This wetland runs up-drainage through a small pipe and under an artificially filled upland area and emerges as a small open drainage channel. This drainage channel is taking in runoff waters through a second pipe that allows flow under the previously describe raised dirt path. The origin of any water draining down through this swale system is a larger ponded depression that can be described as a vernal pool. This forested wetland, identified as the Upper Wetland, is also characteristic of a vernal pool — with standing water in a leaf-filled depression in a wooded setting. Importantly, this forested wetland continues off the western edge of the Josephson property and on to the adjacent 1505 parcel. Since access has not been granted to this site, the estimated boundary has been shown on the wetland delineation map in the Appendices. The most common species within the Lower Wetland were Joe Pye Weed, Willow Herb, Tearthumb, and Soft Rush. The upper Wetland had only Red Maple and Silver Maple present within the standing water. A site visit during the growing season would likely add to the herbaceous species list, however, there was sufficient winter plant remnants to identify necessary dominant species, and an abundance of woody plant material a well. Based on the Munsell Soil Chart, soil pit tests indicated 10 YR 2/1 and 7.5 YR 2.5/1 mucky sand soils with no mottling present. These hydric soils have formed in the microtopography of the depressional setting contrary to the NRCS mapping indicating non-hydric soils present. Data sheets within the Appendices contain full details of plants, soils and hydrology found. 6.0 Summary and Conclusions The wetland area on-site was determined to be wetland by a dominance of wetland vegetation, signs of wetland hydrology, and hydric soil readings. The resulting wetland boundary line was surveyed using sub-meter accuracy GPS technology and is depicted on the attached site map. Although this delineation occurred in the winter, conditions were optimal with no snow cover, sufficient woody plant material present, and data soil holes were easily excavated. The wetland found contained two distinct habitat types of emergent marsh and forested wetlands, with a potential vernal pool present I the forested wetland. This forested wetland continued off-site and on the adjacent property at 1505 Birdseye Road. It is believed that these findings are a true accounting of the wetland and waterway L� V Wetland Delineation Report GPI C E February 14th, 2023 JUL 12 2023 page 1 5 Southold Town Board of Trustees. 1515 Birdseye Road Delineation Report Southold, New York resources found in the project corridor, however, conditions change over seasons and time, and variations in boundaries may occur. JUL 1 2 2023 Southold Town Board of Trustees Wetland Delineation Report February 141h, 2023 page 1 6 1515 Birdseye Road Delineation Report Southold, New York Appendices ' 'D Elm C � � � I JUL 1 2 2023 IsOut+1,olc1 Ta',r� Board of Trustees Wetland Delineation Report February 14th, 2023 GPI page 1 7 1515 Birdseye Road - General Location 11—ap""I Town of Southold, • • Suffolk County, M1 ---- ---- --- ----- tea► -- .«----•- -°- c7 2 C Orient Point ' z r— County Park �n O1 ry Biowns Hills l ° (D O r' 33 m - �. r' _ F � y r'fl 'Seebay / I ' A t i 1- _ Lang,Bch _ Bay"7idell= ,r Little Nao ea c. Dam Pflnd,;;" ° J ' Orient Beach !Pebble,Beach iaffTl� East,��J-f . !i ' Marion �V/INI _ • Fr' NY 25J t' G �l reenport, rP— _ VY25~� �` ~ rr/ -{rr it p, _•_ `.----__-__---_-_. -' Legend Site Location Miles 1 1 - 1515 Birdseye Road - Site Location Plan `' ��: _ Town of Southold, Suffolk County, NY STATE'OF NEWYORI< BARBW W g D O':v REC PIBLETRL35T - 90 ON a� S055 MR E. LAWECCHIA ff R JLLr��.. � EPHSQM r.; :71LOR£ `.. •+1 - �¢a4 nr ANDERSON 41. } �T tea' }ORGAN . c Legend Subject Parcel Feet LJ aS, M e Meters ° �° Approximate Parcel Boundary _ ��" S , , ° °.� bfporcDacc: ' pNYfG�3p�.iry�7.xa.�ehfrrTl�rtnaae� 7/14/2023 5 15 Birdseye Road -Wetland Delineation Map •„� �v ��r�r,�v, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, NY »' ' s M T MI �Y • + F 109 �' � �` k: ♦ s alfj 71t 41 qo E. V Y1h h /� to a C_CWIA Lower Wetland - - �ji w �• INTERWELL'EN . PROPERTY - '+► f.f; i PARTNERS LLC Open Drainage Channel 1 �• !% 1505BBIRUSEYE , t- JOSEPHSON +' " ' R?ADLLG � r � • Upper Wetland t + w! t mated Con(i6a6b& r' I = • V c r 1 21 r;: �'!JJ`�erWetEarrd_ utidar';`�_'» . r 1 ie wt Legend Wetland Boundary Dirt Path Centerline Estimated Continuation of Upper Wetland Boundary Delineation Flag Point 0 is 30 60Feet Underground Pipe 0 Approximate Parcel Boundary �, w E Meters 5 - Produced for Planning P8p.ses Only.Doi.0.0ded6 P — = Estimated Drainage Channel Centerline s ort Date: 6y NYS q5 Ckannghoiue&Other Third Parrs. 211412023 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM—Northcentral and Northeast Region Project/Site: 1515 Birdseye Road City/County: Southold/Suffolk Sampling Date: 02/09/23 Applicant/Owner: J.Josephson State: NY Sampling Point: A-Lower-UP Investigator(s): K.Weiskotten Section,Township,Range:Orient,NY Landform(hillside,terrace,etc.): Moraines and Outwash Plains Local relief(concave,convex,none): Convex Slope%: 5 Subregion(LRR or MLRA): LRR S,MLRA 149B Lat: 41°,08',49.50"N Long: 72°,18',44.20"W Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Carver and Plymouth NWI classification: None Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation N Soil N or Hydrology N significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes X No Are Vegetation N Soil N or Hydrology N naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS—Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transects, important features,etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No X Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X within a Wetland? Yes No_X Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X If yes,optional Wetland Site ID: Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators minimum of two re uired Prima Indicators minimum of one is required:check all that apply) _Surface Soil Cracks(136) _Surface Water(A1) —Water-Stained Leaves(139) _Drainage Patterns(B10) _High Water Table(A2) _Aquatic Fauna(613) _Moss Trim Lines(B16) _Saturation(A3) _Marl Deposits(B15) _Dry-Season Water Table(C2) —Water Marks(61) —Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(C1) _Crayfish Burrows(C8) _Sediment Deposits(132) _Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) _Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) _Drift Deposits(B3) _Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) _Algal Mat or Crust(134) —Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) _Geomorphic Position(D2) _Iron Deposits(135) _Thin Muck Surface(C7) _Shallow Aquitard(D3) _Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7)_Other(Explain in Remarks) _Microtopographic Relief(D4) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth(inches): Water Table Present? Yes No X Depth(inches): Saturation Present? Yes No X Depth(inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks: C E W E f J U L 1 2 2023 Southold Town T-P i c t op en US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region—Version 2.0 VEGETATION—Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: A-Lower-UP Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30, ) %Cover Species? Status Dominance Test worksheet: 1. Number of Dominant Species 2. That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 1 (A) 3. Total Number of Dominant 4. Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) 5• Percent of Dominant Species g, That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 25.0% (A/B) 7. Prevalence Index worksheet: =Total Cover Total%Cover of: Multiply by: Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15' ) OBL species x 1 = 1 FACW species x 2= 2_ FAC species x 3= 3. FACU species x 4= 4_ UPL species x 5= 5. Column Totals: (A) (B) g. Prevalence Index =B/A= 7. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: =Total Cover 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' ) 2-Dominance Test is>50% 1. Solidago altissima 20 Yes FACU _3-Prevalence Index is 53.01 2. Alllaria petiolala 15 Yes FACU 4-Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting 3. Persicaria arifolia 10 No OBL data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 4. Phytolacca americana 10 No FACU Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) 5 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must g. be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 7. Definitions of Vegetation Strata: 8. Tree—Woody plants 3 in.(7.6 cm)or more in g. diameter at breast height(DBH),regardless of height. 10. Sapling/shrub—Woody plants less than 3 in.DBH 11. and greater than or equal to 3.28 It(1 m)tall. 12. Herb—All herbaceous(non-woody)plants,regardless 55 =Total Cover of size,and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. VVoody Vine_Stratum (Plot size: 15' ) Woody vines—All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in 1. Lonicera japonica 20 Yes FACU height. 2. Vitis riparia 10 Yes FAC Hydrophytic 3. Vegetation 4. Present? Yes No 30 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) r� f] I Y E C V J U L 1 P 2023 Southt� Tn+r,rr Board of Tru ]s US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region—Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point A-Lower-UP Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Loe Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 312 100 Sandy Cobbly 'Type: C=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Linina,M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': Histosol(Al) Polyvalue Below Surface(S8)(LRR R, _2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR K,L,MLRA 149B) _Histic Epipedon(A2) MLRA 1496) _Coast Prairie Redox(A16)(LRR K,L,R) _Black Histic(A3) _Thin Dark Surface(S9)(LRR R,MLRA 149B) _5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat(S3)(LRR K,L,R) _Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) _High Chroma Sands(S11)(LRR K,L) _Polyvalue Below Surface(S8)(LRR K,L) _Stratified Layers(A5) _Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(LRR K,L) _Thin Dark Surface(S9)(LRR K,L) Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) —Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) _Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR K,L,R) _Thick Dark Surface(Al2) _Depleted Matrix(F3) _Piedmont Floodplain Soils(F19)(MLRA 149B) Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) Redox Dark Surface(F6) Mesic Spodic(TA6)(MLRA 144A,145,149B) !_Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) _Depleted Dark Surface(F7) _Red Parent Material(F21) _Sandy Redox(S5) _Redox Depressions(F8) _Very Shallow Dark Surface(F22) _Stripped Matrix(S6) _Marl(F10)(LRR K,L) Other(Explain in Remarks) Dark Surface(S7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present,unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if observed): Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Remarks: This data form is revised from Northcentral and Northeast Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric Soils, Version 7.0,2015 Errata.(hftp://www.nres.usda.gov/lnternet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nresl42p2_051293.docx) No soil test pit possible due to solid substrate of cobble and dredge material. C JUL 1 2 2023 LSouthold Town Board of Trustees US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region—Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM—Northcentral and Northeast Region Project/Site: 1515 Birdseye Road City/County: Southold/Suffolk Sampling Date: 02/09/23 Applicant/Owner: J.Josephson State: NY Sampling Point: A-Lower-WET Investigator(s): K.Weiskotten Section,Township,Range:Orient,NY Landform(hillside,terrace,etc.): Moraines and Outwash Plains Local relief(concave,convex,none): Convex Slope%: o Subregion(LRR or MLRA): LRR S,MLRA 149B Lat: 41°,08',49.50"N Long: 72°,18',44.20"W Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Carver and Plymouth NWI classification: PEM Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation N Soil N or Hydrology N significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes X No Are Vegetation N Soil N or Hydrology N naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS—Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transects,important features,etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes X No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No If yes,optional Wetland Site ID Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary indicators fminimum of two uired Primary Indicators(minimum of one is reauired:check all that apply) _Surface Soil Cracks(136) X Surface Water(Al) X Water-Stained Leaves(139) X Drainage Patterns(1310) —High Water Table(A2) _Aquatic Fauna(1313) _Moss Trim Lines(1316) X Saturation(A3) —Marl Deposits(615) _Dry-Season Water Table(C2) —Water Marks(61) —Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(C1) —Crayfish Burrows(C8) _Sediment Deposits(132) _Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) _Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) _Drift Deposits(B3) —Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) _Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) _Algal Mat or Crust(134) —Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) _Geomorphic Position(D2) —Iron Deposits(135) _Thin Muck Surface(C7) _Shallow Aquitard(D3) _Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7)_Other(Explain in Remarks) _Microtopographic Relief(D4) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(138) X FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes X No Depth(inches): 2 Water Table Present? Yes No X Depth(inches): Saturation Present? Yes X No Depth(inches): 2 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks: D E C E ' D J i J U L 1 2 2023 Southold Town Board of Trustees US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region—Version 2.0 VEGETATION-Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: A-Lower-WET Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) %Cover Species? Status Dominance Test worksheet: 1. Number of Dominant Species 2. That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC 3 (A) 3. Total Number of Dominant 4, Species Across All Strata: 5 (B) 5. Percent of Dominant Species 6, That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 60.0% (A/B) 7, Prevalence Index worksheet: =Total Cover Total%Cover of: Multiply by: SpOinolShrub Stratum (Plot size: 15, ) OBL species x 1 = - 1. FACW species x 2= 2_ FAC species x 3= 3. FACU species x 4= 4. UPL species x 5= 5. Column Totals: (A) (B) 6. Prevalence Index =B/A= 7_ Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: =Total Cover 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' ) X 2-Dominance Test is>50% 1. Epilobium coloratum 20 Yes OBL _3-Prevalence Index is:53.01 2. Eutrochium dubium 20 Yes FACW 4-Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting 3. Juncus effusus 15 No OBL data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 4. Persicaria arifolia 30 Yes OBL Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) 5. Solidago altissima 5 No FACU 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 6. be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 7. Definitions of Vegetation Strata: 8. Tree-Woody plants 3 in.(7.6 cm)or more in 9. diameter at breast height(DBH),regardless of height. 10. Sapling/shrub-Woody plants less than 3 in.DBH 11. and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft(1 m)tall. 12. Herb-AII herbaceous(non-woody)plants,regardless 90 =Total Cover of size,and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15' ) Woody vines-All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in 1. Lonicera japonica 5 Yes FACU height. 2. Rosa multiflora 5 Yes FACU Hydrophytic 3. Vegetation 4, Present? Yes X No 10 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) E C E J U L 1 2 2023 Roard of Trustees US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral-annc N6(thWaatt-ReVon--=Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point A-Lower-WET Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Loc Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 2/1 100 Mucky Sand 'Type: C=Concentration,D=Depfetion,RM=Reduced hlavix_MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': _Histosol(Al) _Polyvalue Below Surface(S8)(LRR R, 2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR K,L,MLRA 149B) Histic Epipedon(A2) MLRA 149B) _Coast Prairie Redox(A16)(LRR K,L,R) _Black Histic(A3) _Thin Dark Surface(S9)(LRR R,MLRA 149B) _5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat(S3)(LRR K,L,R) _Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) _High Chroma Sands(S11)(LRR K,L) _Polyvalue Below Surface(S8)(LRR K,L) _Stratified Layers(A5) _Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(LRR K,L) _Thin Dark Surface(S9)(LRR K,L) _Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) _Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) _Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR K,L,R) _Thick Dark Surface(Al 2) _Depleted Matrix(F3) _Piedmont Floodplain Soils(F19)(MLRA 149B) X Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) _Redox Dark Surface(F6) _Mesic Spodic(TA6)(MLRA 144A,145,149B) _Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) _Depleted Dark Surface(F7) _Red Parent Material(F21) _Sandy Redox(S5) _Redox Depressions(F8) _Very Shallow Dark Surface(F22) _Stripped Matrix(S6) _Marl(F10)(LRR K,L) _Other(Explain in Remarks) ? Dark Surface(S7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present,unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if observed): Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Remarks: This data form is revised from Northcentral and Northeast Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric Soils, Version 7.0,2015 Errata.(hftp://www.nres.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nres142p2_051293.docx) No soil test pit possible due to solid substrate of cobble and dredge material. D C E J U L 1 2 2023 ]VD Southold Town Board of Trustees US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region—Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM—Northcentral and Northeast Region Project/Site: 1515 Birdseye Road City/County: Southold/Suffolk Sampling Date: 02/09/23 Applicant/Owner: J.Josephson State: NY Sampling Point: A-Upper-UP Investigator(s): K.Weiskotten Section,Township,Range: Orient,NY Landform(hillside,terrace,etc.): Moraines and Outwash Plains Local relief(concave,convex,none): Convex Slope%: 0 Subregion(LRR or MLRA): LRR S.MLRA 149E Lat: 41°,08',49.50"N Long 72°,18',44.20"W Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Carver and Plymouth NWI classification: None Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation N Soil N or Hydrology N significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances'present? Yes X No Are Vegetation N Soil N or Hydrology N naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS—Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transects, important features,etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No X Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X within a Wetland? Yes No X Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X If yes,optional Wetland Site ID: Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators iminimum of two required} Prima Indicators minimum of one is re uired•check all that a Iv _Surface Soil Cracks(66) _Surface Water(Al) —Water-Stained Leaves(139) _Drainage Patterns(1310) —High Water Table(A2) _Aquatic Fauna(1313) _Moss Trim Lines(B16) —Saturation(A3) —Mad Deposits(B15) _Dry-Season Water Table(C2) _Water Marks(B1) _Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) _Crayfish Burrows(C8) _Sediment Deposits(132) _Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) _Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) _Drift Deposits(63) —Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) _Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) _Algal Mat or Crust(134) _Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) _Geomorphic Position(D2) _Iron Deposits(135) _Thin Muck Surface(C7) _Shallow Aquitard(D3) _Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7)_Other(Explain in Remarks) _Microtopographic Relief(D4) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(138) FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth(inches): Water Table Present? Yes No X Depth(inches): Saturation Present? Yes No X Depth(inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks: n E C E V f J U L 12 2023 Southold Town Board of Trt,lstees US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region—Version 2.0 VEGETATION—Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: A-upper-UP Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) %Cover Species? Status Dominance Test worksheet: 1. Acer platanoides 10 Yes UPL Number of Dominant Species 2. Prunus serotina 10 Yes FACU That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 0 (A) 3. Prunus avium 20 Yes FACU Total Number of Dominant 4. Rhus typhina 10 Yes UPL Species Across All Strata: 11 (B) 5- Percent of Dominant Species 6. That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 0.0% (A/B) 7, Prevalence Index worksheet: 50 =Total Cover Total%Cover of: Multipiy by: Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15' ) OBL species x 1 = 1. Lonicera japonica 20 Yes FACU FACW species x 2= 2. Elaeagnus angustifolia 10 Yes FACU FAC species x 3= 3. Ligustrum obtusifolium 10 Yes FACU FACU species x 4= 4. UPL species x 5= 5, Column Totals: (A) (B) 6. Prevalence Index =B/A= 7, Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 40 =Total Cover 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' ) 2-Dominance Test is>50% 1. Alliaria petiolata 10 Yes FACU _3-Prevalence Index is 53.01 2 4-Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting 3 data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 4. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) 5. 'indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 6, be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 7. Definitions of Vegetation Strata: 8. Tree—Woody plants 3 in.(7.6 cm)or more in g, diameter at breast height(DBH),regardless of height. 10. Sapling/shrub—Woody plants less than 3 in.DBH 11. and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft(1 m)tall. 12. Herb—All herbaceous(non-woody)plants,regardless 10 =Total Cover of size,and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. Woody,Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15' ) Woody vines—All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in 1. Celastrus orbiculatus 25 Yes UPL height. 2. Rosa multiflora 10 Yes FACU Hydrophytic 3. Rubus phoenicolasius 10 Yes FACU Vegetation 4_ Present? Yes No X 45 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) p CEO %flE J U L 1 2 2023 o sown US Army Corps of Engineers rthesn 1 -11 rsio 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point A-Upper-UP Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Locz Texture Remarks 0-16 5YR 3/3 100 Loamy/Clayey 16-20 10YR 4/4 100 Sandy 'Type: C=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix.MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': Histosol(Al) _Polyvalue Below Surface(S8)(LRR R, 2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR K,L,MLRA 1496) _Histic Epipedon(A2) MLRA 1496) _Coast Prairie Redox(A16)(LRR K,L,R) _Black Histic(A3) _Thin Dark Surface(S9)(LRR R,MLRA 14913) _5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat(S3)(LRR K,L,R) _Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) _High Chroma Sands(S11)(LRR K,L) _Polyvalue Below Surface(S8)(LRR K,L) _Stratified Layers(A5) _Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(LRR K,L) _Thin Dark Surface(S9)(LRR K,L) _Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) _Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) _Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR K,L,R) _Thick Dark Surface(Al2) _Depleted Matrix(F3) _Piedmont Floodplain Soils(F19)(MLRA 149B) —Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) Redox Dark Surface(F6) Mesic Spodic(TA6)(MLRA 144A,145,149B) _Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) _Depleted Dark Surface(F7) _Red Parent Material(F21) —Sandy Redox(S5) _Redox Depressions(F8) —Very Shallow Dark Surface(F22) _Stripped Matrix(S6) Marl(F10)(LRR K,L) —Other(Explain in Remarks) Dark Surface(S7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present,unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if observed): Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Remarks: This data form is revised from Northcentral and Northeast Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric Soils, Version 7.0,2015 Errata.(hftp://www.nres.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nres142p2_051293.docx) No soil test pit possible due to solid substrate of cobble and dredge material. i J U L 1 2 2023 Southold Town Board of Trustees US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region—Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM—Northcentral and Northeast Region Project/Site: 1515 Birdseyt;Road City/County: Southold/Suffolk Sampling Date: 02/09/23 Applicant/Owner: J.Josephson Investigator(s): K.Weiskotten State: NY Sampling Point: A.Upper-WET Section,Township,Range:Orient,NY Landform(hillside,terrace,etc.): Moraines and Outwash Plains Local relief(concave,convex,none):Convex Slope%: o Subregion(LRR or MLRA): LRR S,MLRA 149B Lat: 41°,08',49.50"N Long: 72°,18',44.20"W Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Carver and Plymouth NWI classification: PFO Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X in Are Vegetation N Soil N ,or Hydrology N significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present?p esentt?ain Yes XrksNo Are Vegetation N Soil N ,or Hydrology N naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS—Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transects, important features,etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Hydric Soil Present? Is the Sampled Area Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes X No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No If yes,optional Wetland Site ID: Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) HYDROLOGY F�H (135) Hydrology Indicators; ndicators minimum of ne is r uied check all that a I Sec nda Indicators minimum of o re uired ce WaterSurface Soil Cracks(66) (Al)( ) X Water-Stained Leaves 69 Water Table A2 ( ) —Drainage Patterns(B 10) ( ) _Aquatic Fauna(613) X Moss Trim Lines(616) ation(A3) Marl Deposits(B15) r Marks(61) _Dry-Season Water Table(C2) _Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) _Crayfish Burrows(C8) ent Deposits(B2) _Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) _Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) eposits(B3) Presence of Reduced Iron C4 Mat or Crust B4 ( ) —Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) ( ) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils C6 eposits(65) ( ) _Geomorphic Position(D2) —Thin Muck Surface(C7) _Shallow Aquitard(D3) _Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(67) Other(Explain in Remarks)) Microtopographic Relief(D4) `Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(138) — X FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes X No Depth(inches): 10 Water Table Present? Yes No X Depth(inches): Saturation Present? Yes X No Depth(inches): 1 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks: TcA JULSoutown Board of Trustees US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region—Version 2.0 VEGETATION—Use scientific names of plants. Ahsolute Dominant Indicator Sampling Point: A-Upper-WET Tree Stratum (Plot size: 304 %Cover Species? Status Dominance Test worksheet: 1. Acerrubrum 35 Yes FAC 2. Acer saecharinum 3Q Yes FACW Number of Dominant Species 3 That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 2 (A) 4. Total Number of Dominant 5 Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) 6. Percent of Dominant Species 7 That Are OBI,FACW,or FAC: 100.0°/n (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet; 65 =Total Cover Total%Cover S / h Stratum (Plot size: 15 of: Multiply by: 1 } OBL species x 1 = 2 FACW species x 2= 3 FAC species x 3= 4 FACU species x 4= 5 UPL species x 5= g Column Totals: (A) ($) 7. Prevalence Index =B/A= Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Herb (Plot size: 5- =Total Cover 1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation } 1 X 2-Dominance Test is>50% 2. 3-Prevalence Index is 53.01 3 _4-Morphoiogical Adaptations'(Provide supporting 4. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 5. —Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) 6. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 7 be present,unless disturbed or problLmalic. 8. Definitions of Vegetation Strata: 9. Tree—Woody plants 3 in.(7.6 cm)or more in 10. diameter at breast height(DBH),regardless of height. 11. Sapling/shrub—Woody plants less than 3 in.DBH 12 and greater than or equal to 3.28 It(1 m)tall. Herb—All herbaceous(non-woody)plants,regardless =Total Cover of size,and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. W d Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15, 1 1. Woody vines—All woody vines greater than 3.28 It in 2. height. 3. Hydrophytic 4. Vegetation Present? Yes X No =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) No other vegetation growing at the time of site visit,besides woody trees. Site was a vernal pool of standing water in a mature forest. L) E C E J U G 1 2 2023 US Army Corps of Engineers � Northcentral'aW"Tii lgblon—Versio 2.0 Bor d Of True tees SOIL Sampling Point A-Upper-WET T FDepth file Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Matrix Redox Features hes) ColorE % Color{moist) _ % Type' Loc Texture _ Remarks 0-6 7.5Y 100 _ Mucky Sand 6-14 7.5YR 3/1 100 Mucky Sand 'Type C=Conoentration,D=De letion,RM=Reduced Matrix,MS=Masked Sand Grains. ZLocation: PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix. F:: dric Soil Indicators: Histosol(Al) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': _Polyvalue Below Surface(S8)(LRR R, 2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR K,L,MLRA 149B) Histic Epipedon(A2) MLRA 149B) Black Histic(A3) _Thin Dark Surface(S9)(LRR R,MLRA 1498) _5 cm Mucky Pea—Coast Prairie t or Peaox t(S3)(LRR KRL,R) Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) _High Chroma Sands(S11)(LRR K,L) _Polyvalue Below Surface(S8)(LRR K,L) Stratified Layers(A5) —Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(LRR K,L) Thin Dark Surface(S9)(LRR K,L) Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) _Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) _Thick Dark Surface Al2 _Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR!(,L,R) ( ) _Depleted Matrix(F3) Piedmont Floodplain Soils(F19)(MLRA 14913) X Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) _Redox Dark Surface(F6) Sandy Gleyed Matrix S4 _Mesic Spodic(TA6)(MLRA 144A,145,1498) ( ) _Depleted Dark Surface(F7) _Red Parent Material(F21) Sandy Redox(S5) Redox Depressions(F8) _Stripped Matrix(S6) —Very Shallow Dark Surface(F22) Marl(F10)(LRR K,L) Other(Explain in Remarks) ? Dark Surface(S7) 3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present,unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if observed): Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Remarks: This data form is revised from Northcentral and Northeast Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric Soils, Version 7.0,2015 Errata.(hftp:/Ivvww.nros.usda.gov/lntemeVFSE DOCUMENTS/nres142p2_051293.docx) No soil test pit possible due to solid substrate of cobble and dredge material. 0 E J U L 1 2 2023 Southold Town Board of Trustees US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region—Version 2.0 1515 Birdseye Road Delineation Report Southold, New York Photo Log ?fir . hM1 {'tr;Ir i Pt , r+ � r l .IIX a 41", ! ,•. ,. 3 ,�.xit ,� • '+yr a' r1�{�j� i M1 yyrr ,�7y i s: s� +yam +� 02-09.2.023 15_e4 Photo 1 —View downstream off-site from driveway. T 1 �Wl�4 ems', A�at� J U L 1 2 2023 Southold Town Board of Trustees Photo 2—View upstream onto site from driveway. Lower Wetland in foreground. Wetland Delineation Report GPI PI February 1411, 2023 page 1 8 1515 Birdseye Road Delineation Report Southold, New York JA VAi r Photo 3 —Outlet of Lower Wetland. Nil 41 _'2 MOM �„ . ._ e.�m Y+ �� .��•: ,; ',fit,:;�aa r - ir,P'✓, tm - �� mac"° -y. ,f. � �2 �_a-. fw-s .'�. ! -` .` �� y`�i'.�•' ��'J"� �s..��'z,t. .1 Will JUL , ? 2023 Photo 4— Interior of Lower Wetland. Southold Towrt Board of Trustees Wetland Delineation Report GPI February 1411, 2023 page 1 9 1515 Birdseye Road Delineation Report Southold, New York S sF `ev 1�a 4 ■ 3 Si 7 C s ��c -'t{'' '�i.C��+.. k't`��-ram� � t •' .i r � ry��ai�y,�: y�i ^Y.F-��--y r d R# „e � 16 v. M4, y�� '-a s gi ge s'd i�g' �'"��.�-• =5�`'`.,' -"a- wed - -_ ,,�' J U L 2023 Board of Trustees Wetland Delineation Report �� February 14t'', 2023 page 1 10 1515 Birdseye Road Delineation Report Southold, New York �'9► - +sv � ti4' s • i' Y 4 M1l ,�.� Y��' } c{ • sue � ��+ � :_.'��fi � ,i"i� 1 Atrj ice: "` � � .4 �r'B t � �P.& '; .,•'� .} R ^'f�,,,_ss/ y�`�-:�.�-' � .`{S .°g�`•yn` � ''��` fir-�� Ye..� .�1 ma' s ; !� a �F A. 16 *:sy_ j f sir '' ''y �rs =+ c # .Af ' r•.R i"- Iir' `i I SDI s . ' t4zxC1 . i' { 113 `�•, ' lbM P,' b�i'�`� m�u �F :: Yam.. y�� ,l ,�.�r �f� �a�$'�,�� s�.��✓_�.�� it"W I rc V E :A # P -00 x A � , Rir ¢ J U L 12 2023 �,��.�•. ,��. Southold Town Board of Trustees Wetland Delineation Report GP, February 14', 2023 page 1 11 1515 Birdseye Road Delineation Report Southold, New York t. ; i r.l�J • �! <�. s +•... tea.ru fs �. . Wm -u i , .AN W-7 � {k 4 4 J U L ? 2023 Sou h.c) d I w n Board of irusiees Wetland Delineation Report GPI 14Ih, 2023 page 1 1 2 1515 Birdseye Road Delineation Report Southold, New York 1. ,#' -h = - � r - rs ui6� �., - ,r , - •.. S-5� � . .. � VOW, iLppw �Qa,y7� / —`i ! A ✓ .►!''4 ��;t"�, �.s�e a �~ ~' t..>> do d .• � �rVy� � S r�DAM! f � + , M. � R r JUL 2023 s ar +j A . Y �='_.s 1^ac-.±ram 't§�'_�{,��.k�'=• ^�fs�.r.'"'F.t Board of Trustees Wetland Delineation Report �� February 14th, 2023 page 1 13 1515 Birdseye Road Delineation Report Southold, New York g pp Am y -'k/C�¢v ,may��• •h - _ Y .��y��. -�� f J U 2 2023 _ = Southold Town Board of Trustees �.e� h f5- +"�i� - it-..b� ��$�.� d•��' Wetland Delineation Report GIN 14th, 2023 page 1 14 1515 Birdseye Road Delineation Report Southold, New York )r4 m irk. '• �� f' �;'- �z's� -"��ir.e,.• y�... ��` Wk All i am z' yj Ilk �� •� fit„ � .� 'a.�,�_ - �- '•._ `n u J U 2023 Southold Town =Ak "; 1 Board of Trustees h:s f r Wetland Delineation Report GPI February 14th, 2023 page 1 15 1515 Birdseye Road Delineation Report Southold, New York J ♦' Y 10 "sue. _- L:.�ZS- T. •r i r - ��4�-`_ y�T S _.+ outhold Town Wetland Delineation Report February 14th, 2023 page 1 16 1515 Birdseye Road Delineation Report Southold, New York n Y - "'y r ' '4yt Sn' s CcC � `� C JV 2023 Southold Town Board of Trustees Wetland Delineation Report GPI February 1411, 2023 page 1 17 In E C E Q V J U L 1 2 2023 Southold Town GPI Board Of Trustees Many Talents One Firm Imainma gpinet.com Glenn Goldsmith,President Pg so% Town Hall Annex 54375 Route 25 A. Nicholas Krupski,Vice President ' P.O. Box 1179 Eric Sepenoski Southold,New York 11971 Liz Gillooly Telephone(631) 765-1892 Elizabeth Peeples ► Fax(631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD May 24, 2023 Michael Kimack P.O. Box 1047 Southold, NY 11971 RE: 1505 BIRDSEYE ROAD, LLC 1505 BIRDSEYE ROAD, ORIENT SCTM# 1000-17-1-4 Dear Mr. Kimack, At the February 15, 2023 meeting the Board of Trustees Tabled the above referenced application for the purpose of having a third-party licensed professional inspect the property to identify and record the existence of any vegetated wetlands. This review has been deemed necessary as per Town Code Chapter 275-7. The Board of Trustees sent out requests to several companies for an estimate to perform an environmental site assessment and received the lowest estimate of$125.00 per hour at a maximum amount of 15 hours for a total of$1,875.00 for the proposed work to be done. The assessment is necessary in order to move forward with your pending application. Failure to remit payment will delay the application process. Please remit payment in the form of a certified check or money order made out to Town of Southold for the estimated environmental assessment fee in the amount of$1,875.00. Attached please find the affidavit of authorization submitted with your application which extends to the licensed consultant retained to perform the site assessment. If you have any questions or concerns regarding this matter, please contact the office that the above address. Sincerely, Glenn Goldsmith President cc: 1505 Birdseye Road, LLC k Board of Trustees Application T AFFIDAVIT Q5-..._ A, BEING DULY SWORN DEPOSES AND AFFIRMS THAT HE/SHE IS THE APPLICANT FOR THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PERMIT(S)AND THAT ALL STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE'TRUE TO THE BEST OF HIS/HER KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF,AND THAT ALL WORK WILL BE DONE IN THE MANNER SET FORTH IN THIS APPLICATION AND AS MAY BE APPROVED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF TRUSTEES. THE APPLICANT AGREES TO HOLD THE;TOWN OF SOUTHOLD AND THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES IIARMLESS AND FREE FROM ANY AND ALL DAMAGES AND CLAIMS ARISING UNDER OR 13Y VIRTUE OF SAID PERMIT•(S),IF GRANTED. IN COMPLETING THIS APPLICATION,I HEREBY AUTHORIZE THE TRUSTEES,THEIR AGENT(S)Olt RE PRESENTA'TIvEs,INCLUDING THE CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL,TO ENTER ONTO MY PROPERTY TO INSPECT THE PREMISES IN CONJUNCTION WITH THIS APPLICATION, INCLUDING A FINAL INSPECTION. I FURTHER AUTHORIZE THE BOARD OF 'TRUSTEES TO ENTER ONTO MY PROPERTY AND AS REQUIRED TO INSURE COMPLIANCE WITH ANY CONDITION OF ANY WETLAND OR COASTAL EROSION PERMIT ISSUED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES DURING THE'TER.M OF THE:PERMIT„ Signalui e Signature of ...�.�._....—� .� of Property ar r Property Owner S%VORI\d TO BEFORE ME THIS ll4Y OF 4 Z 20 2 m. -. M�k�muyu;ilc �✓ ...�1 MICHAELA.KIMACK Notary Public,State of New York No.02KI5056823 Qualified In Nassau County Commission Expires March 11.2026 3MO ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING P.O.Box 447 G uoc;Lta:,NY 11959 631.653-0607 DE C E � W May 16, 2023 Ri 'LMAY 16 2023 Southold Town Mr. Glenn Goldsmith, President Board of Trustees Board of Town Trustees Town of Southold Town Hall Annex 54375 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: 1505 Birdseye Road, LLC. 1505 Birdseye Road, Orient S.C.T.M.No. 1000-17-1-4 Dear Mr. Goldsmith: I am writing you as a follow up to my letter to you of May 4, 2023 regarding this matter. As far as the total amount of hours that it will be required to complete the review, inspection, wetlands delineation (if needed) and follow up report I believe that it would take a maximum of 15 hours to complete the review. Respctf G A . b MO ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING P.O. Box + T7 Qu0C;u[:, NY 11959 631.653-060I May 4, 2023 Mr. Glenn Goldsmith, President Board of Town Trustees Southold Town Town of Southold osrd' of Trustees Town Hall Annex 54375 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: 1505 Birdseye Road, LLC. 1505 Birdseye Road, Orient S.C.T.M.No. 1000-17-1-4 Dear Mr. Goldsmith: I am writing you in response to your letter of April 5, 2023 (copy enclosed) regarding this property. Our fee for inspecting the site for the purpose of determining whether or not there are freshwater wetlands on the property and preparing a follow up report is $125.00 per hour. This will also require at the minimum of one inspection of the site and if freshwater wetlands are found they will then be delineated. Should you or other members of the Board have any questions on this matter please feel free to contact me at any time. Resp ally, GI E. Just AJURA L. K. McLean Associates, P. C. 437 South Country Road • Brookhaven • New York • 11719 (631)286-8668 • FAX (631)286-6314 %• 25 Newbridge Road • Suite 212 • Hicksville • New York 11801 https://www.lkiiia.com RAYMOND G.DiBIASE,P.E.,PTOE,PTP,PRESIDENT and CEO Associates ROBERT A,STEELE,P.E.,EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT JAMES L DeKONING,P E,VICE PRESIDENT CHRISTOP F.DWYER STEVEN W.EIS ER ENBERG,P.E. ANDREW B,SPEISER MATTHEW C JEDLICKA,LEED AP KEITH J.MASSERIA,RE VINCENT A.,CORRADO,P.E. TAMARA L.STILLMAN.P.L.S. April 13, 2023 Town Hall Annex 54375 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Attn: Glenn Goldsmith, President Re: 1505 Bridseye Road, LLC 1505 Birdseye Road, Orient SCTM#: 1000-17-1-4 Dear Mr. Goldsmith: As requested, this letter proposal describes our project understanding and the necessary scope that will be required to perform an environmental site assessment and properly flag the freshwater wetlands if they exist at the above referenced property. A. ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT AND WETLAND FLAGGING Under this Task, Gary Gentile, RLA will perform an environmental site assessment to determine whether any freshwater wetlands exist at 1505 Bridseye Road in Orient. The product of this task will be a formal report documenting the findings of the site assessment. If it is determined that freshwater wetlands exist, Gary will delineate the wetlands with wetland flagging. LKMA Engineer's will locate the freshwater wetland flags placed by Gary with a GPS Trimble Device. 2023 1505 Birdseye Road Page 1 of 2 TODAW5PACttfi& s► 85 Sides poOtORROW'S SOLUTIONS Since 1950 LI[AA L. K. McLean Associates, P.C. LUMP SUM FEE AND PAYMENT Our fee estimate for the above referenced services is as follows: A. Environmental Site Assessment and Wetland Flagging $5,000.00 Total Engineering Services (Task A): $5,000.00 We appreciate the opportunity to submit our proposal and look forward to working with you if you choose to select our firm for this work. Very truly yours, Keith J. Masseria, P.E, Associate CC: LKMA File R 1505 Birdseye Road Page 2 of 2 LKMA Professional Services Proposal Cantrell, Elizabeth From: mkimack2@verizon.net Sent: Sunday,April 23, 2023 2:17 PM To: Cantrell, Elizabeth Cc: 'Carlos Zapata' Subject: 1505 Birdseye LLC Attachments: IMG_0001.pdf Hi Liz: See attached best ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. U U APR 4 2 Soot ,old Town t3oard of Trustees i C E ' V E APR 2 Michael A. Kimack Southold Town ATTORNEY AT LAW Board of Trute P.O. Box 1047 Southold, N.Y.11971 Cell No. 516-658-6807 E-mail: ln!.ji. April 23, 2023 Re: 1505 Birdseye LLC 1505 Birdseye Road, Orient Submitted Administrative Application. To: Southold Town trustees It is my understanding that the Board wants to have yet another entity do an inspection of the property to make a " non biased"determination as to whether a wetland exists. The Trustees,through their own experts on the matter of wetlands,had previously made the determination that the intennittent pond area was not a wetland, but recommended the area be left undisturbed. I do .not believe we can find anyone more unbiased on the matter than your own Board. That detennina.tion was taken to task by the adjoining property owner's attorney, Twomey Latharn and their expert, Robert Grover, Vice president and Director of Environmental and Coastal. Sciences for Greenman -.. Pederman, Inc.( GPI ). Not to claim the ponding area was a Wetland, but to argue against the Trustee's determination by stating the area was not even a pond and could be filled in. I recommended to my client we have Cole Environmental take another look at the area and let us know whether we were dealing with a wetland. Cole came to the same conclusion that your Board and their expert did, The area was not a wetland, However, Cole was also instructed to provide a plan to isolate the area from any ground disturbance or tree cutting,as recommended by the Trustees. As such, the proposed driveway was relocated as far toward the westerly property line and a restorative plan was submitted to the Beard to be added to the administrative permit application, In doing so, we were giving the Trustees control by virtue of the site plan, which would receive stamped. I am aware that you have received documents from Twomey Latham and the same expert (GPI) who have been given an opportunity to now claim the area is a wetland „ completely opposite to both of their prior stances that the intermittent ponding area was not a wetland. In the legal profession, we call their position conning to the table with dirty ltand . You now propose to dignify and give crcedenee to their position by disavowing your own prior determination, their own experts determination and our separate expert by apparently willing to use another"expert""to solely deteniiine the wetland issue., This is a great disservice to my client and to the Board itself who is being influenced by a law firm and their expert who have already shown disregard for their responsibility to live by their own actions. 1 strongly request the Board move forward on the administrative permit application as submitted on the basis that no further wetland determination is needed or is warranted. Sincerely, _. is M hael A. Kimack, Agent. APR 2 4 2023 Southold Town Board of Trustees �, Town Hall Annex Glenn Goldsmith, President } � ^ 54375 Route 25 A. Nicholas Krupski,Vice President °a P.O. Box 1179 Eric Sepenoski Southold, New York 11971 Liz Gillooly �. Telephone(631) 765-1892 Elizabeth Peeples A. Fax(631) 765-6641 �w . BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD April 5, 2023 Dan Hall Land Use Ecological Services, Inc. 570 Expressway Drive South, Suite 2F Medford, NY 11763 RE: 1505 BIRDSEYE ROAD, LLC 1505 BIRDSEYE ROAD, ORIENT SCTM#: 1000-17-1-4 Dear Mr. Hall: With respect to the above- mentioned property Trustees are seeking a formal report in order to determine if there are any freshwater wetlands on this property. We anticipate that you would need to perform a site inspection, or multiple inspections, for the purposes of such determination. If wetlands are found we would require them to be properly flagged. Permission to gain access to the property would be forthcoming. A formal quote is required. If you are so inclined to perform the inspection(s) and and prepare such a report, please submit your proposal to us at your earliest possible convenience. If not, please be so kind as to let us know you are not interested in submitting such a quote. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Sincerely, 4—ill— � Glenn Goldsmith, President Board of Trustees /dd Att. " Town Hall Annex Glenn Goldsmith,President ) � 54375 Route 25 A. Nicholas Krupski,Vice President P.O. Box 1179 Eric Sepenoski Southold,New York 11971 Liz Gillooly emu^ Telephone(631) 765-1892 Elizabeth Peeples �Q � � �";j Fax(631) 765-6641 01 ' , r BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD April 5, 2023 Keith Masseria L.K. McLean Associates 437 S. Country Road Brookhaven, NY 11719 RE: 1505 BIRDSEYE ROAD, LLC 1505 BIRDSEYE ROAD, ORIENT SCTM#: 1000-17-1-4 Dear Mr. Masseria: With respect to the above- mentioned property Trustees are seeking a formal report in order to determine if there are any freshwater wetlands on this property. We anticipate that you would need to perform a site inspection, or multiple inspections, for the purposes of such determination. If wetlands are found we would require them to be properly flagged. Permission to gain access to the property would be forthcoming. A formal quote is required. If you are so inclined to perform the inspection(s) and and' prepare such a report, please submit your proposal to us at your earliest possible convenience. If not, please be so kind as to let us know you are not interested in submitting such a quote. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Sincerely, a Glenn Goldsmith, President Board of Trustees /dd Att. Glenn Goldsmith,President ' � " Town Hall Annex ��""" 54375 Route 25 A.Nicholas Krupski,Vice Presidents ' P.O. Box 1179 Eric Sepenoski Southold,New York 11971 Liz Gillooly ; Telephone(631) 765-1892 Elizabeth Peeplesw? " Fax(631) 765-6641 " ter BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD April 5, 2023 Glenn E. Just J.M.O. Environmental Consulting Services P.O. Box 447 Quogue, NY 11959-0447 RE: 1505 BIRDSEYE ROAD, LLC 1505 BIRDSEYE ROAD, ORIENT SCTM#: 1000-17-1-4 Dear Mr. Just: With respect to the above- mentioned property Trustees are seeking a formal report in order to determine if there are any freshwater wetlands on this property. We anticipate that you would need to perform a site inspection, or multiple inspections, for the purposes of such determination. If wetlands are found we would require them to be properly flagged. Permission to gain access to the property would be forthcoming. A formal quote is required. If you are so inclined to perform the inspection(s) and and prepare such a report, please submit your proposal to us at your earliest possible convenience. If not, please be so kind as to let us know you are not interested in submitting such a quote. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Sincerely, Glenn Goldsmith, President Board of Trustees /dd Att. Town Hall Annex Glenn Goldsmith,President 54375 Route 25 A.Nicholas Krupski,Vice President i P.O. Box 1179 Eric Sepenoski Southold,New York 11971 Liz Gillooly d Telephone(631) 765-1892 Elizabeth Peeples ISS Fax(631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD April 5, 2023 Robert E. Herrmann En-Consultants 1319 North Sea Road Southampton, NY 11968 RE: 1505 BIRDSEYE ROAD, LLC 1505 BIRDSEYE ROAD, ORIENT SCTM#: 1000-17-1-4 Dear Mr. Herrmann: With respect to the above- mentioned property Trustees are seeking a formal report in order to determine if there are any freshwater wetlands on this property. We anticipate that you would need to perform a site inspection, or multiple inspections, for the purposes of such determination. If wetlands are found we would require them to be properly flagged. Permission to gain access to the property would be forthcoming. A formal quote is required. If you are so inclined to perform the inspection(s) and and prepare such a report, please submit your proposal to us at your earliest possible convenience. If not, please be so kind as to let us know you are not interested in submitting such a quote. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Sincerely, Glenn Goldsmith, President Board of Trustees /dd Att. OFFICE LOCATION: MAILING ADDRESS: Town Hall Annex *V so P.O.Box 1179- 54375 State Road Route 25 �4� Southold,NY 11971 (cor.Main Rd. &Youngs Ave.) Southold,NY Telephone: 631 765-1809 http://southoldtownny.gov ZONING BOARD, OF APPEALS Town of Southold RECEIVED J 9!Ll3aot FINDINGS,DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION i VN2 7 2018 MEETING OF JUNE 21,2018 ZBA FILE: 7:40 NAME OF APPLICANT: 1505 Birdseye Road,LLC So Mold Town Clerk PROPERTY LOCATION: 1505 Birdseye Road, Orient SCTM#1000-17-1-4 SEA, 1 ETi-I2.MINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under consideration in this application and determines that this review falls under the Type II category of the State's List of Actions, without further steps under SEQRA. SUFFOLK COILNTY AI _MINISTRATE -QDE: This application was referred as required under the Suffolk County Administrative Code Sections A 14-14 to 25, and the Suffolk County Department of Planning issued its reply dated December 1, 2017 stating that this application is considered a matter for local determination as there appears to be no significant county-wide or inter-community impact. LWRP DETERMINATION: This application was referred for*review under Chapter 268, Waterfront Consistency review of the Town of Southold Town Code and the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) Policy Standards. The LWRP Coordinator issued a recommendation dated February 16, 2018. Based upon the information provided on the LWRP Consistency Assessment Form, as well as the records available, it is the coordinator's recommendation that the proposed action is INCONSISTENT with LWRP policy standards and therefore is INCONSISTENT with the LWRP.The agency made the following findings: a) The proposed residential structure is not located within the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area (CEHA). However,the property contains large area of slopes equal to or greater than 15 percent. It is recommended that the Southold Board of Trustees verify the top of bluff on the parcel. b) To protect life and property during storm events and erosion over time, it is recommended to locate structures as far from the Long Island Sound bluff to the greatest extent practicable. However due to parcel topography and the amount of slopes on the property, it is recognized that relocating the structure further from the top of the bluff is difficult. c) If action is approved, it is recommended that a non-disturbance buffer is established from the Coastal Erosion Hazard Line (CEHL), seaward to prevent erosion on slopes, preserve the integrity of the bluff, limit turf areas and preserve groundwater and surface water quality. d) The proposal to construct a deer fence more than the code required maximum four(4)feet in height located in the front yard is recommended as CONSISTENT. TOWN OF SOU HOLD TOWN EN aINEE-R-LThis application was referred to the Town Engineer for review. Comments were received on March 7,2018, after the public hearing of March 1,2018, recommending that the applicant re-survey the site to re-assess the location of the top of the bluff. Included with the Town Engineer's Page 2,June 7,2018 47140, 1505 Birdseye SCTM No. 1000-17-1-4 comments was a copy of Suffolk County LIDAR Contours which indicated that the top of the bluff had shifted further landward towards the eastern portion of the property than what was noted on the applicant's survey. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BOARD OF TRUSTEES: In a memo dated March 7, 2018, the Chairperson of the ZBA informed the.Board of Trustees that during the recent hearing, there were discussions and testimony from opposing environmental and coastal sciences consultants, one representing the applicant, the other representing the neighbors, relating to the accuracy of the top of the bank/bluff as depicted on the applicant's survey of January 2, 2013. On March 8, 2018,the top of the bluff was reflagged by the Trustees and their flags were consistent with the Suffolk County LIDAR map provided by the Southold Town Engineer, and the "corrected top of bluff line"hand drawn on the applicant's survey that was submitted at the hearing by the neighbor's environmental consultant.The ZBA asked the applicant's representative to retain a licensed surveyor to plot the flags on a survey. A revised survey was submitted, dated April 9, 2018 showing the proposed dwelling at 36.7 feet from the top of the bluff at its closest point. On April 13, 2018 the President of the Trustees inspected the subject property in response to a request for comments from the ZBA Chairperson. In a memorandum dated April 13, 2018, the President of the Board of Trustees expressed the need to preserve the vegetation that stabilizes the bluff as well as preserving the low lying area in the southeast corner of the property. The memo stated that the NW orientation of the bluff provides protection from storm events and should be considered a mitigating factor for the revised 36.7 foot bluff setback. SUFFOLK COUNTY SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION 1 I JJUQ I`: This application was referred to the Suffolk County Soil and Water Conservation District for an evaluation and recommendation. The agency informed the ZBA in a letter received December 8, 2017,that a site inspection was performed on December 6,2017 to evaluate the potential environmental impacts that would be caused by the construction of a new dwelling on the currently vacant property. The agency observed that the bluff is very well vegetated with no signs of erosion, and noted a large depression at the southern end of the parcel. In addition,the agency described the following potential concerns: the installation of a septic system because of proximity to surface water which would impact water quality;the proposed installation of deer fence on the bluff face which would pose an unacceptable erosion hazard to the bluff; significant land clearing and excavation proposed on the site as a potential for soil erosion; and the use of large and heavy construction equipment which can cause bluff instability. PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 1505 Birdseye Road, Orient,NY. It is a conforming 1.356 acre parcel (to tic line) located in the R-40 Zoning District. The parcel measures 218.10 feet fronting the Long Island Sound along the northerly property line, 389.57 along the easterly property line, 84.15 along the southerly property line, and 322.25 along the westerly property line. The parcel is an undeveloped residential property with steep slopes and a low laying swale area in the southeast corner. The parcel is accessed by a 50 foot private right of way to the southwest corner of the property, as shown on a survey prepared by John T. Metzger,Land Surveyor, dated January 2, 2013. BASIS OF APPLICATION: Request for Variances from Article IV, Section 280-18; Article XXII, Section 280- 105; Article XXII, Section 280-116; and the Building Inspector's November 17 2017, Amended November 22, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to construct a new single family dwelling and to erect deer fence at a height of 8 feet at; 1) proposed single family dwelling located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 50 feet; 2) proposed dwelling located less than the code required 100 feet from the top of the bluff; 3) proposed deer fence more than the code required maximum four (4) feet in height when located in the front yard, located at: 1505 Birdseye Road, (Adj. to the Long Island Sound) Orient, NY. SCTM#1000 17-1-4. RELIEF REQUESTED: The applicant requests variances to construct a 6,028 sq. ft. single family dwelling with terrace, pool and pool deck, having a distance of 50 feet from the top of bluff at its closest point, instead of the minimum required setback of 100 feet and having a distance of 41.7 feet from the front yard property line where a Page 3, June 7,2018 #7140, 1505 Birdseye SCTM No. 1000-17-1-4 minimum of 50 feet is required. In addition, the applicant requests permission to construct an eight(8) foot high deer fence in the front yard,which is not permitted. All is depicted on a survey prepared by John T. Metzger,Land Surveyor; last revised April 9, 2018.' ADDI ONAL INF TION: On February 28, 2018 the Board of Appeals received written correspondence from the attorney representing several neighboring property owners opposing the variances requested. The communication includes a letter and report from an environmental scientist specializing in coastal issues. Subsequent to a site inspection, the specialist describes the subject property as containing extreme geological constraints to development and cites potential adverse and unrecoverable impacts to the bluff. During the public hearing of March 1, 2018,testimony in opposition by legal and environmental representatives of several of the applicant's neighbors, and the neighbors themselves, continued. The concerns expressed included the possible inaccuracy of the top of the bluff location on the original survey submitted with the application, the need to protect the bluff from erosion which would be caused by the removal of large areas of existing vegetation close to and on top of the bluff during clearing for construction, and the fact that deer fencing does not exist in and is therefore not characteristic of their neighborhood. The Board received from the applicant's agent a report dated April 2, 2018,written by a specialist from New York Sea Grant, a SUNY University based program, outlining and discussing science based coastal processes that are occurring on and around the subject property. In the report, causes of bluff erosion are identified, and it acknowledges that the current well vegetated condition of the bluff helps in preventing further erosion. The low lying, swale, located on the southern portion of the property is not identified as a wetland or as an area needing protection. AMENDED APPLICATION: The applicant submitted a revised survey to the Building Department, dated April 9, 2018 which depicts the top of the bluff on the property per the findings of the Town Trustees and Town Engineer. An amended Notice of Disapproval was issued on April 18, 2018 identifying the top of the bluff setback to the proposed new dwelling at 36.7 feet where the code requires a minimum of 100 feet. The variance relief for the proposed non-conforming front yard setback of 47.1 feet and deer fencing in the front yard remain the same. FINDINGS OF FACT/REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on March 1,2018 and May 3,2018 at which time written and oral evidence were presented. Based upon all testimony, documentation, personal inspection of the property and surrounding neighborhood, and other evidence,the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be true and relevant and makes the following findings: 1. Town Lawn 67-b b 11 . Grant of the variances will produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The neighborhood is accessed via a private right of way that leads to several inland and waterfront properties developed with large single family dwellings. The subject property is one of the few undeveloped parcels in the area, especially along Long Island Sound. Many of the lots are irregularly shaped and dwellings are placed on the properties at different angles to each other. While some waterfront homes have non-conforming bluff setbacks, the average is almost double the distance being requested by the applicant.None of the homes in the immediate area have deer fencing of any kind. The bridge that extends into the front yard over the low lying area, leading to the applicant's proposed dwelling, is not typical in the neighborhood. 1 Although the application as applied for was for relief for a structure of 50 feet from the top of the bluff,an updated survey and site inspection by members of the Board and Town Trustees showed the proposed structure would actually be 36.5 feet from the top of the bluff(see Amended Application below.) " Suffolk County SWCD CO Corey Humphrey 423 Griffing Avenue � ! _• ^� q. District Manager Suite 110 J (631)852-3286 Riverhead,NY 11901 www.SuffoIkSWCD.org ,• Rob Carpenter Chairman V Co" SON June 2,2014 Chairperson Leslie K. Weisman Southold Town Board of Appeals 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 RE: ZBA File No. 7140—1505 Birdseye Rd., LLC SCTM#100-17-1-4 Dear Chairperson Weisman: As per the request of your office, a site investigation was conducted at 1505 Birdseye Rd, Orient NY. This site investigation was performed to evaluate the potential environmental impacts that would be caused by the construction of a new dwelling on the currently vacant property. District staff visited the property on December 6th, 2017.The following are the observations and recommendations of our office based on the findings of this inspection. The parcel in question is vacant at the moment.Towards the north end of the parcel near the bluff,the land is well vegetated, mostly with small to medium sized dense brush and vines.The bluff itself is very well vegetated,with no signs of erosion. Of note,at southern end of the parcel, is a large depression that appears to receive a significant amount of runoff from surrounding land, including neighboring property. In the owner's application to the ZBA, this depression is given as the reason for building closer to the bluff, rather than being set back 100 feet from the bluff top. The first item of potential concern is the installation of a septic system at this site. Due to the proximity of the septic system to surface water and groundwater,water quality could'potentially be impacted by this project.Our office recommends that the owners seek out guidelines from the Suffolk County Health Department to ensure that the septic system will not adversely impact water quality. The second item of concern is-the proposal to install deer fencing on the entire perimeter of the property, including on the bluff.While most of the deer fence would not pose a resource concern,the proposed installation of deer fence on the bluff face would pose an unacceptable erosion hazard to the bluff. Deer fence posts are typically pounded in,and heavy equipment is necessary to tension the wire fencing.This sort of a ui ment and activity is-extrerngly detrimental to bluff stability.We strongly recommend against installing deer fence on the bluff. The third and final concern we have considering this project is the potential for soil erosion during construction.The site will undergo significant land clearing, excavation, and preparation,with the 7 Office Hours:Monday through Thursday 7:30 a.m.to 4:00 p.m. Friday 7:30 a.m.through 3:00 p.m. Page 1 F° ... AV associated large and heavy equipment during construction.These activities will cause significant soil disturbance. Proper erosion control measures must be taken during construction.Additionally, machinery and equipment should be set back at least 25 feet from the bluffs edge wherever possible. Weight and vibration from machinery operation can cause bluff instability. Should you require further assistance in this matter, please don't hesitate to contact our office. Thank you, Ken Johnson Soil District Technician, Page 2 -� • Twomey, Latharrlj Celebrating Our 4..,F Y MAILING ADDRESS, Shea, Kelley, Dubin & Quartararo LLP Post Office Box 9398 Riverhead,New York 11901.9398 Attomeys at Law MAIN OFFICE- Thomas A Twomey,Jr 33 West Second Street (1945-2014) Riverhead,New York 11901-9398 Stephen B Latham Telephone:631.727.2180 John F Shea,III Fa Christopher D KelleFacsimile:631.727.1767 David M.Dubin o www.suffolklaw.com Jay P.Quartararo t Peter Mott mfinnegan@suffolklaw.com Janice L Snead May 2, 2018 Anne Mane Goodale Extension 265 Bryan C Van Cort• Direct Fax:631.727.1767 Kathryn Dalli VIA HAND DELIVERY', Laura I.Dunathan Lisa Clare Kombnnk Patrick B.Fife D Martin Finnegan. Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals C '1 Reza Ebrahimi Attention: Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson fill r Jeffrey W.Pagano 54375 Main Road ' (04 Bryan J Drago P.O. Box 1179 Bernadette E Tuthill Craig H.Handler Southold,NY 11971 Alexandra Halsey-Storch Melissa S Doris Katerma Grmko Re: Application of for Variances 0) Lorraine Paceleo Jessica M Klersny 1505 Birdseye Road,LLC Terrence Russell ZBA File No. 7140 oFMi1NSEL Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-17-1-4 Kevin M.Fax Kelly E Kinirons Karen A.Hoeg Dear Chairperson Weisman and Board Members: Patricia J Russell allp Jennifer P Nigro NY&Id&1RS This office represents John Josephson and Carolina Zapf, owners of the home 4 LLM uiTAxATioN NY& and properties located at 1515 Birdseye Road, 900 Birdseye Road and 700 Birdseye re &PA BARS PA NY,NJ Road, and identified on the Suffolk County Tax Map as 1000-17-2-1.11, 6.5 and 1.14, respectively, which three properties are immediately adjacent to and directly south of the property owned by 1505 Birdseye Road,LLC (the"Applicant") located at 1505 Birdseye Road (SCTM 1000-17-1-4) (the"Subject Parcel"). We submit this letter in further opposition to the Applicant's request for increasingly substantial area variance relief, and to address documents and comments submitted since the last public hearing on March 1, 2018, which was adjourned after questions were raised regarding the actual location of the top of bluff on the Subject Parcel. It is apparent from the record that this Board requested comment from the Board of Trustees and the Town Engineer's office regarding the location of the top of the bluff on the Subject Premises. Trustee Jay Bredemeyer apparently flagged the top of bluff at a location that is less than 37 feet from the proposed construction. His OTHEROFMCELOCATIONS markings were memorialized on a recently submitted survey and corroborated by the 20 Main street Town Engineer's analysis of County LIDAR data.Although the Applicant has already East Hampton,NY 11937 6313241200 conceded that his initial request for a 50 foot variance was substantial, it is clear that 51 Hill street he now needs a variance of more than 63 feet from the required 100 foot setback to Southampton,NY 11968 proceed with his proposed construction and the proposed location for the 6,028 square 631287.0090 p P P p P q 490 Wheeler Road foot dwelling. As explained in more detail in our prior submission, including our Suite 150 Hauppauge,NY 11788 6312651414 56340 Main Road P.O.Box 325 Southold,NY 11971 631.765 7300 1 d Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson May 2,2018 Page 2 letter dated February 28, 2018 and its enclosures, relief of this magnitude is entirely contrary to the precedent set by this Board in the Matter ofAliano v. Oliva case, a decision by this Board to deny a 50-foot variance for a proposed 1,600 square foot house from the top of the bluff,that was upheld by the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, and affirmed on appeal by the Appellate Division, Second Department. For the reasons stated in those decisions, and those set forth below,we once again submit that the Applicant's request for variances should be denied. It is respectfully submitted that the comments offered by the Board of Trustees in their April 13, 2018 memorandum to this Board do not come close to compelling the granting of the very substantial variance relief requested by the Applicant. In that memorandum,Mike Domino references a field inspection of the Subject Premises that occurred on April 11, 2018, an off the record discussion that took place there between unidentified persons, and then reaches the astonishing conclusion that the Trustees are satisfied that the proposed construction merely 36.7 feet from the top of bluff achieves their stated goals, which include "the need to preserve the vegetation that stabilizes the bluff', and the"need to preserve the low lying area in the southeast corner of the property". It is inconceivable that the construction of a 6,028 square foot dwelling, surrounded by a terrace,pool and pool deck almost entirely within the setback area protected by Section 280-116 of the Town Code, achieves the goal of preserving vegetation that stabilizes the bluff. To the contrary,the clearing required to complete this massive construction project will decimate the surrounding vegetation and undoubtedly enhance bluff erosion. (See ZBA's findings in Matter of Aliano,which included that the proposed 1,600 square foot house 50 feet from the top of the bluff would introduce impermeable surfaces and alter the soil structure causing "accelerated recession"which could result in damages to the neighboring properties and to the proposed dwelling.) Noticeably absent from the memorandum and the record is any explanation of how this proposed construction will serve to achieve that goal. There is,however, ample evidence in the record,proffered by Robert Grover, an environmental scientist, and Architect Mark Matthews,that demonstrates that the Applicant can locate the house in a conforming location on the property,without the need for any setback relief from this Board. Of course,by doing so would indisputably preserve the vegetation that stabilizes the bluff. The Trustees' memorandum also offers no explanation or substantiation for the alleged need to preserve low lying area in the southeast corner of the property. That area is clearly outside of the Trustees'jurisdiction(see,Town Code Section 275-3(C)), and,unlike bluffs, low lying areas are not protected by express provisions of the Town's Wetland and Zoning Codes. No explanation is given as to exactly why that area should be preserved. Surely,the vegetation that lies seaward of that area is far more deserving of protection. The fact that construction in a lower lying area may be inconvenient,more costly, or result in a less desirable view of the Long Island Sound is certainly not a justification to abandon the established setbacks in the Town Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson May 2,2018 Page 3 Code. While the topography of the site may be constraining, those constraints existed when the Applicant purchased the property. He was well aware of the physical characteristics of the property when he purchased, and as such, any perceived hardship with landward construction is entirely self-created. It certainly does not justify relief from the Town Code's required setbacks. Mr. Josephson and Ms. Zapf also question the Trustees' unfounded conclusion in its memorandum that the proposed structures"supports the intent [of]the Town Code". If they are referring to Section 280-116 of the Town Zoning Code,the proposed construction adjacent to the bluff is clearly contrary to the mandate that buildings and structures "shall be set back not fewer than one hundred (100) feet from the top of such bluff'.Perhaps the Trustees are referring to the Wetlands Code, the intent of which is stated in Section 275-3, and includes "the protection, preservation,proper maintenance and use of its wetlands," and"prevention of damage to structures and natural resources as a result of erosion; ... and the minimization of the impact of new development, restoration and/or expansion on the resource area values listed above." According to the record of this matter, there are no wetlands on or adjacent to the Subject Premises, and it is patently clear that the construction proposed by the Applicant does not in any way support the Town Board's legislative intent to r�otect against erosion and to minimize the impact of new development when they adopted the Wetlands Code. With respect to the letter from Kathleen Fallon to Michael Kimack, dated April 2, 2018, which states at the outset that she"neither supports nor opposes the development,"Robert Grover,the Director of Environmental and Coastal Sciences at Greenman—Pederson, Inc.,will address it at the upcoming hearing. Enclosed is an outline of his testimony. Our previous submission to the Board set forth our arguments regarding the Applicant's inability to satisfy the standards for area variance relief set forth in Town Law Section 267-b. Those arguments are even more compelling now that the Applicant requires an incredible 63.3% deviation from the 100 foot setback from the top of bluff. The granting of such a very substantial variance to allow the construction of a massive house and pool that would essentially sit on the top of the bluff, with a front walkway that unnecessarily invades the established front yard setback, and an unsightly 8-foot deer fence around the perimeter of the subject property, will have an immediate, undesirable and adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood,the neighbors' properties and the environment. It would also fly in the face of this Board's established precedents to preserve the bluff, including its decision in Matter of Aliano v. Olivia. In light of the fact that the perceived hardship is entirely self-created and the existence of reasonable alternative locations to build his home,the variance relief requested by the Applicant should be denied. Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson May 2,2018 Page 4 Please submit this letter in the record of this matter. Thank you. Respectfully submitted, IL Martin D. Finnegan MDF/jr Enc. cc: William Duff,Esq. Michael Kimack,Esq. � s ' Outline of Robert Grover • Kathleen Fallon claims that the narrowness of the Long Island Sound limits wave energy incident on the subject bluff. • Fetch is 20 miles to the northwest. That is the main wind energy vector. That is plenty of fetch to generate serious shoreline damaging waves. • Most of the bluffs on the north shore are experiencing serious erosion. • The beach is stable because the eroding bluff supplies sediment. • It cannot be assumed that future erosion rates will be similar to recent rates. In fact, the opposite is true. The large boulders on the beach are evidence of an eroding bluff. • Kathleen Fallon misstated the annual rate of SLR by 20%based on USGS estimates. My top of bluff determination has been verified by the Town. • A setback of only 37 feet from the bluff for new construction is highly inappropriate. Recent examples of bluff erosion on Long Island: Montauk this year, 15 feet in one storm; Shelter Island (heavily vegetated and stable for 50+ years, also facing north with much shorter fetch), 25 feet in one day during Sandy. • Bluff erosion is catastrophic and non-recoverable. • The inevitable bluff erosion will result in pressure to approve shoreline hardening if the project is approved. Contrast Montauk and Shelter Island. • Liquefaction danger not addressed. The low area of the property has no special environmental values, but the bluff certainly does. • Any concerns over moving closer to the low area can easily be addressed with appropriate engineering best practices. • Kathleen Fallon did not address appropriate setbacks for this large-scale project, and there is no indication that she even reviewed the site plan. • The introduction of impermeable surfaces within 37' of the bluff will change soil structure and vegetation, and likely lead to damage to the bluff. Again, not addressed by Ms. Fallon. L �a 0 TOO OF, BLUFF• �g d `;a, 1.356,ACRB5'TO THE TIELIINE (A,.'COKPING TO TOE SURVEY SUBMIT'M-0 BY .. REVISED ON,JANUAR.Y.24,.20 9 F.) d� cw F-� 4�- P� w T r 1 505 BIRD5EYE ROAD ORIENT .,,,Twomey, I.athaiii, " Ce(ebraring Our 45rh Year MAILING ADDRESS: Shea, Kelley, Dubin & Quartararo LLP Post Office Box 9398 Riverhead,New York 11901-9398 Attomeys at Law MAIN OFFICE Thomas A Twomey,Jr 33 West Second Street (1945-2014) Riverhead,New York 11901.9398 Stephen Latham Jahn F.Shea,Ill Telephone:631.727.2180 Christopher D Kelley Facsimile:631.727.1767 David M Dubin a February 28,2018 www.suffolklaw.com Jay P Quartararo t Peter M Mott mfmnegan@suffoMaw.com Janice L Snead VIA HAND DELIVERY Extension 265 Anne Marie Goodale Bryan C Van Cott- Direct Fax:631.727.1767 Kathryn Dalli Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals Laura I.Dunathan Lisa Clare Kombrtnk Attention: Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson Patrick B Fife 54375 Main Road Martin Finnegan. Rem Ebmhimt P.O. BOX 1179 ( � Jeffrey W.Pagano Southold,NY 11971 Bryan J.Drago FEB it Bernadette E.Tuthill Craig Handler Re: Application of for Variances 1 OF PPPEALS AlexandraHalse)-Storch 1505 Birdseye Road,LLC + �OA�D Melissa S Doris KatennaGrinko ZBA File No. 7140 LorraJessica M Kleleo Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-17-1-4 Jessica M Klersy Terrence Russell OF COUNSEL Dear Chairperson Weisman and Board Members: Kevin M.Fox Kelly E Kinirons Karen A Hoeg This office represents John Josephson and Carolina Za f, owners of the home Patricia J.Russell p p p Jennifer Nigro and properties located at 1515 Birdseye Road, 900 Birdseye Road and 700 Birdseye C NY&LAtrIRS Road, and identified on the Suffolk County Tax Map as 1000-17-2-1.11, 6.5 and 1.14, p tr.M iNTAXX'11 NYe�� respectively, which three properties are immediately adjacent to and directly south of NY,M 6 PA BARS the property owned by 1505 Birdseye Road, LLC (the"Applicant") located at 1505 Birdseye Road(SCTM 1000-17-1-4) (the "Subject Parcel"). Copies of the relevant section of the tax map and an aerial photograph showing the Applicant's and neighbors' properties are enclosed. We submit this letter in response and opposition to the Applicant's request for multiple area variances, including a variance of fifty (50) feet from the top of the bluff, a front yard setback variance to 41.7 feet, and a deer fence located in the front yard. BACKGROUND FACTS The application of the Applicant proposes to construct, among other things, a 6,028 square foot dwelling with a terrace,pool and pool deck within fifty (50) feet of the top of the bluff,when Article XXII, Section 280-116 of the Southold Town Code OTHER OFFICE LOCATIONS requires a setback of"not fewer than one hundred(100) feet from the top of such 20 Main Street bluff'; a 796 square foot pedestrian entry bridge that is 41.7 feet from the front yard East Hampton,NY 11937 6313241200 setback, when Southold Town Code Article IV, Section 280-18, Bulk Schedule 51 Hill Street requires a minimum front yard setback in this R-40 District of fifty (50) feet; and an 8- Southampton,NY 11968 foot deer fence around the perimeter o property, f the partially located in the 631.287 0090 p P pe rtY� which is p Y front yard, in violation of Article XXII, Section 280-105(C)(1). The application also 490 Wheeler Road Suite 150 proposes to maximize allowable lot coverage with the proposed development. Hauppauge,NY 11788 631.265 1414 56340 Main Road P.O.Box 325 Southold,NY 11971 631 765 2300 l Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson February 27, 2018 Page 2 The Applicant's application acknowledges (i)that the fifty (50) percent deviation from the Southold Town Code's bluff setback requirement"can be considered substantial"; (ii)that the proposed dwelling "will be visible from the adjoining dwellings"; and (iii)that the alleged difficulty was"self-created". The sole justification advanced by the Applicant for the fifty percent deviation from the Code is that the Subject Parcel has a"low drainage basin on its southern side". No justification is given for the Applicant's need for a 796 square foot bridge within the front yard setback. The basis for the request for a front-yard deer fence and a deer fence surrounding the perimeter of the property is that the Subject Parcel is a"deer haven". The Applicant's lot size is 1.36 acres in an R-40 zone. It is submitted that there is a very sizable building envelope with a footprint of 12,954 square feet that allows for a sizable house and other improvements that would conform in all respects to the Southold Town Code, and therefore, the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood by granting the requested variances clearly outweighs any benefit to the Applicant if these variances are granted. See letter from Mark Matthews, AIA, and accompanying,exhibit. For the reasons and those set forth below, it is respectfully submitted that the Applicant's request for variances should be denied. ARGUMENT I. THE APPLICANT DOES NOT SATISFY THE STANDARD FOR AREA VARIANCES. It is unequivocal that the Applicant does not satisfy the standards for the relief requested. New York State Town Law §267-b, in pertinent part,provides that the following five(5) factors must be considered by a zoning board of appeals in its determination of whether to grant an area variance: (a) In making its determination, the zoning board of appeals shall take into consideration the benefit to the applicant if the variance is granted, as weighed against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community by such grant. In making such determination the board shall also consider: (1) whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance; (2) whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance; Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson February 27, 2018 Page 3 (3) whether the requested area variance is substantial; (4)whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and (5) whether the alleged difficulty was self-created; which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the board of appeals, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance. The Court of Appeals of the State of New York has confirmed that in determining an application for an area variance, a zoning board must engage in a balancing test, weighing the benefit to the applicant against the detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood or community if the area variance is granted. Saso�v. Cam, 86 N.Y.2d 374 (1995). See also, Eccles v. Zoning Board of Meals of Village of Irvin on, 224 A.D.2d 525 (2d Dep't 1996). We submit that the Matter of Nicholas Aliano, which was determined by the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals in a decision dated September 1, 2006 (Zoning Board File No. 5846), after which Mr. Aliano commenced an Article 78 proceeding brought in New York Supreme Court, Suffolk County, and then filed an appeal in the Appellate Division, Second Department, is dispositive of the Applicant's application presently before the Board. In Matter of Aliano,Mr. Aliano applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold ("ZBA") for an area variance permitting him to resume construction of a dwelling 50 feet from the edge of the bluff, after the Town's Director of Code Enforcement issued a stop work order based on a building permit that was mistakenly issued. The size of the proposed dwelling was approximately 1,600 square feet, which, of course, is substantially smaller than the proposed 6,028 square foot dwelling in the present application. Among other things,the ZBA found that the presence of new impermeable surfaces and the alteration of drainage and soil structure have been responsible for"accelerated bluff recession"which could result in damage to the proposed dwelling as well as to neighboring properties. In applying the balancing test under New York Town Law §267-b,the ZBA concluded that the grant of the proposed variance would produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties;that the variance requested was"too severe,"; that the proposed area variance to permit construction within 50 feet of the top of the bluff(as in the present application) was "substantial"; and that the difficulty was "self-created"because the design of the proposed plan was not in conformity with the setback restrictions in the Code. Therefore,the ZBA denied the variance. Mr. Aliano commenced an Article 78 petition in Supreme Court, Suffolk County, alleging, among other things,that the ZBA's determination denying the area variance was arbitrary and capricious. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the ZBA, and dismissed Mr. Aliano's petition. Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson ' \ February 27, 2018 Page 4 Mr. Aliano next appealed to the Appellate Division, Second Department. In a decision dated April 20, 2010,the Second Department held in favor of the ZBA after finding that there was a rational basis for the ZBA's denial of Mr. Aliano's application for an area variance: Here, the ZBA's determination to deny the petitioner's application for an area variance was not illegal, had a rational basis, and was not arbitrary and capricious, since the ZBA properly considered the relevant statutory factors, and rationally concluded, based on the evidence in the record, that the variance sought was substantial and self- created, and that the granting of the requested area variance would have an undue adverse impact on the physical and environmental conditions of the relevant neighborhood and produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood (citation omitted). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly, in effect, denied that branch of the amended petition which was to annul the ZBA's determination on the ground that it was arbitrary and capricious (citation omitted). Matter of Aliano v. Oliva, 72 A.D. 3d 944, 899 N.Y.S 2d. 330 (2d Dep't 2010). Copies of the Second Department and Supreme Court decisions are enclosed. The reasoning applied by the ZBA in the Matter of Aliano in denying the 50 foot setback variance from the top of the bluff, along with the decisions by the Supreme Court and Second Department upholding the ZBA's reasoning, should be applied to the present application in denying the requested area variances. The following is an analysis of the statutory factors as they apply to the subject application. A. The Variances Will Produce an Undesirable Change in the Character of the Neighborhood and a Detriment to Nearby Properties. A 50-foot deviation from the Code's 100-foot setback from the top of the bluff mandate will create an undesirable change in the'character of the neighborhood and a detriment to nearby properties. Notably, our research of the records in this neighborhood has not revealed any area variance granted by the ZBA to build or renovate a home merely 50 feet setback from the top of the bluff. Moreover, a variance of this magnitude will lead to erosion and the instability of the bluff, accelerate bluff recession, inhibit the surrounding neighbors' views of Long Island Sound, and will set a dangerous precedent for others who may seek similar variances in the future. Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson February 27, 2018 Page 5 Nataro v.DeChance, 149 A.D.3d 1081, 53 N.Y.S.3d 157, 2017 (2d Dep't 2017); Kearney v. ills e of Cold S-pripg Harbor Zoning Board of Appeals 83 A.D.3d 711, 920 N.Y.S.2d 379 (2d Dep't 2011). Likewise, an area variance for a deer exclusion fence ruing along the width of the Applicant's front yard will also create an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. Currently,no other homes in the neighborhood have a deer exclusion fence in their front yards. In fact,the neighborhood is entirely devoid of deer exclusion fencing. Such a fence installed in the Applicant's front yard will create unsightly views and will degrade the quaint and quintessential character of this beach community. Furthermore, granting this variance would set a dangerous precedent for others to install deer exclusion fencing in their front yards. Therefore, granting the requested variances will result in an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood and a detriment to the nearby properties. B. The Applicant has Feasible Alternatives,Other Than the Requested Variances. The benefits sought by the applicant can be achieved by another, feasible method, other than the requested area variances. The subject parcel is 1.365 acres, or 59,067 square feet. The proposed house and pedestrian entry bridge is a combined 6,824 square feet, or 19.12% of the permitted lot coverage. As such,the Applicant has "feasible alternatives"in that there is ample space to relocate the proposed house an additional 50 feet to the south. This would bring the proposed house 100 feet from the top of the bluff and thereby in full compliance with the Code's setback requirement.Nataro v.DeChan�, 149 A.D.3d 1081, 53 N.Y.S.3d 157, 2017 (2d Dep't 2017). While the Applicant may be required to reduce the length of the proposed pool or terrace if he designed a house in a conforming location,the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community significantly outweighs any benefit sought by the Applicant. Similarly,the Applicant's request for a front yard area variance can be obviated by simply shortening the pedestrian entry bridge by 8.3 feet. The Applicant has provided no reason why the current proposed length is necessary. Simply put,the benefits sought by the Applicant can be achieved by other feasible methods, other than the requested area variances. C. The Area Variances Requested Are Substantial. The Applicant seeks a 50% deviation from the Town Code's 100-foot bluff setback requirement. By his own admission, the Applicant states in its application that the relief sought"can be considered substantial."Moreover, in the Matter of Nicholas Aliano,this Board denied a ZBA application for a 50-foot variance from the top of the bluff and a ^\�0 Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson February 27, 2018 Page 6 variance from the minimum front yard setback. In that application,this Board went through a lengthy fact-finding process,holding three public hearings, at which written and oral evidence was presented, after which this Board found that the variances requested were "substantial." The Second Department affirmed that decision and held, in relevant part,that: The ZBA rationally concluded,based on the evidence in the record,that the variance sought was substantial and self-created, and that the granting of the requested area variance would have an undue adverse impact on the physical environmental conditions of the relevant neighborhood and produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. Likewise,the 50-foot variance from the top of the bluff in this case must also be declared "substantial" and"self-created,"and should therefore be denied. Aliano v. Olivia, 72 A.D.3d 944, 899,N.Y.S.2d 330 (2d Dep't 2010). See also Pecoraro v. Board of Appeals of Town of 1-lem stead 2 N.Y.3d 608 (2004) (holding that it was not an abuse of discretion to deny an application for an area variance on the basis of the substantiality of the variance weighed against granting it where the variance sought would have allowed a 33.3% deficiency in lot area and a 27.3% deficiency in frontage width). D. The 50-foot Variance From the 100-Foot Setback Would Have an Adverse Impact on the Physical and Environmental Conditions in the Neighborhood. The proposed area variances will have an adverse effect and impact on the physical and environmental conditions in the neighborhood. A 50-foot variance would bring the proposed house substantially closer to Long Island Sound. As in the Matter of Aliano,the presence of impermeable surfaces near the bluff, changes in vegetation and soil structure, as well as septic system placement will likely accelerate the rate of bluff recession that will negatively impact Long Island Sound and the neighboring properties. E. The Applicant has no Hardship and any Purported Difficulty is Self-Created. Lastly,the Applicant's purported difficulty was entirely self-created. A"seasoned real estate professional" can,with reasonable diligence, easily determine the zoning laws applicable to his property. ]utter of McGlasson Rea„ty Inc v. Town of Patterson Board of Appeal , 234 A.D.2d 462, 651 N.Y.S.2d 131 (2d Dep't 1996). Moreover, it is well established that a purchaser of property is chargeable with knowledge of the applicable zoning laws and is bound by them Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson 1�AO February 27, 2018 Page 7 and by the facts and circumstances which can be learned by the exercise of reasonable diligence. Matter of McGlasson Really,Inc v. Town of Patterson Board of Appeals, 234 A.D.2d 462, 651 N.Y.S.2d 131 (2d Dep't 1996). See also Tear v. Villa e of Cold S rin Harbor 2onin Board of Appeals, 83 A.D.3d 711, 920 N.Y.S.2d 379 (2d Dep't 2011). Here, the Applicant is an architect, and, according to his website, is an"award winning, master planning design(er)". See website page enclosed. He is chargeable with the knowledge of the Town's applicable zoning laws and is bound by them. Quite simply,he chose to design a plan that is not in conformity with the Code. He chose to design the proposed house well within the 100-foot bluff setback,despite his clear ability to place the house further south,in a location that is in full compliance with the Code's setback requirement. Braunstein v.Board of Zonin. A. peals of the Town of Co ake, 100 A.D.3d 1091, 952 N.Y.S.2d 857 (3d Dep't 2012). See letter of Robert Grover. Likewise, for no legitimate purpose,the Applicant chose to extend the pedestrian entry bridge into the 50-foot front-yard setback. Lastly, he chose to disregard the Code's clear mandate that deer exclusion fences are "prohibited in or along the front yard of any property." Therefore,the Applicant has no hardship, any purported difficulty is entirely self-created, and this application should be denied. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing,the analysis required by Town Law §267-b(3)(b)dictates a finding that the detriment caused by a grant of the Applicant's requested variances to the environment and nearby properties far outweighs any benefit to the Applicant, especially when considering that the Applicant has feasible alternatives. Therefore, it is respectfully requested that items numbered 1, 2 and 3 listed in the Public Notice for the this application be denied in their entirety. Res submitted, D. Finnegan MDF/jr Enc. cc: William Duffy, Esq., Town Attorney Michael Kimack, Esq. �D February 26,2018 RECEIVED VIA HAND DELIVERY FEB Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals Attention: Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson Z0t41HG BOARD OF APPEALS 54375 Main Road P.O.Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971 Re: Application of for Variances 1505 Birdseye Road,LLC ZBA File No. 7140 Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-17-1-4 Dear Chairperson Weisman and Board Members: I am a licensed architect and the sole owner of Mark C. Matthews Architecture P.C.,which has offices located at 54 Hampton Road, Southampton,NY. I have been an architect for the past 42 years, and I have drafted plans for the construction of residential homes and accessory structures on the East End of Long Island for the past 42 years. These plans include homes located on the Long Island waters for over 80 projects. My firm has been hired by John Josephson,who owns properties on Birdseye Road, Orient, adjacent to the property owned by 1505 Birdseye Road,LLC(the"Applicant"). I have reviewed the Applicant's application for several variances, including a variance of 50 feet from the top of the bluff to construct a house,terrace,pool and pool deck; a variance to 41.7 feet from the front property line to build a 796 square foot pedestrian entry bridge; and a variance for an 8-foot deer fence surrounding the property, including in the front yard. I have prepared a site plan for 1505 Birdseye Road,a copy of which is enclosed,which shows that the Applicant has a buildable area in conformance in all respects with the Southold Town Code of 12,954 square feet. This"as of right" area conforms to all of the Town Code's setback requirements, including 100 feet front the top of the bluff and 50 feet from the front property line. In my considered opinion,this buildable area can accommodate a 6,028 square foot dwelling, terrace,pool and pool deck that would be located 100 feet from the top of the bluff and 50 feet from the front property line. I also see no reason why the Applicant cannot install a pedestrian entry bridge that is 50 feet from the front property line. Since there is more than adequate space to locate a very sizable house,pool,terrace and pool deck that conforms in all"respects to the Town Code, I receommend that the Applicant's requested variances be denied. Sincerely, Mark Matt�, �.�---�- 54 Hampton Road Southampton, New"dark 1196 Tel- 631-283-5647 Fax: 631-283-8984 M A R K M A T T H E W S A R C H 1 T E C T • 42 Years of Business in Southampton • Member AIA • Over 300 Regional Projects • Licensed NY , FL • Significant percentage of repeat and referral work from client base • Rhode Island School of Design, Bach Architecture 1971 PRACTICE AREAS • Residential Architecture • Retail Design • Permit Expediting Consultation • Sub Division Strategic Planning • Waterfront Project Design • Furniture Design PROJECT EXPERIENCE Mark C. Matthews has been practicing in Southampton and the vicinity for over a quarter of a century. Known primarily for his residential work, his firm has been retained to exercise their design and problem solving skills in a range of areas which include the design of retail space, commercial office design and waterfront utilization. While the majority of the client base for the firm has been from the private sector, local Community Service organizations have looked to the firm' to facilitate the design of such diverse edifices as church steeples and club houses. While Mark Matthews has provided professional consulting services on projects in a variety of locations, the firm's particular strength is its depth of experience in the unique environment of the South Fork of Long. Island. More than half of the residential projects border fragile wetlands areas or have to confront the particular issues of a coastal environment. The concerns of development impact, so close to local interest, are at the forefront of this firm's design considerations. The Firm's design solutions utilize materials and forms' which conform to this waterfront landscape. The scale of the projects undertaken by Mark Matthews, reflect the breadth of his firm's experience. The firm has undertaken multi residential complexes along with the most minor renovations. Project budgets have ranged from millions of dollars to the most limited. State of the art technology has been incorporated into structures constructed using age old building techniques. Every aspect of residential design has been part of this firm's practice. a. �f m 0 N m �^\ N � N / w GEHL r � TOP OF � \ BLUFF �� \ \y o. \ 1 r, I �� I � wP \ a O AIR 1 556 ACRES TO THE TIE LINE \ (ACCORDIN6 TO THE 5URVEY 5U5MITTED BY PECONIC SURVEYORS,P G M05T REENTLY \ REVI5ED ON JANUARY 24,2015) m w t x V K a m w x Y 1 505 SIR05EYE ROAD ORIENT a Av" Pl %J AIL AIL w Engineering Design I Planning I Construction Managen VIA HAND DELIVERY Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals A� RECEMD Attention: Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson 54375 Main Road FEB 2 8 2W P.O. Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971 ZONING BOARD 0P APRAL9 Re: Application of for Variances 1505 Birdseye Road,LLC ZBA File No. 7140 Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-17-1-4 Dear Chairperson Weisman and Board Members: By way of background, I am the Vice-President and Director of Environmental and Coastal Sciences at Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. (GPI),which is a firm with a staff of over 1,300 professionals, including engineers,planners, scientists,technicians, and inspectors. I have been employed by GPI for over forty (40) years as an Environmental Scientist specializing in coastal issues,which has included projects relating to coastal management studies, tidal/fresh water wetlands, environmental impact investigations, and erosion studies. I have conducted over three hundred(300) environmental evaluations, including well over fifty (50) on the East End of Long Island. I have been a consultant for many municipalities on coastal studies, including serving presently as the environmental consultant for the County of Suffolk on the Fire Island to Montauk Project. In addition, I served as the Environmental Scientist on the Sebonack Golf Course in Southampton,which included being responsible for preparing the environmental impact statement, habitat inventory, natural resources plans, native habitat restoration plan, and water resources protection plan. A copy of my resume is enclosed. My firm has been retained by John Josephson, who owns properties located at 1515 Birdseye Road, 900 Birdseye Road and 700 Birdseye Road, adjacent to the property owned by 1505 Birdseye Road, LLC (the "Applicant"). In this regard, I have reviewed the application of the Applicant for multiple variances in order to construct(i) a 6,028 square foot dwelling with a terrace,pool and pool deck fifty (50) feet from the top of the bluff; (ii) a 796 square foot pedestrian entry bridge that is 41.7 feet from the front property line; and(ii) 8-foot deer fence around the perimeter of the property,part of which is located in the front yard. On February 21,2018, I conducted a site investigation of the property located at 1505 Birdseye Road, Orient(the"Subject Premises"). The Subject Premises is a heavily vegetated vacant lot, which contains extreme geological constraints, including steep slopes, swales and coastal bluffs. Because of these extreme constraints, it is my professional opinion that this parcel is not suitable for any development. This may be the reason why this property has never been developed. If this property must be developed,there certainly is plenty of room on the Subject Premises for a reasonably sized house and other improvements to be sited beyond the 100-foot bluff setback line as required by the Southold Town Cone,without encroaching on the s ale. As such,there is no question that the Applicant has feasible alternatives other than the requested variances. Locating a house and any other Greenman-Pedersen, Inc 325 West Main Street Babylon, NY 11702 p 631-587-5060 An Equal Opportunity Employer improvements in a conforming location setback 100 feet from the bluff will require some grading and possibly some retaining walls, however,the adverse impacts to neighboring properties and the bluff would certainly be less than the impact if the requested variances are granted. I also see no basis for granting the front property setback variance when the proposed pedestrian bridge can be moved 8.3 feet south to conform to the Code. Any clearance, soil disturbance, building construction and/or operation of heavy equipment within the 100-foot bluff setback area certainly has the potential to destabilize the bluff,thereby producing an unnecessary adverse impact to the environmental conditions of the Subject Premises and to the neighboring properties, and would likely be a detriment to the neighboring properties. In an extreme case,not subject to prediction, such activities could cause soil liquefaction, resulting in sudden, catastrophic, collapse of the bluff. Moreover, introducing impermeable surfaces within the 100-foot bluff setback area will result in the alteration of significant drainage on the Subject Premises, and will change the soil structure and vegetation upon the Subject Premises, which will likely have the effect over time of damaging the bluff, resulting in damages to the proposed dwelling and to the neighboring properties. In addition, although a deer fence may appear innocuous,the installation of the necessary posts within the bluff setback will have a destabilizing effect on the bluff. During my site investigation, I observed that there was silt fence on the Subject Premises. A silt fence is typically used for erosion and sediment control, especially where there is to be soil disturbance, particularly near wetlands and waterways. Since,to my knowledge,no permits have been granted for soil disturbance in this area,the presence of the silt fence is a mystery. A copy of the photograph that I took during my site investigation of the Subject Premises, which shows the dense vegetation as well as the black silt fence, is enclosed. In sum, it is my professional opinion that there are no scientific reasons why the multiple variances requested by the Applicant should be granted when the Applicant can site a reasonably sized house and other improvements beyond the 100-foot bluff setback line in conformance with the Town Code, and when by placing the proposed dwelling merely 50 feet from the top of the bluff would clearly result in a detriment to the bluff and to nearby properties and have an adverse impact on the environmental conditions on the Subject Premises and the neighboring properties. It is for these reasons that I recommend that the Applicant's requested variances be denied. Sincerely, Robert Grover Vice President, Director of Environmental and Coastal Sciences CEDE Resume Robert Grover Director of Environmental Sciences Professional Profile Mr. Grover provides hazard analysis, environmental designs, coastal flooding and erosion evaluations, recommendations, and support for major projects in both the public and private sectors. He has a comprehensive grasp of legal, social, and EIaUCA►T14 ` , """ political considerations and their environmental ramifications, Mr. Grover has B f9121 n torlrrx afal cs vac 's authored Flood Plain Land Use Regulations for the Town of East Hampton,Village of = Babylon and the Village of Lindenhurst. These municipalities have adopted these regulations in order to comply with the Federal Emergency Management Agency YEARS WITKPIRM-46' (FEMA) requirements regarding Lend Use and the use of Flood Insurance Rate To TAt_ Y RS,EXPEFtIEN►ICt 46 :. Maps (FIRM's). This experience at the local community level is very important in ' conducting local coordination for large state projects, He has coordinated over 1,000 COURSE°I OkK-T environmental regulatory permit proceedings with State and Federal Agencies. ?f l our O d "Gars/rucirorr Safe+" /lea DO f On projects with NYCT, he has interpreted 100-year flood information obtained tw , a � - , FIA / fc/+fors /tforle/%g Ono,F from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to establish various flood events used in developing critical roadway and bridge elevations along the Belt Parkway and other major routes. He established critical flood elevations at ,P`IOFESIONAL.AFFII»IATICIJ&" „" the Paerdegat Basin Bridge, Roosevelt Island Bridge and Coney Island Creek Bridge "w Ar errcan Assccrafio" for fire Ac'vance�rept of locations, and this information provided to NYCDOT engineers who utilized it in their c� rrce tt determination of critical roadway and bridge elevations within the project corridor. Arherrcarro Orrvrflrblpgvsts 1Jrrdrr In a project with the SCD,PW, GPI is providing professional engineering services for eastaf.i d d 96u th$'hare l stobrjr V es nve catrorf hd Fts arch r�undatid forl sk, the Smith Point County Park Seawall Extension. Mr. Grover recently conducted a ; j 'Caudclf: t' . % ;;; wave scour study in this area to determine wall height and dune requirements N6W York Mate 0ffi#hof6g/,yap 8'racr jy necessary for the extension of an existing seawall in order to protect the Flight 800 Suffolk�OAn '{l+f` W'0tfa ds1farra& eht. I Memorial located at Smith Point Park in the Town of Brookhaven. He has been responsible for a major portion of GPI's environmental impact statements and assessments,which includes noise abatement studies involving highway, airport and construction noise, and has prepared over 250 environmental reports for major ;. highway and bridge projects, parks and recreation facilities, public buildings, solid waste management facilities, and resource management plans. He is thoroughly by familiar with state-of-the-art methods of transportation noise evaluation using the <., latest computer modeling techniques. Mr. Grover is a noted authority on coastal environments. Mr. Grover has extensive experience over the last 40 years relating to coastal management studies, wetland projects, sea level rise, environmental impact investigations and erosion studies. Mr. r; Grover is thoroughly familiar with state-of-the-art methods of environmental analysis requiring specialized services such as surface and groundwater impact analysis and transportation noise evaluation using the latest computer modeling techniques and measurement equipment. He is also a member of the South Shore Estuary Council I w, and the Suffolk County Wetlands Management Work Group. A well-known environmental expert, he serves on numerous organizational' boards and committees, and delivers numerous lectures. For many years, he lectured on " Environmental Law lecture at Southampton College. He writes environmental articles l for periodicals, including a regular conservation column for an Audubon publication. He was the recipient of the 2001 Conservation Award, presented by the Great South Bay Audubon Society. K. . , He is thoroughly familiar with state-of--the-art methods of environmental analysis requiring % specialized services such as wetland and special habitat mitigation; coastal processes p , and erosion/sedimentation studies;and hydrogeological and groundwater studies. GIPWIM Project Experience South Shore of Long Island, NY. Mr. Grover is currently serving as the consultant to Suffolk County on the Corps of Engineers plan to restore and protect 83 miles of Atlantic Ocean shoreline. He is assisting/advising the County Dept. of Public Works on various elements of the project including storm protection,tidal inlet management, sea level rise, beach nourishment, coastal process features, breach and overwash response, endangered species and wetlands.Client:Suffolk County Dept.of Public Works Engineering Assessment of Groins along the Sea Wall and Beach at Edgewater Park, Bronx, NY; 8/14-11/14. Senior Environmental Scientist. This project involved developing a condition assessment report for the existing groin fields and sea wall that lines the perimeter of the development's waterfront Mr. Grover provided coastal processes analyses and recommendations for storm protection and recreational beach restoration for this urban community protected by an ageing seawall nearing the end of its useful life. Various levels of storm protection were discussed,with maintenance of the coastal aesthetics being a priority, as well as options for repairing a series of groins, piers, and access ramps. In this location, Superstorm Sandy exceed the projected FEMA 100-year flood, and so the discussion included a wide range of hurricane protection scenarios.Client: Edgewater Park Owner's Cooperative Overlook Beach Sand Placement Analysis, Babylon, NY;: 7/13-8/13.Project Director.The project involved collecting elevation data on Overlook Beach for an area approximately 1,000-ft- long by 600-ftideep. This survey established the existing "post-Sandy" topography of the beach. Client:Town of Babylon Giacopelli vs. Strecker, Quogue, NY; 9/12. Project Director. This project involved the examination of shoreline and determination of cause of shoreline alteration. This project also included expert testimony on causes of shoreline change. Client: Sinnreich Kosakof& Messina, LLP Sebonack Neck Private Golf Course Property, Southampton, NY. Environmental Scientist. This project involved an Environmental Impact Statement, preliminary design, final design, construction documents, permitting and construction support for a new organic golf course Located on environmentally sensitive land abutting the Peconc Bay, Mr. Grover prepared complete EIS, habitat inventory, Natural Resources Management Plans, wildlife inventory, native habitat restoration plan and water resources protection plan for 298- acre waterfront property. Mr. Grover was responsible for creating a plan which preserved 80 acres of tidal and freshwater wetlands with adequate buffers and runoff controls to ensure their protection. Work included scope determination, wetlands, endangered species, Audubon certification assistance, irrigation analysis and coordination. Project included extensive mitigation and provision of public benefits. Client: Sebonack Properties LLC Long Island Expressway/Cross Island Parkway, Exits 29.32, Contract #13012553, Queens, NY. Environmental Scientist. This $147-million project involved construction inspection services for the rehabilitation of the Long Island Expressway/Cross Island Parkway(LIE/CIP)interchange.A key element of the project was the restoration of the original Alley Pond,which had become chocked with sediment and covered with Phragmites. The plan included the construction of sediment basins and various BMP's and the dredging of contaminated sediments and the Phragmites root mass from the pond. During construction, inspected by GPI, our personnel were responsible for continuous turbidity monitoring for the protection of Alley Creek, a tributary of Little Neck Bay. Responsibilities included providing technical assistance/construction support for erosion/sediment control and for the restoration of a degraded urban pond/wetland system.The restoration included removal of invasive species and dredging to restore open water for use by resident and wintering waterfowl and other wildlife.Client: New York State Dept.of Transportation Smith Point County Park, Suffolk County, NY. Environmental Scientist. This project included an update of the Master Plan and the design of a program and plans for the management of sediment. In response to a sediment budget disruption caused by Moriches Inlet, GPI designed a multi-phased management plan.Phase I involved the dredging of 250,000 cu yds of sediment from an off-shore borrow area for use as beach nourishment. Phase II involved the construction of ponds for storebird habitat, with the resulting 250,000 cu yds of spoil being used as beach nourishment, as well. Phase III involves working with Federal Agencies to modify Moriches Inlet maintenance practices. Several extensive Environmental Assessments were prepared.Client:Suffolk County Dept. of Public Works Other projects include: • Erosion/Hurricane Mitigation Studies, South Shore, LI • NYS Tidal Wetlands Acquisition Program • Santapogue Creek Environmental Studies, Babylon, NY • Jones Beach Theater,Village of East Hampton, NY • Bellport Wetlands Assessment, Bellport, NY • Lattington Wetlands Investigations, Lattington, NY • Hydrogeological Study,area surrounding the headwaters of Strong's Creek,Village of Lindenhurst, NY • Lake Montauk Water Quality,Town of East Hampton, NY Page 2 1 Grover • Utica Wetlands Mitigation, Brooklyn-Queens Expressway noise and air quality evaluations • New Highway Environmental Impact Statement • Glenridge Road Environmental Assessment and Wetland Investigation(NYS Dept.of Transportation) • Udalis Cove Wetlands Assessment for the NYS DEC • Fuel farm investigations and remedial action plans,Stewart Airport, NY • Flood Plain Management Ordinance(Village of Babylon) • Coastal Dynamics of the Town of Oyster Bay Beach (Town of Oyster Bay) • Wetlands Mitigation&EIS for the Cohoes Arterial(NYS Dept.of Transportation) • Periodic Erosion of Sand Barriers Gives Life to Coastal Ponds(published in National Fisherman) Mr. Grover currently serves on the South Shore Estuary Reserve Council, which is empowered by State legislation to direct and oversee a comprehensive management plan for the Long Island South Shore Estuary Complex. Mr. Grover has also been responsible for a major portion of GPI's Environmental Impact Statements and Assessments and has prepared over 100 environmental reports for coastal/marine development projects, parks and recreation facilities, solid waste management facilities, highway and bridge projects and resource management plans. Mr. Grover is thoroughly familiar with state-of-the-art methods of environmental analysis requiring specialized services such as the following: • Coastal processes and erosion/sedimentation studies. • Wetland and special habitat mitigation. • Hydrogeological and groundwater studies. • Highway air quality assessments and models. • Transportation noise evaluation using the latest computer modeling techniques. Additionally, he is thoroughly knowledgeable in federal and state environmental laws and procedures as they relate to the Long Island Environment. Mr. Grover has written and published numerous technical documents relating to coastal processes and hydrology: A partial list includes: • Fire Island Inlet to Montauk Point, US Army Corps of Engineers • Oak Beach Erosion Study,Town of Babylon, NY • Report on Cedar Beach Dynamics,Town of Babylon, NY • Tanner Park Shoreline Report,Town of Babylon, NY • Erosion of Town Owned Property Report,Town of East Hampton, NY • Report on Open Space: Dunes, County of Suffolk, NY • Erosion of Georgica Beach, Village of East Hampton,NY • Coastal Setback and Related Laws Report,Town of East Hampton, NY • Report on Beach and Dune Erosion, Private Client • Report on Erosion of Jones Beach, Private Client • Report on Coastal Stability, Private Client • Goldsmith Inlet Jetty Shoreline Impact Study, County of Suffolk, NY Mr. Grover has also served as the Environmental Quality Review agent for the Village of Lindenhurst, New York. He has prepared flood plain management,environmental quality review and community noise regulations for numerous local communities,and as a public service, Mr.Grover has delivered more than a dozen lectures before citizen and conservation groups and on television and radio. He is thoroughly familiar with current methods of environmental analysis requiring specialized services, including wetland and special habitat mitigation,transportation noise evaluation using modern computer modeling techniques,highway air quality assessments and models, coastal processes and erosion/sedimentation studies and hydrogeological and groundwater studies. Honors/Citations Guest Speaker at the"Save the Bays Workshop on Storm Water Runoff ,sponsored by the Cornell Cooperative Extension(Marine Program)and letter of citation from the Village of Rockville Centre for his efforts in the preparation of the SEQRA evaluation for the proposed development of the north portion of the Village(reference: Mr. E.A.Yourch, Dep.Mayor) CJPI Page 31 Grover l The following is a partial list of publications/technical documents relating to coastal process and hydrogeology,through the late 1980's: Year Title Client 1973 Report-on Open Space: Dunes Town of East Hampton,NY 1974 Fire Island Inlet to Montauk Point US Army, Corps of Engineers Long Island Beach Erosion and Hurricane Project, Phase I General Design Memorandum 1975 Tanner Park Beach Facility Town of Babylon, NY 1976 Report on Erosion of Jones Beach Private 1976 Feasibility Study for the Dredging of Back City of Annapolis, MD Creek 1977 Erosion of Georgica Beach Village of East Hampton, NY 1977 Report on Beach and Dune Erosion at the Private Property of Frank Wyman 1978 Oak Beach Erosion Study Town of Babylon, NY 1979 Hydrogeological Study,Area Surrounding the Village of Lindenhurst, NY Headwaters of Strong's Creek 1979 Report on Subsurface Oil Spill at Scudder Copaigue School District, NY Avenue School,Copaigue, NY 1979 Salinity Has Risen in Great South Bay But No Published in National Fisherman One Knows Why 1980 Report on Coastal Stability, Laurel, Purchase Private Montauk, NY 1981 Tanner Park Shoreline Town of Babylon, NY 1981 Application of Spalding et.al., Special Permit Town of East Hampton, NY For Timber Groin Field 1981 Report on the Erosion of Town Owned Town of East Hampton,NY Property Between Captain Kidd's Path and Block Island Sound 1981 Goldsmith Inlet Jetty Shoreline Impact Study County of Suffolk, NY 1982 Recommendations for Coastal Setback and Town of East Hampton, NY Related Laws 1982 Lake Montauk Water Quality Town of East Hampton, NY 1982 Periodic Erosion of Sand Barriers Gives Published in National Fisherman Life to Coastal Ponds 1982 Iron Pier Beach Town of Riverhead,NY 1982 Wetlands Mitigation/Cohoes New York State Arterial DOT 1982 Robbins Island Environmental Survey Suffolk County, NY 1983 Regulatory Coordination/Port Jefferson Ferry Private Terminal 1983 Shellfish Management Component/ Town of Brookhaven, NY Brookhaven Coastal Plan 1983 Speonk Jetty Erosion Study Suffolk County, NY 1983 Review of Three-mile Harbor Plan Town of East Hampton, NY 1983 Regulatory Coordination/Jones Beach Theater NYS Parks&Recreation 1983 Ronkonkoma Wetlands Survey and Assessment Suffolk County, NY 1984 Coastal Energy Impact Program Town of Brookhaven, NY 1984 Biostatistical Analysis of Shellfish Populations Town of Brookhaven, NY 1984 Glenridge Road Wetland Investigations New York State Dept.of Transportation 1984 Wetlands Assessment and Expert Testimony Private Remsenburg, NY 1984 Utica Wetlands Mitigation Plan New York State DOT GPI Page 41 Grover 1984 . Mayo Beach Shore Erosion Study Anne Arundel County, MD 1985 Santapogue Creek Environmental Study Town of Babylon, NY 1985 Feld Property Seawall Impact Study Private 1986 Coastal Dynamics,Town Ocean Beaches Town of Babylon, NY 1986 Environmental Survey,3500-acre Private Private Island 1986 Coastal Dynamics of Town of Oyster Bay Beach Town of Oyster Bay, NY 1986 Swan Pond Wetlands Assessment County of Suffolk, NY 1986 Lattingtown Wetlands Investigations Village of Lattingtown, NY 1987 Flood Plain Management Ordinance Village of Lindenhurst, NY 1987 Bellport Wetlands Assessment New York State DEC 1987 Flood Plain Management Ordinance Village of Babylon, NY 1987 Udalis Cove Wetlands Assessment New York State DEC 1987 Moss Property Shoreline Processes Private 1978 Annual Biostatistical Analysis/Shellfish and Town of Babylon, NY Predator Population GPI Page 5 1 Grover BOARD MEMBERS 0 so Southold Town Hall Leslie Kanes Weisman,Chairperson . "" " 53095 Main Road•P.O.Box 1179 ,w,,,," �✓► Southold,NY 11971-0959 Patricia Acampora Office Locatign: Eric Dantes Town Annex/First Floor,Capital One Bank Gerard P.Goehringer 54375 Main Road(at Youngs Avenue) Nicholas Planamento +" + Southold,NY 11971 http://southoldtownny.gov ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Tel.(631)765-1809 •Fax(631)765-9064 November 28, 2017 Suffolk County Soil and Water Conservation District Attn: Corey Humphrey 423 Griffing Ave., Suite 110 Riverhead, New York 11901 Re: ZBA # 7140 1505 Birdseye Rd., LLC Dear Sir or Madam: We have received an application for a project adjacent to a waterway, shown on the enclosed site map. The hearing on this application is expected to be held in approximately 3 weeks. Enclosed is a copy of the site map, together with the application and a copy of the area map. May we ask for your assistance in an evaluation and recommendations for this proposal. Thank you for your assistance. Very truly yours, Leslie K. Weisman Chairperson By. Encls. Sill Michael J.Domino,President �, Town Hall Annex John M.Bredemeer III Vice-President + 54375 Route 25 '1 O P.O.Box 1179 Glenn Goldsmith Southold,New York 11971 A.Nicholas Krupski Telephone (631) 765-1892 Greg Williams Fax(631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES RECEMD TOWN OF SOUTHOLD APR 13 2 T0: Zoning Board of Appeals ZONINGo FROM: Michael J. Domino, President Board of Trustees DATE: April 13, 2018 RE: 1505 Birdseye Road LLC CC: Michael Kimack This is a follow-up to the Board of Trustees field inspection of April 11, 2018 of 1501 Birdseye Road LLC wherein we discussed: the survey received April 9, 2018 showing the top of bluff line as determined by area Trustee John Bredemeyer, the need to preserve the vegetation that stabilizes the bluff, the need to preserve low lying area in the southeast corner of the property, and the general satisfaction of the Board regarding placement of the proposed structures to achieve those goals. The Trustees also noted that the general NW orientation of the bluff provided protection to this property during recent winter storms, consequently the lower elevation in the northeast corner of the property and the associated migration of the top of bluff inland was a mitigating factor regarding the reduced 36.7 foot setback of the proposed structure. The applicant has designed a structure that supports the intent Town code while addressing the physical constraining characteristics of this property. a 'March 1,1018'Regular Meetyng*'. .,MEMBER.GOEHRINGER :Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN !All in favor? MEMBER DANTES:Aye. " �"* ,MEMBER ACAMPORA :Aye. .. " 'MEMBER,GOEHRINGER :Aye. a ' CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Aye. ..ou � " �� t6�oid Town, . . . 3Ga!'d o '9 r'u tee .(See Minutes for Resolution) HC ,I ING,#7140-1-505 BIRDSEYE ROAD,LLC•" ` CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The next application before the Board is for 1505 Birdseye Road, LLC: # 7140. This is a request for variances from Article IV Section 28048, Article-XXII Section 280- 105, Article•'XXII Section 280-116 and the Building Inspector's November 17, 2017 amended' November. 22, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to. ;construct .a new single family dwelling and to erect deer fence at a height of 8 feet at 1) proposed single family dwelling located less than the code required minimum front yard ; setback of 50 feet, 2) proposed dwelling•located less than the code required 100 feet from the- ' top of the bluff, 3) proposed deer fence more than the code permitted maximum'4 feet in. ' height when located in the front yard, located at 1505 Birdseye Rd. (adj. to the Long Island; "Sourld) in Orient. Hello again Mike. MIKE KIMACK : Hello again, Michael Kimack on behalf of the applicant who is also present. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright let me just enter'in to the record'the three variances that are part of this application.This is a single-family dwelling.located 50 feet from the top of the bluff where the code requires 100 feet. This is a front yard setback at 41.7 feet where the-code• required a minimum of 50 feet.and the deer fencing partially in a front yard which is not permitted. It's'permitted in side and rear yards. MIKE KIMACK : We're fortunate-that my client was able to put together a model of the entire piece of property with the proposed house on it. Is it situated in a way that everyone can see relative to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we can also just get up and go have a look at it:I haven't seen foam core in a while. March 1,2018 Regular Meeting 'overwhelming sentiment from my clients and their neighbors is that the proposed development: .._...is entirely out•of character with the existing development in their community and that there'are in fact feasible alternatives available to achieve the desired benefit here in the absence of " ,variance relief-.from this Board. You've heard a lot of sort of scientific evidence here today presented.by counsel for the applicant and it seems to me that there are no wetlands-on the.' -front portion the southern portion of this property. We're basing a lot of,this it'seems on an ;informal °meeting with the Trustees where there was a low ,point identified but I.•think it'•s .important to note that there are-no wetlands and there are alternatives.and we've invited Mr.. Bob-Grover here"who's an environmental scientist from Grimm and Peterson who's going to- speak to the 'propriety of developing this. property at all. There's no question'that it's a." -constrained-property but It is located obviously on the sound and there is a bluff-there that is... _protected by code and we certainly contend that there is an alternative confguration that would be entirely compliant with the setback in 280-116 and the bulk schedule and Mr.-Grover will speak-to that. We also have submitted for the record a letter from Mark'Matthews who's " an architect-who has conducted a site inspection of the property, has evaluated it's.conditions and offered his opinion regarding the existence of a substantial as of right building area on the: ..Parcel and I'll speak to that in a moment.We're dealing with an application hereto construct as you know a.six thousand square,foot dwelling which includes a terrace and,a pool and all that is: . .to,occur Within.50 foot of the bluff in contrary to the existing 100 foot setback. The applicant . also seeksto construct a walkwaywithln.the front.yard setback and surround the property the. front :yard with a deer fence. I think in,the -application itself there's already been an: " .acknowledgment that this relief is substantial.The relief sought is substantial and the difficulty, .here is self-created.We've had commentary about the foot bridge. I'm not sure why it's needed: .,.or why it needs to be within the setback but I think the record will confirm that there are.no 'other deer fences in this community which seems to belie the contention that there is a deer :Haven there. I know that you're here and you have a job to do which is to conduct your 'balancing test so I just want to briefly address the 267 criteria.We are confident that the record. is going to establish that the detriment to the surrounding community and to the health,safety -.and-welfare-of that community opposed by this development is going to far outweigh any'' perceived benefit to the applicant. I just want to just briefly with respect to whether the' -variance will produce an undesirable change in the character- of the neighborhood- and. a-- detriment,to the properties, clearly a 50 foot deviation from the codes 100 foot setback from. the top of the bluff will create an undesirable change.There are no other.houses in this area or no other variances have been granted to construct houses so close to.the bluff line. There's clearly a reason as was referenced there's a reason for this limitation. There's a reason for the setback.-because the bluff is fragile°and it needs to be protected and Mr. Grover-will-address that'in more detail but our clients submit that a variance of this.magnitude is going to lead to erosion, it's going to lead to instability of the bluff, it's going to accelerate the bluff recession ��...Aq S 20.23 w outr�,o.idc:�nrob M R,nnrd erg f'rIIC'FAgL March 1,Z018 Regular Meeting and there's no question it's going to impact views.As to the deer fence on the entire front yard as I already mentioned that there are no other deer fences in the community so that's clearly going to change the character of this community particularly running along the entire front yard.There are not only no deer fences in front yards,there are no deer fences at all. As many of the neighbors have stated In their letters,the feeling is that this fencing is going to degrade the quaintness of this small community. It's a beautiful area, it's a beautiful neighborhood and that is going to change the way it looks for everybody. So the granting of setback relief here would clearly create a dangerous precedent for others who would seek similar relief from this Board in the future and I want to speak briefly to a prior case that came before this Board which Gerry you're probably the only one who might remember the Aliano case. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :I know it. MARTIN.FINNEGAN : Leslie you as well.That case as you,may recall and for the benefit of the newer Board members involved an area variance permitting the construction of a dwelling 50 feet from the bluff and in that application the applicant proposed to construct a 1,600 square foot house which Is obviously substantially smaller than the 6,028 square foot of development- that is contemplated here. Among other things the ZBA's determination found that the presence of new impermeable surfaces and the alteration of drainage and soil structure had been responsible for accelerated bluff recession which could result in damage to the proposed dwelling as well as to neighboring properties. In applying your balancing test the Board at that time concluded that the grant of the proposed variance would produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties.There was a finding, that the variance was too severe and that the proposed area variance to permit construction- within the 50 foot setback was substantial and also there was a finding of self-creation of the difficulty and as a result the variance was denied. There was an Article 78 that followed which was dismissed by the Supreme Court and on appeal the Appellate Division upheld this Board's action finding that it was rational and reasonable under the circumstances. We've-explained that whole thing in more detail in the written submission that I've provided and I also gave a copy of the case all of the case through the procedural history of that starting with the ZBA's ' determination through the Appellate Courts but sufficed to say that the concern for the stability of the bluff led to the denial of the application of a 1,600 square foot house in Aliano and here a structure nearly four times that Is proposed. No question in our mind that alternatives could exist. Dealing with a parcel that's over an acre 1.36 acres about 59,000 square feet but the proposal here is to develop 19% of that almost maximize the available lot coverage on a property that the applicant understands does have some constraints. Feasible altematives exist. We have submitted the letter as I mentioned of Mark Matthews who has offered an opinion and I would like to just there's an attachment to that but this is just a copy of the attachment to the letter that was submitted that shows there's a buildable area of nearly Y ^ s v tl R I 24 � i I:J L ii 7c�sai�6�}1�,1"tic�aurs �a Board o%_i.r�ustees � �, March 1,2018 Regular Meeting 13,000 square feet on the southern end of the parcel. Now you've heard some conflicting testimony about the constraints there whatever but yes it's a low area. There's a .lot of. properties with low areas that can be built up.There could be'grading, there can bell placed An it,-there could be retaining walls, there is the ability to build in that area.and not getting anywhere near the bluff and to honor the setback and that is what Mr. Matthews as(inaudible) Mr. Grover will elaborate on. So, while the applicant may be required to perhaps downsize, reduce the length of the pool or the terrace, make a smaller structure, move some earth we submit that the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community significantly outweighs.the benefit sought by the applicant if he is relieved of the-obligation to make some changes here.There is substantial vegetation on the northern end of the property as has been submitted forthe record and it would be a lot harder to clear in this area we believe than in the southern end which is less vegetated. As for the walkway we're talking eight feet. I think that there's a way again with grading,with movement of earth or whatever to not invade the front yard setback and move that walkway to the extent that Is required eight feet back. So substantiality I've already mentioned a fifty percent variance from the 100 foot setback particularly when you're talking about a bluff setback where the code clearly states that it should not be fewer than a 100 feet is a substantial variance. As the Aliano case again I'll refer to that is very similar and in their Board found that a 50 foot variance from a bluff is substantial, and it is indeed substantial here as well.The 50.foot variance from the 100 foot setback would -have an adverse impact on-the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood . Without question. It would bring the house substantially closer to the Sound. As in Aliano the presence of impermeable surfaces near the bluff changes in vegetation, in soil structures,septic system placement all that can accelerate bluff recession that will negatively impact on the Sound, and neighboring properties. As for self-creation is there really a difficulty here? Obviously whatever the problem is this applicant bought this property understanding as an architect I assume we can hold him to an understanding and even if he.weren't'he's-charged with knowledge of our zoning rules, of our setbacks.so I don't think it can be stated that this is anything other than self-created.This is a choice to design a property in what is the you know with the best view to place it where he's placing it and we believe that there are feasible- alternatives available to moving the propertyto the south and a location in compliance"with the code. The walkway can be reduced in size and the deer fence there's a-reason why there's a- restriction on deer fences in the code in front yards, it's because they're ugly,they're unsightly and there's recognition that they shouldn't be there and there's away to control.deer:outside of the front yard so we believe that there's really no basis for granting relief from that code section. P, 9 V 11 ," 25 } I . . March 1,2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I was just going to ask you,the other properties we have°this aerial: „ you• " have-the same.thing over there,are there any other non-conforming bluff setbacks of these .•,° „ , houses? MARTIN FINNEGAN :Not that I'm aware of.The research that we did we couldn't find any other- -variance relief granted.to any other of the neighboring structures in that area.. N CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :So they're all conforming to the bulkschedule in your research?- " . ".'MARTIN FINNEGAN :I believe so yes.Anyway bottom line is on behalf of Mr.Josephson and Mr. Zapf w"e' submit that on balance the indisputable detriment to the environment and.to the,- neighboting properties caused by granting the.requested variances far outweigh any.benefit to -the„ applicant particularly in a case where feasible alternatives exist and so.we're. going to respectfully request that the application be denied. I'd like to invite Mr.Grover to come,up-and- speak*and-then I believe some,of the neighbors might want to comment as well. e MEBER DANTES : Leslie while I was driving through some of those-houses look pretty old so- there might be-some Pre C.0's in that area. I don't know about area variances but some -of' ° 'those"structures are old. What I'm saying'if it's a Pre C.O. it might not conform to the bulk schedule(inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's just if you.eyeball it you-know on this aerial it looks like some of-'' :them are about the same location from the but the bluff can vary you know it's not-necessarily.•, .a straight line.so it's just indicative of character of the-neighborhood that's all. I just wanted to find out if we can find out a bit more about that. Please.state your name for the record.- ROBERT GROVER Good morning yes my name is Robert. Grover. I'm a director` of. environmental and coastal sciences for Green and Peterson Inc. otherwise known as GPI in' Babylon-New York. I submitted a letter which you should all have and attached to that letter l believe was my resume.I'm not going to belabor too much of that. I think one'highlight I•should point out is I've been serving for several years now more than ten years now as the Suffolk. ' County's consultant on that Fire Island restoration project and then that continued on to the•. massive Fire Island Inlet to Montauk Point project so I'm very familiar with.coastal-issues and since I don't think that I'm familiar to any of you let me just talk a little.bit,about my background in Southold. I've been doing this for over forty five years now and going all the.way back in to the seventies I was retained by the Suffolk County Attorney's Office-to do what I believe was the first quantitative study of the erosion rates at what is still always in the paper Kenney's Beach.That.was in the seventies a-long time ago and then fast forwarding a little bit in to the"eighties I represented for several years the Peconic Sound Shores Association in this room many,many times many late nights trying to broker appropriate deal that would maintain M: . " 26 �. s .; F k 1''3 March 1,2018 Regular Meeting the ecological and water quality integrity of Goldsmith Inlet still one of my favorite spots.After Sandy I worked very hard trying to restore the access to Orient State Park so we rebuilt that road for them.They lost in the course of one night about twenty feet of shoreline which is not untypical for a (inaudible)which that is not a bluff but it kind of leads me into the topic of what happens during storms. So I'm going to talk just very briefly about the natural processes that occur on a bluff. They applicant's representative seemed to indicate that this is a very stable bluff, it's well vegetated. I agree it is well vegetated. Bluffs in general on the Sound here still if you do historic analysis they retreat at a rate of anywhere from one to three feet per year and that was kind of the rationale for the coastal erosion hazard line and by the way they have new maps still waiting for them to release them.They're going to be much more restrictive than the current maps but the point is yes we do have a chronic erosion problem with these bluffs it can't be ignored but that's not the only thing that happens. During Sandy for an example and I've seen this many times on bluff on long island. I had clients on Shelter Island who in the course of five minutes during Sandy lost had a catastrophic collapse of the bluff and they lost twenty to thirty feet of bluff instantaneously.That is not unusual it happens all the time. In this particular case when the applicants requesting a 50 foot setback, if he has one of those catastrophic bluff failures and by the way the bluff in Shelter Island was even more heavily vegetated than this all of a sudden you have one more catastrophic bluff fail away from losing your house.That's one of the reasons we have this 100 foot setback.There's a reason for a 100 foot setback. Now let me speak a little bit more specifically about this property. In my opinion this property, is just not suitable for development. I'm not saying it's not possible. 1 work in an engineering firm with thirteen hundred engineers. I know if they can do, they can do some pretty amazing,things but from a coastal management and coastal processes standpoint if a client came to me and said I want to buy this property and develop it I'd say I'm not going to represent you. I think it's completely unwise to even attempt to develop this property.Not only that and this model kind of proves my point, there's plenty of room between the actual 100 foot setback and what was erroneously referred to as a pond and I want to talk about that a little bit.There's at least 50 feet between the 100 foot setback and this what I'm going to refer to correctly as a swale so there's a building envelope there,the views not going to be as good. There's going to be some engineering required but it's usually done.Any engineer worth his salt who does site plan work can engineer a building lot that is perfectly suitable.The sanitary issue that was raised by the applicant's representative that can be solved as well and none of these bluff setbacks are necessary. I don't really this is just an arbitrary self-imposed hardship..I can't imagine you would entertain granting something like this. Now what would be the impact of putting the house there? Well it could be severe.Again there's reasons why we have a 100 foot bluff setback.It's a setback that I recommended to the Town of East Hampton when I was their consultant back in the eighties so there's precedent for going way back and by the way to answer one of your questions I'm sure there are some older houses in the neighborhood that 271 r �� , J, VV I FE t i.r l 8(a idboid Towr Board nr 1rus3ees March 1,2018 Regular Meeting are probably non-conforming with your bluff setback. We know more than we did then. We.. .knew more in-the-eighties than when we did then but it takes a while for the codes to catch up ; to the.science in many cases so.there may be some houses but they're non-conforming and: ` they.were.built,before everybody had the complete awareness"that they have now which was obviously heightened by hurricane Sandy. So putting this house up here what's it going to-do.l` ' " mean-they're going to have to dig a foundation,there's going to be heavy equipment up there,." " they're talking about a pool which is extremely heavy. I did not hear them address what they're going to do with the back wash water,where's which going to be discharged?That could be an. issue and--could cause problems with discharging water in to the bluff soils but I'm really concerned about the idea of on the top of a sensitive bluff like this bringing heavy equipment :and operating heavy equipment because when you're operation heavy equipment'on.a:bluff on .long island bluff soils, these are glacial soils what happens is the vibrations of the•equipment . 'cause.-the soil particles to slip against each other and that alone can cause one of these. catastrophic failures. It doesn't happen often but it certainly.can and it's certainly a scary thought.The deer fence is mystifying to me. Looking at the model I'm not sure if-the deer fence. is.designed to keep the deer in or to keep the deer out.The applicant's attorney said it was you - know partially to keep the dogs in, I am convinced I'm the biggest dog lover in this room:and.I . have dogs and I keep them on my property very simply.with a simple wire buried in the ground the perimeter that I don't want-them to,cross and they wear a collar and when they get near- the collar the collar beeps and they stop they realize they're not allowed and it takes very littleY training-to keep a dog yard trained and I've never had a problem with it. Now there-are two, , other'things I wanted to real quick I want to mention to you, the.grading as shown. on this model is incorrect in my opinion. There's some interpellation of the grades that extend off the. site. If you look.at the applicant's survey you'll see that the grading only goes to the.property . line,the topography only goes to the property line. I have here I'd be happy to leave it with.you- it's very hard to see but we have in our office in our library we have NYS DOT light (inaudible) for all' of New York and is very precise, very accurate topography arid it clearly shows that depression area again erroneously referred to earlier as a pond is actually a swale that continues further towards:the northeast and eventually drains down the face of the bluff so,it's not a self-contained pond like that. It's the head waters of a swale and filling it would have no impact whatsoever. The characterization •bythe-applicant's attorney•that this depression-area :was more sensitive than _.tbe-bluff has no basis whatsoever irr-science." Ws,just a ridiculous statement to make. Finally I would contend that the I'm not sure who determined on the survey the.top of the bluff but it's wrong and I can demonstrate on their model if,you'd like or I can show you on the survey but there's.a continuing rise past to the south past what is they show the top of bank-on their survey-as along the 32 or I want to say it's the I can't read it anyway you can see there's another rise to the south'and that's,accurate so the top of the bluff is basically, misrepresented by roughly eight to ten feet. So now all of a sudden the proposed 50 Cr,28F LP", � [� Jr K" FEB - 8 _2 023 Saut �sjlif'down Bm-rd of Thmtjal ce March 1,2018 Regular Meeting foot variance is a 60 foot variance. It's an even more egregious variance.The house rather than... being S0.-foot•from the top of the bluff is really closer to 40 and again I can show.you on-the , model.or I can show you on the topo if you'd like me to come up and point it out to.you but. :-.that's something that needs to be corrected'because it causes the proposed house to•become even more non-conforming and that's a further concern to me. So I think that kind of wraps up' my concerns. This is a very Important application because it.has serious implications. I don't . know what kind of-precedence it might set for the town but I would think that they would be., severe and I highly recommend that this be denied and that the applicant be invited to.explore: .'.a conforming alternative to the location of the house which is very doable and I would'be,happy- to answer any questions you have. MEMBER DANTES:Can you just mark up a survey where you think the top of the bluff ROBERT GROVER-:I can mark up one of yours if you like. MEMBER DANTES:Yeah that's fine. ROBERT GROVER :This one doesn't-show the top of bluff as they sta.ked it out but the-actual. -top of bluff it goes see this is a little,hill here yeah that'll do that has the topo on it. (inaudible) determine that this was the top of bluffbut they have the top of the bluff you can-see where that'line is.and then you can see it goes up two feet and then there's a hill.here so clearly'the real'top of bluff goes through the top of that hill and then follows something like that so this distance unfortunately this is not to scale so I can't measure it-for you CHAIRPERSON WEIMSAN :No but the contour intervals are about ten feet I think. MEMBER DANTES:Can you put your initials on there when ROBERT:GROVER:Sure. x UNAMED SPEAKER :Thig was done by a surveyor by the way. ROBERT GROVER : I understand that but surveyors do this wrong all the time. I mean it's anybody can look at that and say this is the top of bluff not this. MIKE KIMACK:What grade elevation are you picking? ROBERT GROVER:This is top of bluff right here not this. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It looks like it's one contour interval. ROBERT GROVER:Yes one and a half. M"""tea 9� a^�a3 �� r•u rr �.. 291 .S3Ca1��{1Jtcs.'�GVtffy March 1,2018 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK:This is the top of the bluff as determined by the surveyor. ROBERT GROVER:Incorrectly in my opinion. MIKE KIMACK :As far as we're concerned it was correct. T:A. DUFFY.: Did he follow our code or make his own determination? "MIKE KIMACK:There's a little high knoll in here but it's not T.A. DUFFY, : Did he follow our code and use our definition of top of bluff or did..he do his own determination? MIKE KIMACK:Well top of bluff would be a continual basically T.A. DUFFY:We define top of bluff, did your architect-or your surveyor follow our definition of 'top of bluff? MIKE KIMACK:Yes. "ROBERT•GROVER ; Unfortunately in my experience surveyors are not always-experts'in coastal theology so that's,what we're dealing with. 'CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Look folks we've spent an awful lot of time. We have a lot of other. ' Bearings in front of us and there's an awful lot to, digest. (will.allow some continuation but please-make your comments direct and brief: Clearly I think there's more to`uricove.and•I'm. not sure we should close this. I think we should probably continue it. We do need we have: .some conflicting information about whether it's a pond or a swale and•what tBe•Trustees .` opinion'was and of course this Will require Trustees approval also so once again we're back and., forth and we want to make sure that we find a way of coordinating the information so that. we'.re all'informed to the same extent. We certainly will need some,comments from the .Trustees in writing to confirm what your meeting with them was Mike. I want to give the, neighbors-arid who is being represented by. counsel an opportunity to look at that also,and.see If they have any comments or their expert has any comments so I can see that"this'is going to' continue-but I certainly want to give you an opportunity to address us now that you've heard a good deal of information. MEMBER DANTES : I'm looking at the site plan(inaudible)it's labeled top of bluff but-there isn't a stamp a surveyors stamp or an engineer's stamp. MIKE KIMACK You have a survey in there from Peconic Surveyors MEMBER DANTES It doesn't label the top of the bluff does it? 30 9 1 FEB • � i March 1,2018 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK:Yes it does. MEMBER DANTES : Does it have a line on it? MIKE KIMACK:Yeah. MEMBER DANTES: I have a label but I don't have a line. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Look those are details that we will be continuing so those are details we can certainly ask for and obtain. MIKE KIMACK: May I make some short comments? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Yes you may. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Excuse me Mike, do you want to hear from the neighbors first and then let Mike follow up or CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we have certainly things in writing and so those comments are- part of the public record but if you would like to make very brief comments please hold your comments just to a minute or two so that we can get to some of the other hearings. We will. again continue this hearing so it's not over. You'll have a chance to speak• again at greater ,length if you wish but Mike why don't we let you make a couple of comments and see if the- neighbors want to chime in. MIKE KIMACK : Look the comments about the fragility of the bluff,to be fair probably given the right storm that's coming our way and giving the right type of hit it's going to be every bluff is going to be subject to some kind of degradation.This one has not to the extent that it has taken. Sandy and all the other prior storms to it, it was left.in place.The beach below it is well sanded; it doesn't look like it's been really DE gradated that much. Will there be a storm in the future. that comes along and takes out half of Long Island maybe along with everything else but at the present time and given what we know that area is well-vegetated and protected. D.E.C. set that: 26 foot line basically so they to be that they used I sent them the survey showing the top of the bluff where that was.They chose the 26 foot line to protect the vegetation.They feel that-that protects the vegetation on the slope at that particular point and then that was where their jurisdiction ended at the 26 foot line. If you can look at that under any circumstance from wherever the top of the bluff you may consider everything goes back, nothing drains toward it. It all drains back towards the low area. I called it a ponding area,the Trustees looked at it as a wetland ponding area. It doesn't have an outlet. There's no-culvert on it so whatever water runs in there in-the-springtime. It accumulates into an intermittent pond.That's what-it--is-and they.looked at-it we get a Fetter-from tWTrustees,-they looked at it. It's a sensitive area;they �� t� 6 l`i 6 �� 1`�� I� i �J 1'� Ii• ...i I`'`bI' tvmaww FFFJ . f March 1,2018 Regular Meeting wanted.it-away from there as much as-possible.;The location to whoever the architect'was laid- it out to move.this down another 50 feet puts us right in to that low area and we tantbe there. The Trustees will tell us we can't be there, we shouldn't be there. The only place.we can be is where,the,house is now located. It doesn't interfere with the slope, it doesn't interfere with.the iinte rit- of the slope primarily and all of the water that we have conim off'of t - g y p p y g he house, off of the- property drains back into that low area so there's no (inaudible) and as far' as the- construction my background and I might as well lay it out for you right now. I have-built two, hundred homes,golf courses,ski areas,sewage treatment plants, roads,dams, bridges over the .years._I know soils, I know conditions, I know construction. What that gentleman was talking `about was'the ponding of the (inaudible) requires any kind of vibration requires some kind of water-to-get in there to be able to (inaudible). The water depth of where is 19 feet down. . There's not going to be any of that occurring. We already had approval of the septic area.from" the Health Department. So they've already approved that location. There's isn't a question as to where it's supposed to go. One of their requirements is that it has to be at least 65 feet back from the top of the bluff which it is and that's one of the reasons it's in that location no less than that.or at least 100 feet back from the top of the bluff-and that's why it was-there. So Health Department had their own location about where the septic system was going. There is. no-what that'that house can be relocated lower down the bank no way into that area. What'[ can basically do is while I'll let you to your own thing is contact the Trustees and have them put . together a letter as a result of the meeting that we had and their recommendations to us which was tak en up and put on to that plan. If you look at one of those plans that I gave you, you=11 see the area that has been set aside from any cutting essential like that at their request. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well at the very least we need to have their comments because they are a Board that you're going to have to get approval from and we'll have.to see what they ;have to say. Perhaps may need to get their approvals first before we make decisions..This is where it's very,very difficult process wise to figure out. MIKE XIMACK : We've been there before. That may be a possibility that we may go if you so desire we may go to the Trustees and then have that delineated as we delineate it-so that we " can remove that as a speculative issue in terms of what their concerns and requirements will be given the property: and you're right, I do not speak for them but I'can only tell you what We discussed when we visited the site and what their concern was when they looked at this: As a matter of.fact they didn't want any clearing without one of them being'present, in that particular area if I remember correctly. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright you know these are just things that have to be accurately represented iri the public records with writing and so on and we'll have to determine March 1,2018 Regular Meeting procedurally.what the best way to move forward on this is but before we conclude for.today I'd. like to see if the-neighbors want to make some very brief comments or Martin on your.behalf. MARTIN 'FINNEGAN : Just very quickly, I think we've heard a lot of you know here,say'here_ today about Trustees, D.E.C.and I agree that it would be appropriate cause(-can't speak for the ° Trustees either but I find it really hard to believe that they are preferring.to.protect-,and an- unidentified low area that's not a wetland before they would want to protect the bluff. That doesn't seem to be consistent at all with their mission: As to the D.E.C. and this 26 foot thing . and whatever that is I'm not aware of any evidence in the record what that means or what,that is so clearly.we have a drainage code that can deal with issues of drainage when there's development'and all that°would have to happen and occur so those issues can be addressed and if there's a natural swale there then it can accommodate drainage and so I.don't think that that is a reason to(inaudible)the bluff setback but enough said.I will just turn the floor over. MIKE KIMACK:I will get you a copy of the D.E.C.approval. CAROLINA ZAPF :I'm Carolina Zapf. We are the owners of 700,900 and 1515 Birdseye Rd.'slnce 2004. My family has owned a home in Orient for thirty five years and has spent about four to five months at our home with my three children. Every treasure quaint and .historic .neighborhood we're a community, we all take care of our neighborhood if if means clearly' 'snow or-cleaning up the beach we all kind of stick together and very thoughtful to,keep our .neighborhood that way. If there's alterations made or even some new constructions-they.- always fit in to our.little community. The-construction of this building is going to change'our neighborhood a lot also which is not being addressed'is that we own a property right-next to the construction and which is a vacant lot right now. If ever we would chose to build there it -would totally be in front of that lot which is something I want to,point'out. It's not being_ developed'right now but I just wanted to add that..So that's pretty much I mean you heard all the scientific reasons why this should not be allowed but I just wanted to also point out that it is' a historic neighborhood and this is very out of sorts of what the neighborhood is about. MEMBER DANTES:I have a question for(inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Excuse me Ms.Zapf could you come back to the MEMBER DANTES:So you have a lot directly to the east of the applicants? CAROLINA ZAPF :It's right next to it 1515. � , E MEMBER DANTES :It's directly to the east? CAROLINA ZAPF: It's like this odd shaped one yeah. 331° � 1 rl� i�i Town March 1,2018 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES:It's a buildable lot? CAROLINA 7APF:It has development rights but we(inaudible) LESLIE LAVECHIA: Hi my name is Leslie LaVechia. I live at 908 Birdseye Rd. I've owned the home for about five and half years and I can't emphasize enough how much we absolutely love it and similar to Carolina the reason we bought it was because of how special the area was in terms of a coastal line, in terms of how the house is situated facing north facing the Sound. In terms of the.deer fence we have two black labs and I want to preface it with the fact I'm probably not supposed to say some of this stuff but I feel bad that you have to go through all of this, but we have two black labs and we have no fence and we have no electric fence whatever: When I do some bike riding up to the point it's not unusual for me to see a dead deer hanging over the fences and I don't really know if that's the reason that eight foot fences are not allowed I don't know and also a lot of the documentation refers to eight feet,six feet or four feet.I'm really not sure what the rules are but CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I can clarify if you'd like. LESLIE LAVECHIA : Well I just don't want to see a dead deer and if that's the purpose of the lower limit for the fencing then that should be the end of-the story.The other thing 1-wanted to mention in terms of this drainage going south and again I have no expertise. I'm a.CPA and I don't really know a lot of other things but I was here physically for super storm Sandy.and the devastation was quite extreme so I can just Imagine a heavy rain storm like we're supposed to get tomorrow and the water is going south and it has no place to go. I mean the drains are going to fill up and there's just going to more of it as the property is going to be filled by a parking lot, a house, a swimming pool and a patio. I know from my own property every year I have to put soil in and I'm quite a bit of feet off the shoreline just because of erosion.So I can't imagine a house and a swimming pool and a parking lot and a patio and that not happening and " of course the walkway to the beach.So that's just my extreme concern. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Okay thank you. Can you make this very brief please? MANDY JORDAN : Yes. My name is Mandy Jordan. I'm at 1105 Birdseye Rd. right behind this house and I'm up high. It's not going to ruin my view or anything like that. I'm just concerned if we change the setbacks then the next house is going to have that as.a they're going to be able to set theirs back and I just don't want it to you know just like stick with the rules.I think there's a reason that we have these setbacks and I just want to stick with the way CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you and thank you for being brief. So there are some things that we would like to have entered in to the. record. We want to get some more comments from Trustees, from D.E.C. I want to give you an opportunity to look at those to review 341 ^ _ $% FEB 8 klrtial r� >i iS SIti1Pt?�, A March 1,2018 Regular Meeting every#hing-and I think the Board is going need to have a second bite of this apple.We're going- to have to find out whether or not once we've seen that information we should ask Trustees " approval go first and adjourn. We won't start over, we can adjourn subject to that approval which-means you won't have to do anymore mailings or things like that except just once (inaudible)send out a notification once the another -MIKE KIMACK : Make I just make a suggestion? When we did,the original pre-application with the Trustees in September there's a new Board now so we've got two new members and perhaps what I could do basically is do another pre-application and have the Trustees look at it given the.new designs etc.like that because if we want them to respond in writing they're going to be(inaudible).to be able to respond. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Well they'll have to have firsthand knowledge.They're going-to have to have an application in front of them. MIKE KIMACK':And this was some time ago. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :They don't have this particular application? MIKE KIMACK:They don't have this particular application or this particular design.This was not -available at the time when I went out there. So we have much more information as what we were doing there now is we went out there without any of this with just a rough sketch of a house of what we proposed within the 50 feet and we looked at the property under that condition. They have not seen.this so I perhaps think if we are going to look if you're.going to look to the Trustees for their recommendation they,need more information than they have now or they were able to gather at a time when the Board had a different makeup and they didn't have all of this background information. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :I think that makes sense. MIKE KIMACK:So I could put a pre-application get them out there again so that if they're going to give you a letter they're giving you a letter under informed circumstances. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Absolutely. I wouldn't want it any other way.What do you think May back here in May is that enough time? MIKE KIMACK : Well if I put the letter in I can get an April pre-application out of them. They could get the letter to you for May. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Then why don't we do that. Why don't I make a motion to adjourn this till May which leaves the record open for any additional written or other documentation anyone wants to submit maybe to verify the top of the bluff once again either from your .JS G FEB 8 au . r�«. outni)id �OWrc... Rnard rnr Trustees �' March 1,2018 Regular Meeting surveyor and or their engineer and we'll just get as much information together as we can so that we really understand the full impacts and what the Trustees thinking is. They're the ones that has to grant approval.Get a copy of the D.E.C.'s MIKE KIMACK:I'll also get you Health Department approval of the septic system. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Health Department yeah the more we have in the record the more: we'll be able to discern the probable outcome. So I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to May V at 10 o'clock. We'll be back here on May V at 10 o'clock and we'll see what's turned up. Meanwhile just so you're aware, these records may all be seen disclosed by- coming,in-to our office and filling out a F.O.I.L. request and of course courtesy is that any attorneys representing both parties will automatically get this information. MEMBER DANTES:Can we ask the Town Engineer to review'this? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I believe he's done some preliminary but we should get-him because they're going to have to comply with the storm water management chapter of the code anyway and they're going to need a drainage plan for the Building Department so .MIKE KIMACK:We've already put that together. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good then we'll have a look at that can you submit that to us and Jaime also we'll send it to Jaime Richter? MIKE KIMACK:Storm water management are on the plans basically. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Oh fine alright. MIKE KIMACK:(inaudible speaking away from microphone) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright well we'll have Jaime look at it and comment. Okay there's-a motion to adjourn to May 3rd at 10 o'clock. MEMBER GOEHRINGER :Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :All in favor? l' -C V1, IJ V F 41 MEMBER DANTES:Aye. I �q MEMBER ACAMPORA:Aye. � , F E S d 8 2021" � „� � MEMBER GEOHRINGER : .A e {� -;- •--- y SofPl;holo Towr Board o i�rustee:, CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Aye. _..`_ ._..- .. . Martha F.Reichert Associate NY BAR 631.727.2180 x305 Twomey Latham mreichert@suffolklaw.com 33 West Second St S H E A, K E L L E Y, DUBI N & Q U A R 7 A R A R O, LLP P O Box 9398 Riverhead,NY 11901 February 14, 2023 suffolklaw com VIA EMAIL AND BY HAND ; F E B 1 5 2023 1} Board of Trustees Town of Southold Town Hall Annex 54375 Route 25 Southold,NY 11971 Re: Wetlands Application of 1505 Birdseye Road LLC 1505 Birdseye Road, Orient,New York(SCTM# 1000-17-1-14) Dear President Goldsmith and Members of the Board of Trustees: This office represents John Josephson and Carolina Zapf, the owners of 1515 Birdseye Road and 900 Birdseye Road, Orient; Pamela Valentine and William Matassoni, the owners of 1525 Birdseye Road and 1675 Birdseye Road, Orient;and Interwellen Property Partners,LLC,the owner of 700 Birdseye Road, Orient, and Andrew Jordan, the owner of 1105 Birdseye Lane, Orient. As a supplement to our previous submission to the Board,please find enclosed a wetlands delineation report prepared by Mr. Kurt Weisskotten, M.S., a senior environmental scientist with Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. Mr. Weikotten's report found that the low-lying, area located on both Applicant's property and 1515 Birdse a Road is a forested freshwater wetland containin-2 the characteristics of a vernal pool. His report confirmed the presence of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetlands hydrology in this upper wetland located between 1505 and 1515 Birdseye Road. As such, the Board has jurisdiction over the Applicant's residential construction project, and the current Application is not eligible for an administrative permit for all the reasons stated in our prior correspondence. The Applicant must be required to submit a full Wetlands-Coastal Erosion Permit Application to address mitigation and protection of this wetland, and a public hearing must be held. We thank the Trustees for their time and consideration of our comments. Please include this letter and its Exhibits in the record of this Application. Sincerely, Martha . Reichert /Enclosure Cc: Hon.Lori Hulse, Counsel to the Southold Town Board of Trustees ��1 FebruaryGPI Engineering I Design I Planning I Construction Management Wetland Delineation Report 1 1515 Birdseye Road Delineation Report • Orient, NY OWNER: John Josephson 1515 Birdseye Road, Southold, NY 11971 x WARNING: Alteration of this material in any way, unless under the direction of a comparable professional, i.e. Professional Engineer, is a violation of the New York State Education Law and/or Regulations and a Class 'A'misdemeanor. 1515 Birdseye Road Delineation Report I Southold, New York Table of Contents T a b l e o f C o n t e n t s ..........................................................2 1.0 Introduction .............................. .................................................................3 2.0 Project Description ........................................................................................ 3 3.0 Methodology................................................................................................ 3 4.0 Site Description ............................................................................................4 5.0 Wetlands Finding ..........................................................................................4 6.0 Summary and Conclusions ................................................................................5 Appendices .......................................................................................................7 PhotoLog.........................................................................................................8 Wetland Delineation Report �� February 14tt', 2023 page 1 2 1515 Birdseye Road Delineation Report I Southold, New York 1 .0 Introduction GPI has been retained to investigate the property owned by Mr.John Josephson at 1515 Birdseye Road in the Town of Southhold (Hamlet of Orient) NY, for the presence of wetlands and water resources occurring on 1515 Birdseye and the adjacent property 1505 Birdseye Road. This investigation is in response to a previous site review and assessment of an adjacent property at 1505 Birdseye Road conducted by Cole Environmental Services (CES) of East Quogue, NY, stating that no wetlands were present at 1505 Birdseye. While this report was undated, it was received by the Southold Board of Trustees on January 2nd, 2022. The report prepared by CES concerning the parcel adjacent to Mr. Josephson's was unclear regarding site conditions, plant communities, and wetland occurrence on-site. Although access is not granted to the 1505 parcel for a follow-up investigation to clarify site details, GPI environmental staff visited the adjacent 1515 Josephson property on February 9th, 2023. This visit was intended to assess environmental conditions, topographical settings, and wetland and water resource presence (or absence), and to use this information to project conditions existing on the adjacent 1515 property. 2.0 Project Description Wetland and waterways desktop and field assessments and a resulting field delineation were conducted in support of the landowner needs to identify and characterize the surface water resources and features within the project property. The purpose of this report is to document the findings regarding existing wetlands and their field conditions and characteristics and to describe the methods used to determine any wetlands on-site. This report should provide the resource documentation necessary for site planning and development and any coordination with regulatory agencies such as the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) or the US Army Corps of Engineers (COE) to make Jurisdictional Determinations (JD) and develop project specific requirements and potential permits for the any future utilization of the site. Likewise, the field work and reporting will aid in understanding conditions and resources on adjacent properties that may not have been fully characterized. 3.0 Methodology Prior to an on-site field visit, a desktop analysis using GIS data and on-line resources to identify any mapped federal or state wetlands was conducted to screen for land and water features before actual field work and delineations were undertaken. Aerial photography and various other GIS layers, soil surveys, quadrangle maps, and the NYSDEC Environmental Viewer and National Wetlands Inventory mapper were reviewed to assess potential field conditions and to refine the delineation process. Once sufficient background information was gathered, GPI environmental staff conducted a formal site visit. Aft IfIltlal walk over of the site was perforil�ed to gailI ail UllUtlbLaiIdilly Ul the iay if t1ie laiId aiId iv determine the general status of any water and wetland features found throughout the property. Extensive field inspections were conducted where wetland parameters appeared to exist. Any wetland features encountered were thoroughly reviewed using the methodology outlined in the 1987 Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and the 2012 Northeast US Regional Supplement. Wetland Delineation Report (;�� February 14th, 2023 V page 1 3 1515 Birdseye Road Delineation Report I Southold, New York This method incorporates the three-parameter approach (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology), and is sufficient to determine the wetland/upland interface. The Routine Method was employed. Data plots were established in varying wetland habitats to document conditions and existence of the wetland delineation parameters. Data was recorded on data sheets summarizing these observations. Representative data sheets (and photos) are included in the Appendix. Soil test holes were excavated with a sharp-shooter spade throughout the site as necessary to aid in pinpointing the wetland-upland interface. Munsell Soil Chart readings were recorded to document upland and wetland soils. After analyzing vegetation, soils, and hydrology, the delineation process resulted in placing sequentially numbered colored flagging along the wetland/upland boundary. These flag points were subsequently picked up by a submeter accurate GPS unit. These flag features and other site features were used to create a site delineation map (see appendices). 4.0 Site Description The 1.269-acre parcel at 1515 Birdseye Road, sits on Terry Point just north of Route 25 (Main Road) in the Hamlet of Orient, NY. The property (Tax #1000-17-2-1.11) runs south from the Long Island Sound at sea level up and over a bluff to a high point of approximately 50 feet at the southern border of the parcel. At nearly the halfway point of the property, the land dips into a low swale at an elevation of approximately 10 feet above sea level. This Swale and its accompanying wetland and drainage channel are described further in Section 5.0 — Wetland Findings. The land within the parcel is mostly shrub/scrub, often an impenetrable mix of Japanese Honeysuckle, Oriental Bittersweet, and Multi-floral Rose. A variety of hardwoods such as Black Cherry, Sweet Cherry, Black Locust, and Staghorn Sumac support these trailing vines. A dirt surface footpath traverses the land from south to north and provides access to the sound shore, where a cobble beach is found. Based on a review of the Natural Resource Conservation Service Web Soil Survey, the predominate soil types on site are Montauk Loam (MkQ and Carver and Plymouth soils (CpE). MkE is a coarse sandy loam formed on moraines and hills and is a well-drained non-hydric soil. CpE is also found on moraines and outwash plains and is mostly sand with an upper layer of decomposed organic matter. It is a well- drained non-hydric soil. There are signs of human activities occurring on the site. The dirt footpath appears to have been somewhat elevated artificially, and in the low-lying swale area, two separate drainage pipes have been installed to accommodate runoff and waterflow. A traverse of the upper bluff area was not undertaken as there was no way through the mass of vines and brush. It is unknown if there are any other man- made features in this area, and due to the elevation and landscape position of the bluff area, it is assumed that no wetlands occurred here. 5.0 Wetlands Finding Prior to conducting the field visit and on the ground delineation, a desktop screening for wetland presence or absence was conducted. A review of the on-line National Wetland Inventory wetland maps and the DEC Environmental Mapper indicated that no wetlands had been mapped in the subject parcel Wetland Delineation Report GPI February 14', 2023 page 1 4 1515 Birdseye Road Delineation Report I Southold, New York vicinity. However, it is not unusual for wetlands to occur in the landscape where they are not shown on NYSDEC and Federal resource maps. In nearly all situations, an on the ground formal field delineation is necessary to determine wetland absence/presence. This is certainly the case at this property. Aerial photography and contour map interpretation indicated that a drainage swale and drainage channel may flow through and off the site from west to east. This was shown by a dark line and vegetation community of likely Phragmites occurring just to the east of the driveway. With this background information in mind, finding wetlands on the parcel was anticipated. GPI Environmental staff were able to identify one wetland polygon within the low-lying swale previously discussed. The overall wetland polygon shape can be seen on the wetland delineation map in the Appendices. Based on soil test pits, vegetation sampling, and general analysis of overall site conditions, flagging was placed along the boundaries of the polygon and named Wetland A. The wetland flagging originates at a small pipe that drains under the driveway adjacent to the property. This emergent wetland area is identified as the Lower Wetland. This wetland runs up-drainage through a small pipe and under an artificially filled upland area and emerges as a small open drainage channel. This drainage channel is taking in runoff waters through a second pipe that allows flow under the previously describe raised dirt path. The origin of any water draining down through this Swale system is a larger ponded depression that can be described as a vernal pool. This forested wetland, identified as the Upper Wetland, is also characteristic of a vernal pool — with standing water in a leaf-filled depression in a wooded setting. Importantly, this forested wetland continues off the western edge of the Josephson property and on to the adjacent 1505 parcel. Since access has not been granted to this site, the estimated boundary has been shown on the wetland delineation map in the Appendices. The most common species within the Lower Wetland were Joe Pye Weed, Willow Herb, Tearthumb, and Soft Rush. The upper Wetland had only Red Maple and Silver Maple present within the standing water. A site visit during the growing season would likely add to the herbaceous species list, however, there was sufficient winter plant remnants to identify necessary dominant species, and an abundance of woody plant material a well. Based on the Munsell Soil Chart, soil pit tests indicated 10 YR 2/1 and 7.5 YR 2.5/1 mucky sand soils with no mottling present. These hydric soils have formed in the microtopography of the depressional setting contrary to the NRCS mapping indicating non-hydric soils present. Data sheets within the Appendices contain full details of plants, soils and hydrology found. 6.0 Summary and Conclusions The wetland area on-site was determined to be wetland by a dominance of wetland vegetation, signs of wetland hvdrologv, and hvdric soil readinqs. The resultinq wetland boundary line was surveyed using sub-meter accuracy GPS technology and is depicted on the attached site map. Although this delineation occurred in the winter, conditions were optimal with no snow cover, sufficient woody plant material present, and data soil holes were easily excavated. The wetland found contained two distinct habitat types of emergent marsh and forested wetlands, with a potential vernal pool present I Wetland Delineation Report '�■�� February 14th, 2023 page 1 5 1515 Birdseye Road Delineation Report I Southold, New York the forested wetland. This forested wetland continued off-site and on the adjacent property at 1505 Birdseye Road. It is believed that these findings are a true accounting of the wetland and waterway resources found in the project corridor, however, conditions change over seasons and time, and variations in boundaries may occur. Wetland Delineation Report `" February 14th, 2023 GPI page 1 6 1515 Birdseye Road Delineation Report I Southold, New York Appendices Wetland Delineation Report GPI February 1411, 2023 '�■ page 1 7 Southold,1515 Birdseye Road - General Location Map Town of Suffolk County, NY AA -----r---•----_--------- -------- ��- - OdenlPolni.'J rr r f County ParR r r r r --- •. '�,_ +► -. 1n ,,fit. _ r Q.bay $f � LittEe Bay" n f �. LL e r DamPadr �`, _ f]ne iBeacf"- j Slate PBrk. k b B» h Eas,Mat Pon 1 v • ti` r J' J G1,~enElorE rr ' 1 1 0.25 1 LegendMiles Km ;Y 1 1 site Location 4.11 1515 Birdseye Road - Site Location Plan ' :. Town of Southold,Suffolk County, NY -4w l .STAT_OF NEWYOF,( -et . IAKA y 1 y[ aRRZ w t r RijW50M' Legend o so ioo zoo r Subject Parcel Meters Feec M o io zo 40 Approximate Parcel Boundary E.v..❑, nrs cis a��w .rn,a 3i17a13 1515 Birdseye Road -Wetland Delineation Map �4 Town of Southold,Suffolk County, NY ffw � Lower Weiland L:avE6CHIA ay y INTERWELLEN it PROF=RTY Y PARTNRS LLC Open Drmmage Channel '"• '. fOSE.'HSON Upper Weiland It !" ■ Esdrni[ed Continuation of Upper Wcdand Boundary 4kA `, L Legend l : Wetland Boundary Dirt Path Centerline f s Estimated Continuation of Upper Wetland Boundary Delineation Flag Point ', W o is 30 60Feec Underground Pipe Approximate Parcel Boundary :: ( Meters = Estimated Drainage Channel Centerline s o a a i6 �e Fo;PY tP;.w�;�o—ry ooio u�e E2pwg Deg cyrvr5 c150.wgli.•i.r.Ovi�rThN Paps, 7/9/2023c WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM—Northcentral and Northeast Region Project/Site 1515 Birdseye Road City/County: Southold/Suffolk Sampling Date: 02109123 Applicant/Owner: J.Josephson State: NY Sampling Point: A•Lmmr-up Investigator(s): K.Weiskotten Section,Township,Range: Orient,NY Landform(hillside,terrace,etc.): Moraines and Outwash Plains Local relief(concave,convex,none): Convex Slope%: 5 Subregion(LRR or MLRA): LRR S,MLRA 149B Lat: 41°,08',49.50"N Long: 72°,18',44.20"W Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Carver and Plymouth NWI classification: None Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation N Soil N or Hydrology N significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes X No Are Vegetation N Soil N or Hydrology N naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS—Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transects, important features,etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No X Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X within a Wetland? Yes No_X Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X If yes,optional Wetland Site ID: Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators(minimum of two reguir Primary Indicators(minimum of one is required:check all that aoolvl _Surface Soil Cracks(66) _Surface Water(Al) —Water-Stained Leaves(139) _Drainage Patterns(1310) _High Water Table(A2) _Aquatic Fauna(B13) _Moss Trim Lines(B16) _Saturation(A3) _Marl Deposits(1315) _Dry-Season Water Table(C2) _Water Marks(B1) _Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(CII) _Crayfish Burrows(C8) _Sediment Deposits(B2) _Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) _Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) _Drift Deposits(133) _Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) _Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) _Algal Mat or Crust(64) _Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) _Geomorphic Position(D2) _Iron Deposits(B5) _Thin Muck Surface(C7) _Shallow Aquitard(D3) _Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(137)_Other(Explain in Remarks) _Microtopographic Relief(D4) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth(inches): Water Table Present? Yes No X Depth(inches): Saturation Present? Yes No X Depth(inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region—Version 2.0 VEGETATION-Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: A-Lower-UP Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) %Cover Species? Status Dominance Test worksheet: 1 Number of Dominant Species 2. That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 1 (A) 3. Total Number of Dominant 4. Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) 5. Percent of Dominant Species g. That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 25.0% (A/B) 7. Prevalence Index worksheet: =Total Cover Total%Cover of: Mu[liply by: SaplinglShrub Stratum (Plot size: 15' ) OBL species x 1 = 1. FACW species x 2= 2. FAC species x 3= 3. FACU species x 4= 4. UPL species x 5= 5. Column Totals: (A) (B) g. Prevalence Index =B/A= 7. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: =Total Cover 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' ) 2-Dominance Test is>50% 1. Solidago altissima 20 Yes FACU 3-Prevalence Index is:53.01 2. Alliari"a poliolata 15 Yes FACU 4-Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting 3. Persicaria arifolia 10 No OBL data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 4. Phyto/acca americana 10 No FACU Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) 5. 'indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must g. be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 7. Definitions of Vegetation Strata: 8. Tree-Woody plants 3 in.(7.6 cm)or more in g, diameter at breast height(DBH),regardless of height. 10. Sapling/shrub-Woody plants less than 3 in.DBH 11. and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft(1 m)tall. 12. Herb-All herbaceous(non-woody)plants,regardless 55 =Total Cover of size,and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15' 1 Woody vines-All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in 1. Lonicera japonica 20 Yes FACU height. 2. Vitis riparia 10 Yes FAC 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation 4. Present? Yes No 0 30 =Total Cover Reimark-S: (InCl-Wd-F-hotO inumbers here or on.a separate sheet US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region-Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: A-Lower-UP Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 3/2 100 Sandy Cobbly `Type: C=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced kliatrix,MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': Histosol(Al) Polyvalue Below Surface(S8)(LRR R, 2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR K,L,MLRA 14913) Histic Epipedon(A2) MLRA 149B) _Coast Prairie Redox(A16)(LRR K,L,R) _Black Histic(A3) _Thin Dark Surface(S9)(LRR R,MLRA 149B) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat(S3)(LRR K,L,R) —Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) —High Chroma Sands(S11)(LRR K,L) _Polyvalue Below Surface(S8)(LRR K,L) _Stratified Layers(A5) _Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(LRR K,L) _Thin Dark Surface(S9)(LRR K,L) —Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) —Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) _Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR K,L,R) _Thick Dark Surface(Al2) _Depleted Matrix(F3) _Piedmont Floodplain Soils(F19)(MLRA 14913) _Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) Redox Dark Surface(F6) Mesic Spodic(TA6)(MLRA 144A,145,149B) _Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) —Depleted Dark Surface(F7) —Red Parent Material(F21) _Sandy Redox(S5) _Redox Depressions(F8) _Very Shallow Dark Surface(F22) _Stripped Matrix(S6) Marl(F10)(LRR K,L) _Other(Explain in Remarks) Dark Surface(S7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present,unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if observed): Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Remarks: This data form is revised from Northcentral and Northeast Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric Soils, Version 7.0,2015 Errata.(http://www.nres.usda.gov/lnternet/FSE—DOCUMENTS/nres142p2_051293.docx) No soil test pit possible due to solid substrate of cobble and dredge material. US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region—Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM—Northcentral and Northeast Region Project/Site: 1515 Birdseye Road City/County: Southold/Suffolk Sampling Date: 02109123 Applicant/Owner: J.Josephson State: NY Sampling Point: xL..,.nea Investigator(s): K.Weiskotten Section,Township,Range: Orient,NY Landform(hillside,terrace,etc.): Moraines and Outwash Plains Local relief(concave,convex,none): Convex Slope%: o Subregion(LRR or MLRA): LRR S,MLRA 149E Lat: 410,08',49.50"N Long: 72°,18',44.20"W Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Carver and Plymouth NWI classification: PEM Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation N Soil N or Hydrology N significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes X No Are Vegetation N Soil N or Hydrology N naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS—Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transects, important features,etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes X No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No If yes,optional Wetland Site ID: Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: $econdary indicators minimum of two reauiredf Primary Indicators minimum of one is re uired:check all that aeol 1 —Surface Soil Cracks(B6) X Surface Water(A1) X Water-Stained Leaves(B9) X Drainage Patterns(610) _High Water Table(A2) _Aquatic Fauna(B13) _Moss Trim Lines(1316) X Saturation(A3) —Marl Deposits(B15) _Dry-Season Water Table(C2) _Water Marks(131) _Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(C1) _Crayfish Burrows(C8) _Sediment Deposits(132) _Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) _Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) _Drift Deposits(B3) —Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) _Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) _Algal Mat or Crust(B4) —Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) _Geomorphic Position(D2) _Iron Deposits(B5) _Thin Muck Surface(C7) _Shallow Aquitard(D3) _Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7)_Other(Explain in Remarks) _Microtopographic Relief(D4) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(68) X FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes X No Depth(inches): 2 Water Table Present? Yes No X Depth(inches): Saturation Present? Yes X No Depth(inches): 2 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region—Version 2.0 VEGETATION—Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: A-Lower-WET Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) %Cover Species? Status Dominance Test worksheet: 1 Number of Dominant Species 2, That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 3 (A) 3- Total Number of Dominant 4. Species Across All Strata: 5 (B) 5. Percent of Dominant Species 6 That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 60.0% (A/B) 7- Prevalence Index worksheet: =Total Cover Total%Cover of: Multiply by: Sapling/Shrub Slralum (Plot size: 15, ) OBL species x 1 = 1. FACW species x 2= 2. FAC species x 3= 3. FACU species x 4= 4. UPL species x 5= 5. Column Totals: (A) (B) 6. Prevalence Index =B/A= 7. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: =Total Cover 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' ) X 2-Dominance Test is>50% 1. Epilobium co/oratum 20 Yes OBL 3-Prevalence Index is:53.01 2. Eutrochium dubium 20 Yes FACW 4-Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting 3. Juncus effusus 15 No OBL data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 4. Persicaria arifolia 30 Yes OBL Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 5. So/idago a/tissima 5 No FACU 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 6. be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 7. Definitions of Vegetation Strata: 8. Tree—Woody plants 3 in.(7.6 cm)or more in 9. diameter at breast height(DBH),regardless of height. 10. Sapling/shrub—Woody plants less than 3 in.DBH 11. and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft(1 m)tall. 12. Herb—All herbaceous(non-woody)plants,regardless 90 =Total Cover of size,and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15' ) Woody vines—AII woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in 1. Lonicera,japonica 5 Yes FACU height. 2. Rosa mu/tif/ora 5 Yes FACU Hydrophytic 3• Vegetation 4, Present? Yes X No 10 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or oll a.separate sheet.) US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region—Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point A-Lower-WET Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Loe Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 2/1 100 Mucky Sand 'Type: C=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': _Histosol(Al) _Polyvalue Below Surface(S8)(LRR R, _2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR K,L,MLRA 14913) _Histic Epipedon(A2) MLRA 149B) —Coast Prairie Redox(A16)(LRR K,L,R) _Black Histic(A3) _Thin Dark Surface(S9)(LRR R,MLRA 149B) _5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat(S3)(LRR K,L,R) —Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) —High Chroma Sands(S11)(LRR K,L) _Polyvalue Below Surface(S8)(LRR K,L) _Stratified Layers(A5) _Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(LRR K,L) _Thin Dark Surface(S9)(LRR K,L) _Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) _Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) _Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR K,L,R) _Thick Dark Surface(Al2) _Depleted Matrix(F3) _Piedmont Floodplain Soils(F19)(MLRA 149B) X Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) _Redox Dark Surface(F6) _Mesic Spodic(TA6)(MLRA 144A,145,149B) _Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) _Depleted Dark Surface(F7) _Red Parent Material(F21) _Sandy Redox(S5) _Redox Depressions(F8) _Very Shallow Dark Surface(F22) _Stripped Matrix(S6) _Marl(F10)(LRR K,L) Other(Explain in Remarks) ? Dark Surface(S7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present,unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if observed); Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Remarks: This data form is revised from Northcentral and Northeast Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric Soils, Version 7.0,2015 Errata.(http://www.nres.usda.gov/lnterneVFSE_DOCUMENTS/nres142p2_051293.docx) No soil test pit possible due to solid substrate of cobble and dredge material. US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region—Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM—Northcentral and Northeast Region Project/Site: 1515 Birdseye Road City/County: Southold/Suffolk Sampling Date: 02/09123 Applicant/Owner: J.Josephson State: NY Sampling Point: A-UPMr-UP Investigator(s): K.Weiskotten Section,Township,Range: Orient,NY Landform(hillside,terrace,etc.): Moraines and Outwash Plains Local relief(concave,convex,none): Convex Slope%: 0 Subregion(LRR or MLRA): LRR S,MLRA 149E Lat: 41°,08',49.50"N Long: 72°,18',44.20"W Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Carver and Plymouth NWI classification: None Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation N Soil N or Hydrology N significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes X No Are Vegetation N Soil N or Hydrology N naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS—Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transects, important features,etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No X Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X within a Wetland? Yes No X Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X If yes,optional Wetland Site ID: Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: S�econdary Indicators fminimum of two re uired Primary Indicators(minimum of one is required:check all that apolV) —Surface Soil Cracks(136) _Surface Water(Al) —Water-Stained Leaves(139) _Drainage Patterns(B10) _High Water Table(A2) _Aquatic Fauna(1313) —Moss Trim Lines(1316) —Saturation(A3) —Marl Deposits(1315) _Dry-Season Water Table(C2) _Water Marks(131) _Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(C1) _Crayfish Burrows(C8) _Sediment Deposits(132) _Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) _Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) _Drift Deposits(63) _Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) _Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) _Algal Mat or Crust(134) —Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) _Geomorphic Position(D2) _Iron Deposits(135) _Thin Muck Surface(C7) _ShallowAquitard(D3) _Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7)_Other(Explain in Remarks) _Microtopographic Relief(D4) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(138) FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth(inches): Water Table Present? Yes No X Depth(inches): Saturation Present? Yes No X Depth(inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region—Version 2.0 VEGETATION-Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: A-UppeT-UP Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) %Cover Species? Status Dominance Test worksheet: 1. Acerplatanoides 10 Yes UPL Number of Dominant Species 2. Prunus serotina 10 Yes FACU That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 0 (A) 3. Prunus avium 20 Yes FACU Total Number of Dominant 4. Rhus typhina 10 Yes UPL Species Across All Strata: 11 (B) 5. Percent of Dominant Species 6. That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 0.0% (A/B) 7. Prevalence Index worksheet: 50 =Total Cover Total%Cover of: Multiply by: Sa lin lShrub Stratum (Plot size: 15' ) OBL species x 1= 1. Lonicera japonica 20 Yes FACU FACW species x 2= 2. E/aeagnus angustifolia 10 Yes FACU FAC species x 3= 3. Ligustrum obtusifolium 10 Yes FACU FACU species x 4= 4. UPL species x 5= 5. Column Totals: (A) (B) 6. Prevalence Index =B/A= 7. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 40 =Total Cover 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' ) 2-Dominance Test is>50% 1. Alliaria petiolata 10 Yes FACU �_3-Prevalence Index is:53.0' 2 _4-Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting 3 data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 4. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) 5. 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 6. be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 7. Definitions of Vegetation Strata: 8. Tree-Woody plants 3 in.(7.6 cm)or more in g. diameter at breast height(DBH),regardless of height. 10. Sapling/shrub-Woody plants less than 3 in.DBH 11. and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft(1 m)tall. 12. Herb-All herbaceous(non-woody)plants,regardless 10 =Total Cover of size,and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15' ) Woody vines-All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in 1. Ce/astrus orbicu/atus 25 Yes UPL height. 2. Rosa multif/ora 10 Yes FACU Hydrophytic 3. Rubus phoenico/asius 10 Yes FACU Vegetation 4 Present? Yes No X 45 =Total Cover rmHnarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region-Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: A-Upper-UP Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Loc Texture Remarks 0-16 5YR 3/3 100 Loamy/Clayey 16-20 10YR 4/4 100 Sandy 'Type: C=Concentration,D=De letion,RM=Reduced Nlatrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: _Histosol(Al) Polyvalue Below Surface(S8)(LRR R, _2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR K,L,MLRA 149B) _Histic Epipedon(A2) MLRA 149B) _Coast Prairie Redox(A16)(LRR K,L,R) —Black Histic(A3) _Thin Dark Surface(S9)(LRR R,MLRA 149B) _5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat(S3)(LRR K,L,R) _Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) High Chroma Sands(S11)(LRR K,L) _Polyvalue Below Surface(S8)(LRR K,L) _Stratified Layers(A5) _Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(LRR K,L) _Thin Dark Surface(S9)(LRR K,L) _Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) _Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR K,L,R) _Thick Dark Surface(Al2) _Depleted Matrix(F3) _Piedmont Floodplain Soils(F19)(MLRA 14913) _Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) Redox Dark Surface(F6) _Mesic Spodic(TA6)(MLRA 144A,145,149B) _Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) Depleted Dark Surface(F7) _Red Parent Material(F21) _Sandy Redox(S5) _Redox Depressions(F8) _Very Shallow Dark Surface(F22) _Stripped Matrix(S6) Marl(F10)(LRR K,L) Other(Explain in Remarks) Dark Surface(S7) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present,unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if observed): Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Remarks: This data form is revised from Northcentral and Northeast Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric Soils, Version 7.0,2015 Errata.(hftp://www.nres.usda.gov/lnternet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nres142p2_051293.docx) No soil test pit possible due to solid substrate of cobble and dredge material. US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region—Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM—Northcentral and Northeast Region Project/Site: 1515 Birdseye Road City/County: Southold/Suffolk Sampling Date: 02/09123 Applicant/Owner: J.Josephson State: NY Sampling Point: huppa-over Investigator(s): K.Weiskotten Section,Township,Range: Orient,NY Landform(hillside,terrace,etc.): Moraines and Outwash Plains Local relief(concave,convex,none): Convex Slope%: o Subregion(LRR or MLRA): LRR S,MLRA 149B Lat: 41°,08',49.50"N Long: 72°,18',44.20"W Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Carver and Plymouth NWI classification: PFO Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation N Soil N or Hydrology N significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes X No Are Vegetation N Soil N or Hydrology N naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS—Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes X No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No If yes,optional Wetland Site ID: Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators minimum of two required) Primary Indicators minimum of one is required:check all that apply) _Surface Soil Cracks(B6) X Surface Water(A1) X Water-Stained Leaves(B9) _Drainage Patterns(1310) _High Water Table(A2) _Aquatic Fauna(B13) X Moss Trim Lines(B16) X Saturation(A3) _Marl Deposits(B15) _Dry-Season Water Table(C2) X Water Marks(131) _Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(C1) _Crayfish Burrows(C8) _Sediment Deposits(B2) _Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) _Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) _Drift Deposits(133) _Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) _Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) _Algal Mat or Crust(B4) _Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) _Geomorphic Position(D2) _Iron Deposits(135) _Thin Muck Surface(C7) _Shallow Aquitard(D3) _Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7)_Other(Explain in Remarks) _Microtopographic Relief(D4) ? Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(138) X FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes X No Depth(inches): 10 Water Table Present? Yes No X Depth(inches): Saturation Present? Yes X No Depth(inches): 1 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region—Version 2.0 VEGETATION—Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: A Upper-WET Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) %Cover Species? Status Dominance Test worksheet: 1. Acer rubrum 35 Yes FAC Number of Dominant Species 2. Acer saccharinum 30 Yes FACW That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 2 (A) 3- Total Number of Dominant 4. Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) 5. Percent of Dominant Species 6. That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 100.0% (A/B) 7. Prevalence Index worksheet: 65 =Total Cover Total%Cover of: Multiply by: Sa lin /Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15' ) OBL species x 1 = 1. FACW species x 2= 2. FAC species x 3= 3. FACU species x 4= 4. UPL species x 5= 5. Column Totals: (A) (B) 6. Prevalence Index =B/A= 7. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: =Total Cover 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' ) X 2-Dominance Test is>50% 1. _3-Prevalence Index is s3.0' 2 4-Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting 3 data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 4 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 5• 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 6. be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 7. Definitions of Vegetation Strata: 8. Tree—Woody plants 3 in.(7.6 cm)or more in g. diameter at breast height(DBH),regardless of height. 10. Sapling/shrub—Woody plants less than 3 in.DBH 11. and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft(1 m)tall. 12. Herb—All herbaceous(non-woody)plants,regardless =Total Cover of size,and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15' ) Woody vines—All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in 1. height. 2. Hydrophytic 3• Vegetation 4. Present? Yes X No =Total Cover numarks: (include photo(lumbers here or on a separate sheet.) No other vegetation growing at the time of site visit,besides woody trees. Site was a vernal pool of standing water in a mature forest. US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region—Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: A-Upper-WET Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Loe Texture Remarks 0-6 7.5YR 2.5/2 100 Mucky Sand 6-14 7.5YR 3/1 100 Mucky Sand 'Type: C=Concentration.D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: _Histosol(Al) _Polyvalue Below Surface(S8)(LRR R, _2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR K,L,MLRA 149B) _Histic Epipedon(A2) MLRA 149B) _Coast Prairie Redox(A16)(LRR K,L,R) _Black Histic(A3) _Thin Dark Surface(S9)(LRR R,MLRA 149B) _5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat(S3)(LRR K,L,R) _Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) —High Chroma Sands(S11)(LRR K,L) Polyvalue Below Surface(S8)(LRR K,L) _Stratified Layers(A5) _Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(LRR K,L) _Thin Dark Surface(S9)(LRR K,L) —Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) _Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) _Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR K,L,R) _Thick Dark Surface(Al2) —Depleted Matrix(F3) _Piedmont Floodplain Soils(F19)(MLRA 149B) X Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) Redox Dark Surface(F6) ? Mesic Spodic(TA6)(MLRA 144A,145,149B) _Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) _Depleted Dark Surface(F7) _Red Parent Material(F21) _Sandy Redox(S5) _Redox Depressions(F8) _Very Shallow Dark Surface(F22) _Stripped Matrix(S6) _Marl(F10)(LRR K,L) _Other(Explain in Remarks) ? Dark Surface(S7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present,unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if observed): Type: Depth(inches) Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Remarks: This data form is revised from Northcentral and Northeast Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric Soils, Version 7.0,2015 Errata.(http://www.nres.usda.gov/lnternet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nres142p2_051293.docx) No soil test pit possible due to solid substrate of cobble and dredge material. US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region—Version 2.0 1515 Birdseye Road Delineation Report Southold, New York Photo Log •l . } 23 Photo 1 —View downstream off-site from driveway. re - s - Photo 2 —View upstream onto site from driveway. Lower Wetland in foreground. Wetland Delineation Report �� February 14t1i, 2023 page 1 8 1515 Birdseye Road Delineation Report Southold, New York , � f x • V/.:.mot'" � ° .. I •. Photo 3 —Outlet of Lower Wetland. P - +- - �ii�-L:��:.r,Yil.' �'�� •'1%*7S�f='i:�k�`Lae..5}zt,. �� '. 'y. , 'qe.��'��. .�Ji.t�..:. c `� Photo 4— Interior of Lower Wetland. Wetland Delineation Report � � February 141h, 2023 page 1 9 1515 Birdseye Road Delineation Report Southold, New York C , 4 .1'• s a. r t IJU � l 1•. , •, :.: a '+ems s � s Photo 5 — Upper section of Lower Wetland. '„�� 4Y M. ^J WM MA , ,.. 3 \ a. al Photo 6 — Pipe leading i to Lower Wetland. Wetland Delineation Report E"' � February 141h, 2023 V page I 10 1515 Birdseye Road Delineation Report I Southold, New York hz OFF I", Wj wi;' rt tlalf�'. yk. p��-•frt jwd�iWi Y ,� .•.- may zr .714 NMI ME,R FA sx Photo 7—Wetland Soil Data Hole— Lower Wetland. r"� fw��a"t�4� i-- - AA !44 77 �. r . VIM. r. _ - . �� , ,ICJ ��.a�.�•- Photo 8— Upland Soil Data Hole— Lower Wetland. Wetland Delineation Report n� February 14th, 2023 page 1 11 1515 Birdseye Road Delineation Report Southold, New York wA i Y T _ w,W Photo 9—View east of Lower Wetland from top of raised piped section. WT d y i -4 - _ L. Photo10—Open channel as it drains toward piped section — Lower Wetland in distance. Wetland Delineation Report � � February 14th, 2023 page 1 12 1515 Birdseye Road Delineation Report I Southold, New York r , ,��+��}��`�o. .ram.. _._ �� Y r r , •_� Ell Photo 11 —View up channel toward dirt path. ``L �+�-- 4 a • -� 12 NZ 4 IR Photo 12—View down channel. Note car in distance on driveway. Wetland Delineation Report �� February 14th, 2023 page 1 13 1515 Birdseye Road Delineation Report Southold, New York vm ,� 1 YI rf ti p�,'jT' "r.�'!.Jy� :, is �� 4� �{s-5.�,r„a'� 'r�- .- r•. Photo 13 — Dirt path looking south with open channel on left, Upper forested wetland on right. sr wl• �._ Photo 14— Dirt path looking north with forested wetland on left, channel on right. Wetland Delineation Report (;�� February 14th, 2023 V page 1 14 1515 Birdseye Road Delineation Report Southold, New York t, 1 JV nL Photo 15 —View east of outlet of Upper forested wetland under dirt path. _ = 4 44 AL4 +I _ �� ;�. 5 C"., � '+,•` �_ k f yak Photo 16 —View west of Upper forested wetland (vernal pool) — into adjoining parcel. Wetland Delineation Report �� February 14th, 2023 page 1 15 1515 Birdseye Road Delineation Report Southold, New York S _ate": S' -• � `ram ry • ,,. .. :(, -.dam ._. .+rl. ,.t °7ii��`�` , [ Photo 17— Northern edge of forested wetland. Flag is at parcel boundary. _ f. JMV n..' A, NZ _ Photo 18 — Interior of forested wetland looking along edge of parcel boundary. Wetland Delineation Report �"�� February 14th, 2023 V page 1 16 1515 Birdseye Road Delineation Report Southold, New York •r � ,� �'� -�� _' � � ,. .-..L J Yam••. - � y t��+ fi 4 _t. t - Photo 19 — Upper Wetland Soil Data Hole. r Fk. 4 ♦,`�� tie _ d l r - i - Photo 20 — Upper Wetland Upland Soil Data Hole. Wetland Delineation Report �� February 14th, 2023 page 1 17 GPwI Many Talents One Firm [Main gpinet.com Kurt Weiskotten, M.S. Senior Environmental Scientist PROPOSED PROJECT Professional Profile ASSIGNMENT� Senior Environmental Mr. Weiskotten has 38+ years' experience in the environmental field, with 26+years Scientist of experience as an Environmental Specialist. His experience includes environmental policy development, project design review and guidance, conducting environmental EDUCATION: screenings and analysis for state and federal aid projects, including NEPA, SEORA, 1991/MS/Environmental Studies/SUNY ESF state and federal wetlands and streams,flora and fauna ecology,endangered species, 1989/BS/Environmental Studies/SUNYESF vegetation management, invasive species control and management, and cultural 1983/AAS/Natural resources. He is an experienced field naturalist and natural history interpreter.He has Resources/Conservation/SUNYATC also managed and supervised staff in conducting numerous environmental 1983/Boreal Flora&Field Ornithology/Univ. of screenings, project reviews and processing. He has coordinated all levels of projects Michigan with various agencies including NYSDEC, NYSDOS, ACOE, USFWS, and SHPO in preparing and obtaining all necessary wetland and wildlife permits needed for REGISTRATION/CERTIFICATIONS: transportation and environmental projects. He is proficient in developing erosion and Hydric Soils sediment control plans, landscape plans, and in using GPS and GIS to screen and Methodology of Wetland Delineation plan for environmental resource impacts. Beyond transportation planning and Techniques of wetland Mitigation and environmental processing,he has extensive field experience in wetlands,wildlife,and Construction natural history. His specialties include bird identification and biology, insect ecology, Storm water and Erosion Control Principles wildlife issues, plant identification, habitat management, vegetation management, USACOE Nationwide Permits landscape design,wetland and stream ecology and dynamics and restoration,wetland Geographic Information Systems/GIS delineation, wetland mitigation design and monitoring, and environmental teaching Global Positioning Systems/GPS and training,among others. Fluvial Geomorphology Module/FGM USACOE Stream Restoration Techniques As an Environmental Scientist, he is responsible for various project review and coordination, permitting, and environmental subject matter input for highway, structural, land development, architectural, and traffic units, He provides expertise on YEARS WITH FIRM: 10 biology, fish and wildlife, aquatic and terrestrial habitat management, vegetation TOTAL YEARS EXPERIENCE: 38 management, invasive species control, water quality protection, regulatory interpretation,and environmental stewardship guidance.Clients include NYS Thruway Authority and Canal Corporation, NYS Department of Transportation, County and PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS: Local Highway Departments, Private Developers, Environmental Agencies and New York State Ornithological Society Organizations, and Non-Governmental Organizations. New York State Wetlands Forum(Board Member) Project Experience New York State Flora Association Conference Planning Member, ICOET,Lake State Transportation Placid, NY PIN 90380A, Route 363 Gateway Project in Binghamton, Broome County, NY. 2017-2018. Environmental Scientist. This project consists of the initial project preparation and progressing through the scoping phases to develop a scoping report. Responsibilities include preparation of environmental documents,field identification of wetland boundaries, inventory of endangered species habitat. GPI and their team are provided all conceptual design services including conceptual drawings, cost estimates,site investigations, regulatory compliance,alternative investigations,public information meeting and outreach, and environmental reviews. Mr. Weiskotten evaluated each alternative to determine its impact on the flora and fauna as well as waters of the US. As part of the project GPI also prepared a hazardous materials GrraPninn report. This 1.300+ oaae document discusses the screenings that were performed, records that were reviewed and findings for the project corridor. Client: NYSDOT; Daniel Gates, Consultant Manager, 518.485.0830, danieLgates@dotny.gov D031345, PIN 3EST01 &2 NYSDOT Empire State Trail, Region 3,Syracuse, NY. 08/17-12/20. Environmental Scientist. This 100% state funded project has a sole purpose to extend the Empire State Trail,a shared/multi use Pedestrian and Bicyclist GPI Pathway, across NYSDOT Region 3. The project will extend the Empire State Trail system through the Town of Camillus, City of Syracuse,and Town of Dewitt.This will be one of the last segments,which will complete the 750-mile Empire State Trail,from New York City to Canada and from Albany to Buffalo. Responsibilities include progressing this project through the scoping phase, preliminary and final design. This includes the preparation of scoping and design report, traffic modeling, and public outreach plan generation and cost estimating.The trail will contain a mixture of on-road routes,side paths and separate trails systems including the design and construction of a 300-ft dedicated bicyclist/pedestrian bridge over 1481. Mr.Weiskotten was responsible for overseeing all environmental aspects of the project. He reviewed reports and findings submitted by the subconsultants and provided technical guidance throughout the design process. He also proposed tree species that were native to the area and would thrive in their proposed environment. Client: NYSDOT; Contact:Daniel Gates, PE, Consultant Manager, 518,485.0830, daniel.gates@dot.ny.gov New York State Canal Corporation, Upland Disposal Site 4-33, Utica, NY. 2017. Environmental Scientist. Project involved the field delineation of wetlands areas within and surrounding the disposal site and documentation of tree species type and distribution within the site.A full wetland documentation report was prepared to be used when coordinating site usage with resource agencies.Attended field Jurisdictional Determination meeting to interpret findings with the US Army Corps of Engineers and NYS Department of Environmental Conservation. All wetlands' boundaries were collected using GPS technology and final boundary exhibits and documentation were provided to the Canal Corporation. Client:NYS Canal Corporation; Contact:Mark Miller, 518.449.6040 New York State Canal Corporation, Upland Disposal Site C-1, Waterford, Saratoga County, NY. 2016. Environmental Scientist. Project involved the field delineation of wetlands from upland areas within the disposal site and analysis for feasibility of site for future disposal of canal dredge material. All wetlands' boundaries were collected using GPS technology and a final boundary product was created and provided to the Canal Corporation in report form. Client:NYS Canal Corporation;Contact:Mark Miller, 518.449,6040 The New NY Bridge over the Hudson River[PIN 8TZ.100],South Nyack,Tarrytown,NY.2013-2017. Member of the Design Quality Assurance Team, responsible for performing independent reviews of various environmental design packages and reports related to the project's highway and civil-related elements. Responsible for the environmental review of numerous design documents for conformance with project requirements, the Approved Design Quality Management System, and the Design Quality Assurance Plan. Prepare and submit QA Certifications for the Design Quality Assurance Manager. Client: Tappan Zee Constructors, LLC, Contact Dan Domalik, 914.789.3226 D214295 Term Agreement for Design Services— NYS Thruway Authority, Primarily in the Albany & Syracuse Divisions, NY. 2014-2017.Environmental Scientist,This three-year term agreement project involves a wide range of highway and bridge design support services. Responsibilities include the full array of environmental duties that may be required for Thruway capital program projects. Projects under this term include: • MP 340.15/6574.1 Exit 43 Manchester Interchange — Wetland delineation and reporting services for an interchange bridge replacement project along the Thruway near Rochester NY. GPS was used to gather field data and boundary points. Responsibilities also included preparation of Design Report environmental sections and responding to comments for Thruway Authority. Contact:Pete Weisbecker, 518.471.5375 • A351.1 Mahwah Radio Tower — Responsibilities for this project to relocate a communication tower along the Thruway in downstate NY included extensive coordination with the Thruway, Federal Aviation Administration,and NYSDEC.Topics resolved included work adjacent to a Wild and Scenic River, a Negative Declaration through the NEPA and SEQRA process, and telecommunication permitting with FAA. Contact:Pete Weisbecker, 518.471.5375 D214143 Term Agreement for Design Services— NYS Thruway Authority, Primarily in the New York &Albany Divisions, NY. 2013-2017. Environmental Scientist.This four-year term agreement project involves a wide range of highway and bridge design support services.Responsibilities include the full array of environmental duties that may be required for Thruway capital program projects. Example projects under this term: • Syracuse Division Culvert Repairs—06/13-09/13included various maintenance repair and rehabilitation efforts at 24 culverts sites across the Syracuse Division of the Thruway mainline. Work at each culvert varied, but included replacing headwalls and wingwalls, extending deteriorated end sections, cleaning of accumulated sediments, and slip-lining or cured-in-place liner installations within culverts. Responsible for preparation and coordination of a complete permit package for T hruway Authority- submittal to NYSDEC and ACOE for impacts to state and federal wetlands and streams. Contact:Pete Weisbecker, 518.471.5375 • MP 154-163 1 R Environmental Support—06/14-11-14. Environmental Specialist. Responsibilities for this nine-mile 1 R project with safety improvements included wetland delineations along all slope flattening areas, culvert inventories for water resource impacts,and evaluation for sediment and erosion control.A Joint Application was prepared and submitted on behalf of the Thruway Authority to secure COE and DEC permits for wetland and stream impacts. Contact:Pete Weisbecker, 518.471.5375 GPI Page 2 1 Weiskotten MP 253-2621 R Environmental Support—04/13-01/14. Environmental Scientist.This project is an 18-mile length of Eastbound and Westbound 1-90 mainline corridor that will receive pavement resurfacing along with culvert rehabs and extensive slope flattening treatments to provide a recoverable foreslope in as many locations as possible.Responsibilities include a formal wetland delineation along the entire project corridor. The delineation will allow for appropriate avoidance and minimization of wetland impacts, and submittal planning for wetland permitting. A full wetland delineation report is part of the delineation process. It is anticipated that complete permitting services will be provided, as well. Contact:Pete Weisbecker, 518.471.5375 ■ Wetland Mitigation Site Monitoring, Interchanges 23-24— 11/13-09/16. Multi-year responsibility for monitoring conditions at three separate wetland mitigation sites along the Thruway mainline near Albany. Responsibilities include field documentation of wetland conditions, plant communities, plant survivorship; photographic documentation of sites, and preparation of a yearly monitoring report to satisfy permit conditions for the project for a five-year term. A formal wetland delineation of the sites was completed as part of year three monitoring. • D214589, US Route 9&1-87 Interchange 9 Ramps&Intersection Improvements,Tarrytown,NY.07/19+.As Environmental Scientist, was responsible for preparing all environmental screenings and documentation for preliminary and final design for the reconstruction of Interchange 9 Ramp A and B of Interstate 87 and intersection improvements at Route 9. Extensive coordination with Thruway Authority is on-going. This is a joint project between the New York State Thruway Authority(NYSTA)and the New York State Department of Transportation(NYSDOT). Contact:Ameerudin Audit, PE, 518.471.4254 Local Transportation Gilbert Road Drainage Improvements,Saratoga Springs,NY.03/19-06/19. Environmental Scientist. GPI performed a drainage study to evaluate the existing hydrology of the Spring Run and the tributaries of Lake Lonely to determine potential solutions and alternatives to improve hydraulic efficiency in the area along Gilbert Road. This study evaluated all stream and tributary elements including culverts and adjacent runoff areas in the project area. Based upon the study recommendations, GPI prepared final design plans that included replacement of the existing culvert over the Tributary to Lake Lonely with a 10-ft x 6-ft concrete box culvert, realignment of stream corridors, medium stone fill at both upstream and downstream sides, replace existing pavement within the limits of construction and a temporary access road needed for construction. Responsiblilities included analysis of site environmental constraints, delineation of wetlands and stream corridor boundaries and Ordinary High Water lines, development of permit packages for NYSDEC and USACOE and ultimate issuance of permits,and coordination,design and implementation of stream enhancements and improvements. Client:City of Saratoga Springs, NY,-Contact:Michael Veitch, DPW Business Manager, 518.587.3550 x2556 Switzer Hill Road Drainage, Fonda, NY. 01118-06/18. Environmental Scientist. GPI is investigating the existing drainage along an approximately 1,600-LF section of Switzer Hill Road (CR 31)from NYS Route 5 north including a failing cross culvert and crib retaining wall and other structures that are showing significant signs of deterioration and failure. Several replacement and repair alternatives are being evaluated in this study.A full drainage study of the area will be performed as part of the scope. Mr. Weiskotten was responsible for a full wetland delineation of the site and evaluation of stream biology and geomorphology.Application for NYSDEC and USACOE permits were provided for all work in the stream and adjacent wetlands. Stream enhancements and wildlife passage features will be provided as part of final design. Client:Montgomery County DPW, Eric Mead, 518.365.1680, emead@co.montgomery.ny.us Rehabilitation of Shore Airport Road (CR 43), Essex County, NY. 04/17-04/18. Environmental Scientist. This 3.99-mile segment of roadway exhibits pavement deterioration due to extensive heavy vehicle traffic. Phase I consisted of roadway surface preservation,full depth asphalt repair, 10,000-ft of guiderail replacement, and MUTCD signage. Phase 11 consists of relining (12)culverts varying in size up to a 16-ft x 10-ft multi-plate arch and minor improvements to three others. Mr.Weiskotten was responsible for securing all APA, DEC, and ACOE wetland and water permits via Pre-Construction Notification for Nationwide Permit for work in and around the project culverts. A variety of technologies were employed including profile wall pipe, cured-in place pipe, and shotcrete application; all requiring cooperative coordination of solutions during permitting to address for beaver activity,fish passage,and other biological concerns. Client: Essex County, NY,Contact:Jim Dougan, 518.873.3739,jdougan@co.essex.ny.us Route 9 Over Indian Creek Bridge Replacement, Town of Chatham, Columbia County, NY. 2014-2017. Environmental Scientist. The project involved complete replacement of CR 9 over Indian Creek. Responsibilities included complex coordination with ACOE and DEC to fulfill aquatic organism passage requirements regarding a protected trout spawning stream, wetland and water resource permitting, USFWS coordination for endangered species protection, and SHPO review for historic resource issues. SEQRA and NEPA processing was also completed, as well as erosion and sediment control design and guidance,and invasive species control. Full review of project plans and completion of environmental portions of the Design Report were also undertaken. Client: Columbia County, NY, Contact:Barbara Otty, 518.828.7011, barbara.otty@columbiacountyny.com Route 5S Emergency Watershed Protection, Rotterdam, NY. 06/14-11/14. Environmental Scientist. Due to flooding and erosion events,this project included pollution control measures,debris removal,earth fill,rock protection,rock stream vanes,numerous plantings of native materials, and site restoration. GPI prepared preliminary and final design plans, utilized stream Fluvial Geomorphic (FGM) GPI Page 3 1 Weiskotten design methods,and created cost estimate and construction bid documents of the preferred treatment to stabilize and protect the stream. In addition,the streambed was realigned to create a more direct flow channel as the creek approaches the downstream bridge and rock vanes were installed to direct energy away from the erodible stream bank. To accommodate stream hydraulics and habitat during dry periods, a 5-ft low flow channel was designed and installed in the middle of the stream. GPI coordinated all project activities with the Town, NYSDOT, NYSDEC, NRCS and ACOE.As Environmental Scientist, he was responsible for obtaining all environmental approvals and permits and project documentation. Client: Town of Rotterdam, NY; Contact: Peter Comenzo, 518.355.7575, pcomenzo@rotterdamny.org Elk Drive Bridge over the LaChute River(PIN 1757.60),Town of Ticonderoga, Essex County, NY. 2014. Environmental Scientist. This Locally Administered Federal Aid Project involved complete replacement of the bridge, along with drainage and approach improvements.As Environmental Scientist, responsible for all environmental screenings, SEQRA and NEPA process,coordination with the Adirondack Park Agency, and obtaining all permits. Client: Essex County, NY, Contact: Robert Leveille, 518.873.3745, rleveille@co.essex.ny.us Route 9 Corridor Gateway Improvements(PIN 1759.67),Lake George,NY.2014. Environmental Scientist.This Locally Administered Federal Aid Project involves improving pedestrian access and safety throughout the corridor and pavement preservation of the travel lanes.As the Environmental Scientist, he was responsible for all environmental screenings, SEQRA processing,erosion, and sediment control feature design,and obtaining all permits. Mr.Weiskotten also reviewed the extensive plantings to ensure all species were native to the area and would thrive in their proposed location. Client Town of Lake George, NY, Contact: Dan Barsca, Director of Planning, 518.668.5131 x5 Housatonic Street Improvements,Town of Dalton, MA. 2013-2014. Environmental Scientist. This Locally Administered Federal Aid Project included new horizontal and vertical alignment to eliminate sub-standard geometry in several locations and selected full depth reconstruction of the pavement to improve the substandard conditions. The remaining scope of work consisted of asphalt reclamation and shoulder widening;construction of sidewalks on the north side of the road;and improvements to the existing drainage system.Tasks included wetland delineation,environmental review and permitting,and development of a wetland mitigation plan including site selection, hydrologic analysis, planting plans, and construction oversight. The total estimated cost for the project is $5M. Client: Town of Dalton, MA;Contact:Ken Walto, 413.684.6111 Trails 1 Shared Bike Facilities PINS 1762.43& 1762.58,Zim Smith Trail Northern Extension, Saratoga County, NY. 10/22+. Environmental Scientist. Responsible for conducting environmental field work and coordinating permit applications with NYSDEC and ACOE for regularity review and processing for the extension of this trail. GPI is providing trail design, right-of-way incidental and acquisition, environmental screenings and permitting, and wetland delineation professional services for this project. This project proposes to construct approximately 4-miles of multi-use trail, extending the Zim Smith Trail from the current terminus on Oak Street in the Town of Ballston Spa to the Saratoga Spa State Park at E West Street in the City of Saratoga Springs.The project will involve construction of a new asphalt trail generally following the Saratoga County sewer easement on primarily undeveloped parcels. The project will include a new pedestrian/bicycle bridge over the Kayaderosseras Creek, various culvert installations, construction of 10-ft wide ADA accessible trail, installation of safety items, and trailhead amenities such as parking lots, benches, etc. Client: Saratoga County, NY, Contact: Jason Kemper, 518.884.4705, JKemper@saratogacountyny.gov Zim Smith Northern Trail Extension, Saratoga County, NY. 02/20-03/20. Environmental Scientist. Responsible for assisting in environmental field work and coordinating permit applications with NYSDEC for regularity review and processing for the extension and widening of an existing stone dust trail to 10 ft wide paved trail.Prepared permit packages and currently working on securing final permits for regulated activities in state waters and wetlands, Client: Saratoga County, NY, Contact Jason Kemper, 518.884,4705, jkemper@saratogacounty.gov Mohawk River Trail Phase II & III (PIN 2650.18), City of Rome, Oneida County, NY. 09/17+. Environmental Scientist. This Locally Administered Federal Aid Project involved the construction of a multi-use path/trail, beginning at E. Chestnut Street and ending at the Delta Dam. The total length of the path/trail is approximately 3.84 miles. Mr. Weiskotten conducted all field wetland delineations and endangered species surveys. Additionally, he has contributed to the development of environmental sections of the design report and coordination of cultural resource screening and sign off and will secure all wetland permits for the project. Ciieiit: City of Runic, IV T, Contact:Matt Andrews, 315.339.7628;mandrews@romecitygov.com Albany-Hudson Electric Trail (AHET): Empire State Trail, Rensselaer & Columbia Counties, NY. 09/17-10/20. Environmental Scientist. GPI was designated a$3.5M term contract with the Hudson River Valley Greenway(HRVG)for the proposed development of a 35-mile trail through Rensselaer and Columbia Counties, NY.The trail connects the City of Rensselaer, NY to the City of Hudson, NY and follows a trolley line corridor, which was abandoned in 1929 and now operates as an electric transmission corridor. Mr. Weiskotten was heavily involved in all aspects of wetland and water resource inventory and documentation,development of an Individual Permit with GPI Page 4 1 Weiskotten the NYSDEC,ACOE, and NYSDOS, and design of several acres of tidal wetland mitigation.Avoidance and minimization of impacts to endangered species such as bats, cerulean warblers, and bald eagles was also successfully completed. Other responsibilities included development of a full Environmental Impact Statement, coordination with the DOS for work within the Coastal Zone and LWRPs, and cultural resource processing. Client: Hudson River Valley Greenway (HRVG); Contact: Andy Beers, Director Empire State Trail, 518.473.3835,Andy.Beers@hudsongreenway.ny.gov Geyser Road Trail I Bicycle&Pedestrian Trail, Saratoga County, NY.2017-2020. Environmental Scientist. Provided environmental services for the development of a multi-use trail along Geyser Road(County Route 43)located in Saratoga Springs,NY.The project area presently consists of 12-ft travel lanes with varying shoulder widths along with several non-connected sidewalks. In the project area are community resources, such as a school and athletic fields, residential community and the Saratoga Spa State Park. Responsible for project length wetland delineations and suitable bat habitat tree surveys, as well as design of an endangered Karner Blue Butterfly mitigation site adjacent to the corridor.Full coordination with NYSDEC to protect the butterfly and lupine habitat along the highway.Client: City of Saratoga Springs, NY, Contact Matthew Veitch, 518.587.2198, mveitch@saratogacountyny.gov Empires State Trail(EST)Canalway Trail on the Champlain Canal,Towns of Kingsbury and Village of Fort Ann,NY.09/16-12/18. Environmental Scientist. This project involved the new construction of a shared use trail from Kingsbury to Fort Ann along the former Champlain Canal towpath. Responsibilities include review of sub-consultant wetland delineations, re-delineation of wetland boundaries, field jurisdictional determinations with COE,development of permit applications to NYSDEC and COE,and coordination of off-site wetland mitigation solutions,including in lieu fee options.Client:New York State Thruway Authority;Contact:Mr.Robert Schabhetl:518.436.3140,- bob.schabhetl@thruway.ny.gov Zim Smith Mid-County Trail Southern Extension, from Coons Crossing Road to Mechanicville, Saratoga County, NY. (PIN 1758.62). 05/16-12/18. Environmental Scientist. This project involved development of Conceptual and final Plans to extend a new 10-ft wide paved trail to the City of Mechanicville. Responsibilities included conducting a project wide delineation of all wetland and water resources throughout the entire 2.5-mile corridor and screening site for suitable bat habitat.Additionally, assisted engineering staff with solutions to trail alignment scenarios involving stream and wetland crossings,endangered and invasive species, and cultural resources. Complex permit packages were prepared and submitted to NYSDC and COE, as well. Client: Saratoga County, NY, Contact Jason Kemper, 518.884.4705,jkemper@saratogacounty.gov Helderberg Hudson Rail Trail (PIN 1757.32),Albany County,NY.2013-2015. Environmental Scientist.This project was programmed through NYSDOT's Locally Administered Federal Aid Projects and involves preliminary and final design of 9-miles of trail system beginning in the Village of Voorheesville with an eastern terminus in the City of Albany. Responsibilities included full review of the entire corridor for wetland and water resources,including streams and tributaries to the Normanskill River,culvert replacement analysis,erosion and sediment control design, tree removal mapping and reporting, landscape planting plan development, and erosion and sediment control design.An emergency failed section of stream bank adjacent to the trail needed immediate environmental review and permitting as construction progressed. Client:Albany County DPW, Bill Anslow, 518.655,7920, wanslow@albanycounty.com Site 1 Hydraulics Minerva Lake Dam Rehabilitation, Minerva, NY. 07/18-05/19+. Environmental Scientist. Responsible for environmental field work (wetland delineations, Ordinary High-Water mark determinations,tree surveys) and meetings with Adirondack Park Agency, NYSDEC, and USCOE for regularity review and processing for the rehabilitation of the dam and shoreline of the reservoir.Prepared permit packages and secured final permits for regulated activities in state and federal waters and wetlands. Client: Town of Minerva, NY, Contact:Steve McNally, 518.251.2869;Minerva.supervisor@frontiemet.com Hydrologic&Hydraulic Study,Johnstown,NY.2015-2016. Environmental Scientist.This project involved the preparation of inclusive Hydrologic and Hydraulic studies of four stream reaches to determine possible solutions to rectify flooding issues within the city. Responsibilities included a full wetland and stream delineation throughout the City of Johnstown; of which all resources mapped were surveyed using GPS technology. Client:City of Johnstown, NY; Contact:Chris Vose, 518.736.4014, cvose@cityofjohnstown.ny.gov Scoping &Studies Kindle Mobile Home Park Phase 1,Brunswick,NY.07/20+.Environmental Scientist/Permitting.GPI has been hired to design Phase 1 Engineering nmipr_.t to rPnlace the electrical infrastructure at a mobile home community and to uparade their water and wastewater systems.The work will include new photovoltaic systems sized to power the entire community,new net metering and digital submetering of the tenants. Client:Kindle Associates LP;Contact:Bryan Wolofsky;514.658.9876,bwolofsky@yahoo.com Statewide Tire Remediation,Various Locations,NY.04/20-01/22.Environmental Scientist/Permitting.GPI,under contract with OGS, is providing NYS DEC with professional engineering and construction related services for the program to abate waste tires at 21 known waste tire stockpile sites. The known sites are said to contain and estimated 1 M waste tires. GPI performed field investigations of the various sites and developed site assessments for inclusion into the Project Manual. Client:NYSOGS, Brandon Stanfield, 518.337-7890, GPI Page 5 1 Weiskotten Brandon.Stanfield@ogs.ny.gov Farmhouse-Country Inn II, Rhinebeck, NY. 02/19-06/24. Environmental Scientist. GPI will be performing Civil engineering and Landscape Architectural Design services for Soho House&Co,for the development of a Farmhouse Concept retreat style resort hotel. The project includes creating a small lake on the property, design of roadways, extension of municipal water service and design of a package wastewater treatment plant. GPI will also assist in coordinating with Central Hudson for 3 phase power to the site. Off-site improvements will include upgrading a Village Water Main to an 8" line running approximately 2/3 of a mile along Mill Road, NYS Rout 9,Asher Road, Huntington Road,and Knollwood Road.An update will be completed for a Generic Environmental Impact Statement that had been completed for a prior master plan for the property.The update will cover the lands added for the lake improvement and for the off-site water line extension work. Client:Soho House Design, LLC, Jarrett Sthul,jarrett.stuhl@sohohouse.com Prior Firm Experience New York State Thruway Authority/Canal Corporation, Albany HQ. 2009-2013. Environmental Specialist 2. Responsible for the overall environmental review and processing of the Thruway and Canal capital design program, including NEPA and SEQRA, State and Federal wetlands and waters protection and permitting, GIS analysis, ROW operations and maintenance subjects, highway and canal vegetation management,SHPO topics,and ecology and endangered species issues.He was also responsible for herbicide and pesticide training and annual user certification and record-keeping,Additionally,he provided guidance to designers and consultants to ensure that projects are progressed in a timely manner and are environmentally compliant and protective. He coordinated and met with regulatory and environmental agencies concerning needs and interests of project design and implementation. New York State Thruway Authority/Canal Corporation, Syracuse Division. 2004-2009. Division Environmental Specialist 2. Acted as Division Environmental Contact to all Federal, State, and local regulatory agencies and organizations. Provided environmental assistance and oversight to all Division Thruway and Canal Corporation operations, including capital program, vegetation and wildlife management and protection,stormwater management,water quality protection,wetland delineations and permitting,dredging operations and upland disposal sites, pesticide programs, spills, illicit discharges, and construction compliance. Inspected all Thruway, Canal, and floating plant facilities to identify environmental issues.Coordinated and managed environmental consultants and contractors as required. Participated in project meetings with Thruway and Canal staff,regulatory agencies,and consultants.Reviewed environmental regulations and proposed and implemented Thruway and Canal policies and directives as needed. Example projects in this capacity: • NYS Thruway Authority Pavement Reconstruction,from MP 378.20 to 393.70, D213654, Buffalo Division, NY.2009-2012. Environmental Specialist.This project involved a full-depth reconstruction of a 15-mile thruway segment between Exits 47 and 48. As an Environmental Specialist,worked with consultants and in-house design staff to develop plans that avoided wetland impacts to the greatest extent possible, and then produced Individual Permit packages to be submitted to the DEC and COE. Numerous visits to the project site with resource agency personnel resulted in the project permitting moving forward,despite complex issues of wetland impact analysis and developing off-site mitigation solutions. He developed successful mitigation options at nearby federal lands for several acres of project mitigation. Full overview of project erosion and sediment control plans and frequent visits during construction for compliance review. Contact:Ameerudin Audil, PE, 518.471.4254 • NYS Thruway Authority Pavement Reconstruction, from MP 289.0 to 304.00, Syracuse Division, NY. 2008-2011. Environmental Specialist.This project involved a full-depth reconstruction of a several miles of mainline west of Syracuse.As an Environmental Specialist, he worked closely with in-house and design staff to develop plans that avoided wetland and water impacts to the greatest extent possible.Complex coordination with NYSDEC and USACE resulted in securing an Individual Permit that included 14 acres of wetland mitigation on nearby DEC refuge lands. Extensive coordination with resource agency personnel resulted in the project permitting moving forward, despite complex issues of wetland impact analysis and developing off-site mitigation solutions. Erosion and sediment controls, cultural resources, and endangered species were also analyzed and processed. Contact: Theodore Soltesz, PE, 518.471.4430 New York State Department of Transportation,Environmental Analysis Bureau,Albany,NY. 1995-2004.Environmental Specialist. Responsible for the preparation and dissemination of environmental compliance guidance material related to statewide capital infrastructure,operations,and maintenance transportation projects.He wrote statewide guidance for USACOE Waters of the US,Coastal Zone Management, Erosion Control,Aquifers,and Endangered Species. He also authored ROW Mowing Practices Guidelines,Wild and Scenic River Statewide Guidance,Wetiand Delineation and Mitigation Manuals,and Wildlife Connectivity and Aquatic Organism Passage Guidance. He reviewed and provided comments for numerous Environmental Impact Statements and Design Reports. New York State Department of Transportation, Environmental/Landscape Unit, Poughkeepsie, NY. 1993-1995. Environmental Specialist.Responsible for tracking and review of transportation projects from initial project development stages through post-construction monitoring and assessment. Reviewed projects for a myriad of environmental regulations and policies and provided guidance and interpretation of polices affecting transportation projects to designers and engineers. Performed state and federal wetland boundary delineations. GPI Page 6 1 Weiskotten The Museum of the Hudson Highlands, Cornwall-on-Hudson, NY. 1991-1993, Director of Wetland Restoration, Staff Biologist. Organized and implemented the Museum's Hudson River Restoration Program. He created working relationships with organizations including USFWS,USACOE,and NYSDEC to further restoration goals of the program. He acquired State and Federal wetland permits as needed and developed goals,objectives,proposals,and reports concerning the Museums research and wetland and river restoration. He created hydrologic and vegetative management plans for restoration sites,as well as recruited,organized,and directed student and adult volunteers to perform actual field work of restoration of Emergent and Submerged Aquatic Vegetation within Hudson River tidal wetlands and tributaries. Cornell University,Department of Natural Resources,Watertown,NY. 1991.Research Biologist. In association with the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Mr.Weiskotten performed numerous tasks related to field research and practice of wetland restoration and monitoring. He was responsible for development of research methods, botanical inventory of research plots, and compilation of avifauna data from study sites. He prepared herbarium collections, contour surveying and design of wetland restoration projects, and was responsible for research site selection and landowner contact and interaction. Professional Publications&Affiliations: • Authored NYSDOT Environmental Procedures Manual Chapters on Water/Ecology, Coastal Zone Management, Endangered Species, and Wild and Scenic Rivers. • Co-authored NYSDOT Conservation Area Mowing Program (CAMPS) Guidance. Program developed an innovative statewide mowing approach to reducing costs and overall impacts of mowing practices and ROW management. • Co-authored NYSDOT Wetland Mitigation and Delineation Guideline Manuals. Manual was made available to all employees statewide for inclusive guidance on mitigation and delineation. • Co-authored NYSTA Right-of-Way Maintenance Guidelines Manual. Environmental representative on committee to write comprehensive guidance for Thruway ROW policies. GPI Page 7 1 Weiskotten -7 ,1_5 N �� SCDHS REF# R-10--13- 0062 SURVEY OF PROPERTY NOVEMBER 30, 2012 (REVISION) JANUARY 2, 2013 (ADDITIONS) AT ORIENT AUGUST 2, 2013 (REVISED BLDG. ENVELOPE) OCTOBER 30, 2014 (CLEARING & BLUFF LOCATION) TOWN OF SOUTHOLD JANUARY 03, 2018 (PROPOSED HOUSE) , JANUARY 24, 2018 (REVISIONS) SUFFOLK COUNTY IV. Y APRIL 9, 2018 (REVISIONS) NCI APRIL 18, 2018 (SCDHS REVISIONS) 00- 1000-17- 01- 04 OCTOBER 29, 2019 (TREE LOCATION) SCALE: 1 40 ' MARCH 11, 2020 (HOUSE & TREES) OCTOBER 17, 2012 APRIL 18, 2022 (REVISIONS) APRIL 22, 2022 (REVISIONS) e RESTORATION SPECIES RESTORATION AREA TO 0(\ 4' BEACH ACCESS BE PLANTED WITH THE CLEARED & BUILT FOLLOWING: BY HAND ACCESS FROM LAND e\ Zone Line /0 SWAMP WHITE OAK 14 (QUERCUS BICOLOR) SILVER MAPLE PALF BROWN SANDY SILT ML WITH GRAVEL IN LAYERS (ACER SACCHARINUM) RED MAPLE ........ TOP OF BLUFF LINE AS FLAGGED (ACER RUBRUM) el BY JOHN BREDEMEYER, TOWN TRUSTEE. TUPELO WATER IN PALE BROWN SILTY Mi- lo e LOF A 119 (N YSSA S YL VA TICA) 21 ' ore NON TURF BUFFER WITH BAYBERRY WATER IN BROWN CLAYEY SAND SC PERMISSIBLE VEGETATION AS APPROVED BY TOWN TRUSTEES (MYRICA PENSYLVANICA) (SEE CHART) TOTAL: 10,405 SF ARROWWOOD EL. 10' 31 (VIBURNUM DENTATUM) WATER IN BROWN FINE TO COARSE SAND SP c� AREA TO BE NON-FERTILIZER SPICEBUSH STA E 0 DEPENDENT VEGETATION. NATIVE (LINDERA BENZOIN) SET HARDWOOD TREES TO BE NOTE. WATER ENCOUNTERED 78' BELOW SURFACE EXISTING CREST OF BLUFFz/ PLANTED LANDWARD OF THE 50' WITCH HAZEL NON-TURF BUFFER (HAMAMELIS FLAGS ADDED BY INTER SCIENCE ON 091 TOTAL AREA: 7,958 SF TEST HOLE DATA 2JI14, VIRGINIANA) HE BLUFF CREST TO EASTERN LOT LINE. TONE J) TEST HOLE EXTENDING T AVERS McDONALD GEOSCIENCE (_2 SCALE N.T.S. --------- 0�_ HAY SCENTED FERN 1010,3172 F Bar NEW 4' FENCE (DENNSTAEDTIA 7E TO PUNCTILOBULA) ♦ RE-MOVED RESTORATION AREA Pi C WHITE WOOD ASTER LOW,WET AREA. FALLEN (EURYBIA DIVARICATA) VEGETATE AREA BETWEEN FENCE AND TREE TO BE PROPOSED BRANCHES AND DEBRIS SWEET FERN REMOVED I WELL TO BE REMOVED BY (COMPTONIA RETAINING WALL WITH 0 HAND. AFTER DEBRIS IS NATIVE, NON-FERTILIZER 26 1 PEREGRINA) DEPENDENT p REMOVED,AREA TO BE A NON-DISTURBANCE AREA. Q) FOAM FLOWER VEGETATION /z, 0 �D (TIARELLA CORDIFOLIA) THREADLEAF FR.HS MOUNTAINMINT RAIN RUNOFF CONTAINMENT 0 j REMOVE DEBRIS AND (PYCNANTHEUM 0 POO CK WELL. REMOVE PROPOSED HOUSE ROOF AREA = 6,028 SO-FT. 111 INVASIVE SPECIES AND TENUIFOLIUM) ell 6,028 x 0.17 X 1.0 = 1,024.76 CU. FT. R LINING 2 FEE, 1.AL CULVE#T NEW 4' FENCE REPLACE WITH NATIVE, BLUNT MOU NTAIN M INT 1,024.76 CU.FT. / 42.21 sQ.FT. = 24.28 LIN. FT. 0 NON-FERTILIZER GRAVEL (PYCNANTHEUM DRIVEWAY IN , NEW 4' FENCE 16 DEPENDENT MUT/cum) VEGETATION. PROVIDE (4) DRY WELLS 8'0 x 8' DEEP FENCE WILL BE LAID TO AVOID LARGE TREES F2 ING 18 AND DISTURBED AREA WILL BE REPLANTED REMAINDER OF AREA TO 32.00 FT. REQUIRED WALL BLUE EYED GRASS RIM ELELV. 19.0' WITH NATIVE VEGETATION. RtiryEMAIN NATURAL. I (SISYRINCHIUM NEW 4' V ANGUSTIFOLIUM) DGi FENCE DRIVEWAY IN IN IN LOT COVERAGE I SPACING IF TREES ARE DAMAGED LOT AREA: 59,067.36 SF (1.356 ACRES) DURING INSTALLATION TREES OF RETAINING WALL, BUILDABLE AREA (LANDWARD OF CEHL LINE): 6 FEET ON CENTER 35,698 SF THEY ARE TO BE TEST H LE MAX. LOT COVERAGE (20% OF BUILDABLE AREA): 4 411 20% OF 35,698 SF 7,139.6 S REPLACED WITH NATIVE, .-NOTE: SE MCDONALD SHRUBS I 't ER NEW GEOSCI NCE 10/03/12 3 FEET ON CENTER NON-FERTILIZER TOTAL BUILDING COVERAGE: 5,559 SF (115.57%) DEPENDENT HARDWOOD ENTRAN FEB 1 3 2023 TREES AT 1:1 RATIO A SITE PLAN GROUND COVER WELL MINIMUM SCALE 1132" V-0" GALLON POTS, 18 INCHES ON CENTER PO 150+ FRO 4" POTS, 12 INCHES ON CENTER PROPOSE SEPTIC WELL 1505 BIRDS EYE ROAD THIS IS A REVEGETATION SITE PLAN BASED ON A SURVEY PREPARED BY: ORIENT, NY 11957 ANDREW POLLOCK ARCHITECT DESIGNER: SCTM NO.: 1000-01700-0100-004000 56 SOUTH OXFORD STREET CARLOS ZAPPATA STUDIO BROOKLYN, NY 11217 AREA:59,067.36 SQUARE FEET 561 BROADWAY 4A/4B SITE PLAN PREPARED BY CES ON 12.05.22 NEW YORK, NY 10013 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING SCALE 1"=32' UPDATED 02.07.23 UPDATED 02.10.23 WETLAND PROJECT MANAGEMENT 425 MONTAUK HIGHWAY, EAST QUOGUE, NY 11942 (631)369.9445 Cantrell, Elizabeth From: mkimack2@verizon.net Sent: Friday, February 10, 2023 10:45 AM To: Cantrell, Elizabeth Cc: 'Carlos Zapata' Subject: RE: 1505 Birdeye Attachments: zapata adm. project description.docx Hi Liz: See attached revised Project description Best From:Cantrell, Elizabeth<elizabethc@town.southold.ny.us> Sent: Friday, February 10,2023 9:12 AM To: 'mkimack2 @verizon.net' <mkimack2@verizon.net> Subject: RE: 1505 Birdeye Good Morning Mike, Last night was the Board's work session. The Board asked I email you and request some slight revisions to the proposed project The Board is requesting that the proposed 30'wide non-turf buffer be revised to depict a 50' wide non-turf buffer along top of bluff and wherever any notes on the plans state "non-fertilizer dependent trees" be revised to state the use of"native hardwoods." Also, given the requested please also email me or submit a revised project description to match. If we could please get two revised sets of plans by end of day Monday for Wednesday'Trustee meeting. Thank you. r"+" Senior Office Assistant Town of Southold Board of Trustees Office: 631-765-1592 From: rnkimack2 o-)verizon,net<mkima k22_@verizon.net> Sent:Thursday, February 9, 2023 2:24 AM To: Cantrell, Elizabeth<el azabetbc towa'i.sot�'4:hold.n .ti� > Subject: 1505 Birdeye Hi Liz: See attached revised project Description for 1505 Birdseye to match to revised site plan As per trustees requirements. Best ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. i 1505 BIRDSEYE ROAD LLC: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Clearing and grubbing approximately 18,365 sq. ft. ( 10,405 sq. ft. non turf buffer area and 7,960sq.ft. landward of non turf buffer to 100 foot setback line ) from westerly property line following top of bluff to easterly property line and setback 100 feet. Infill approximately 590.5 cu. yds. ( 301.5 cu. yds. from excavation and 289 cu. yds from off site ) of the area from proposed landward side of proposed non turf buffer to 100 foot setback line. Install proposed I/A system minimum 65 feet from top of bluff as approved by Suffolk County Wastewater Management Dept. Install 785 SF of walkway consisting of a crushed bluestone base with pavers. Install a 4 foot wide by approximately 190 ft. in length ground level foot path, commencing from landward edge of proposed non -turf buffer to toe of bluff with Ipe O/E wood step edges. Create and perpetually maintain a 50 foot wide non turf buffer( 10,405 sq. ft.) commencing at the westerly property line and following the top of bluff to the easterly property line, planted with permissible vegetation. Plant indigenous non fertilizer dependent native grass from landward edge of non turf buffer to 100 foot setback line ( 7,960 sq.ft. ) along with native hardwoods as located by the owner on a replacement of at least one for each existing healthy tree removed within the 7,960 sq,ft. area. Additional native hardwoods at the owner's discretion E � U E 101 FEB 1 fl02 Southold Town Board of Trusteas 1505 BIRDSEYE ROAD LLC: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Clearing and grubbing approximately 18,365 sq.ft. ( 6,303 sq.ft. non turf buffer area and 12,062 sq.ft. landward of non turf buffer to 100 foot setback line )from westerly property line following top of bluff to easterly property line and setback 100 feet. Will approximately 590.5 cu.yds. ( 301.5 cu.yds.from excavation and 289 cu.yds from off site ) of the area from proposed landward side of proposed non turf buffer to 100 foot setback line. Install proposed I/A system 65 feet from top of bluff as approved by Suffolk County Wastewater Management Dept. Install 785 SF of walkway consisting of a crushed bluestone base with pavers. Install a 4 foot wide by approximately 170 ft. in length ground level foot path, commencing from landward edge of proposed non-turf buffer to toe of bluff with Ipe O/E wood step edges. Create and perpetually maintain a 30 foot wide non turf buffer( 6,303 sq. ft.) commencing at the westerly property line and following the top of bluff to the easterly property line, planted with permissible vegetation. Plant indigenous non fertilizer dependent native grass from landward edge of non turf buffer to 100 foot setback line ( 12,062 sq.ft. ) along with non fertilizer dependent trees as located by the owner on a replacement of at least one for each existing healthy tree removed within the 12,062 sq, ft. area.Additional non fertilizer dependent trees at the owner's discretion 0 &u hol `bb Arn g�saE•�9 ��`l`ra�v�ee� COLE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES NATIVE REVEGETATION PLAN AS'CD IS REFF' R 10 13 0062 SURVEY OF ['HOP T y NOVEMBER 30, 2012 (REVISION) e�N JANUARY 2, 2013 (ADDITIONS) / A T °ORJENT AUGUST 2, 2013 (REVISED BLDG. ENVELOPE) OCTOBER 30, 2014 (CLEARING & BLUFF LOCATION) j TO WN OF SO UT 01` JANUARY 03, 2018 (PROPOSED HOUSE) 1/ JANUARY 24, 2018 (REVISIONS) ,- \% ��° r �`i �I, COUNTY, IV Y APRIL 9, 2018 (REVISIONS) APRIL 18, 2018 (SCDHS REVISIONS) 1000-1 7- 01- 04 OCTOBER 29, 2019 (TREE LOCATION) / = 40 � MARCH 11, 2020 (HOUSE & TREES) ASCALE. 1 O APRIL 18, 2022 (REVISIONS) �� • OCTOB[R 17, 2012 APRIL 22, 2022 (REVISIONS) �O RESTORATION SPECIES 0� e ' --8 'RESTORATION AREA TO C �0� �J 4' BEAC-1 ACCESS _ BE PLANTED WITH THE t0 CLEAREC & BUILT FOLLOWING: 1�1 BY HAND ACCESS FROM LAND 72 Zone Line 10 14 � SWAMP WHITE OAK EL. 21.9' (QUERCUSBICOLOR) PALE BROWN SANDY SILT ML 0e $�� c��s � � WITH GRAVEL IN LAYERS `L - SILVER MAPLE 2� u (ACER SACCHARINUM) �� - TOP OF BLUFF LINE AS FLAGGED RED MAPLE � 'z � ., — BY JOHN BREDEMEYER, TOWN TRUSTEE. (ACERRUBRUM) e� % WATER IN PALE BROWN SILTY ML e TUPELO 2 \ NON TURF BUFFER WITH (N YSSA S YL VA TICA) one '� 8 \ PERMISSIBLE VEGETATION AS WATER IN BROWN CLAYEY SANO SC APPROVED BY TOWN TRUSTEES BAYBERRY (SEE CHART) TOTAL: 6,303SF (MYRICAPENSYLVANICA) EL - 10' 31 AREA TO BE NON- �, _ FERTILIZER DEPENDENT. WOOD WATER IN BROWN FINE TO COARSE SAND SP ARROW ATIVE, NON-FERTILIZER (VIBURNUM DENTATUM� DEPENDENT TREES TO BE 86' STAKE y2 LANTED LANDWARD OF SPICEBUSH 38 P ��,� 0�� L �No �sEr�� 30' NON-TURF BUFFER (LINDERA BENZOIN) NOTE: WATER ENCOUNTERED 18' BELOW SURFACE D EXISTING CREST OF BLUFF `� � " / '�' ` WITCH HAZEL ��° �� TEST HOLE DATA FLAGS ADDED BY INTER SCIENCE ON 09123174, � WALKWAY: 785__SF ' R` (HAMAMELIs tiry f y McDONALD GEOSCIENCE 2 CRVSHED__B-L-UE STONE ' "" h �' VIRGINIANA) TEST HOLE EXTENDING THE BLUFF CREST TO EASTERN LOT LINE. , ' -` PAVERS 1 "�" OZ 1%3I12 SCALE : N.T.S. _------- ` -NEW 4 FENCE HAY SCENTED FERN TREE To BE _ / (DENNSTAEDTIA REMOVED PUNCTILOBULA) RESTORATION AREA 41 ems'=; R 1 /r(T.: G o - � ■ WHITE WOOD ASTER ��`_r;� P• - ■ '� [EURYBIA DIVARICATA1 1 ■ PROPOSED � -REMOVED /y WELL LOW WET AREA. FALLEN �P REED ED BE ■ ■ SWEET FERN BRANCHES AND DEBRIS i (COMPTONIA VEGETATE AREA 26 1 a �� ■ .�' ■ • TO BE REMOVED BY BETWEEN FENCE AND P "' • ' 1 1 A 1 HAND. AFTER DEBRIS IS PEREGRINA) RETAINING WALL WITH 1Q, ■ ?t 5 i ■ REMOVED,AREA TO BE A FOAM FLOWER NATIVE, NON-FERTILIZER �� ■ I : I ■ 111��^y NON-DISTURBANCE AREA. (TIARELLA CORDIFOLIA DEPENDENT <<j� Q�y ql�� 1 1 w VEGETATION �'4 - ■ ■ �' Fy FR.HSE SEpT I ■ ' THREADLEAF ■ o o / MOUNTAINMINT i A 1 : / POO AC RAIN RUNOFF_-CONTALNMENT O -—-- - - - - -- --- / �O D REMOVE DEBRIS AND (PYCNANTHEUM PROPOSED HOUSE ROOF AREA = 6,028 SQ.FT. x K-4 ,E WELL. REMOVE TENUIFOLIUM 6,028 x D.17 X 1.0 = 1,024.76 CU. FT. �/ RA�I"I"G FEET CULV RT I _�_�� l ,`' INVASIVE SPECIES AND 1,024.76 CU.FT. 42.21 sQ.FT. = 24.28 LIN. FT. �� /GIAVELS REPLACE WITH NATIVE, BLUNT MOUNTAINMINT / Q0� DRNEwAY �WALL R � NON-FERTILIZER (PYCNANTHEUM NEW 4' FENCE ��s DEPENDENT MUTICUM) PROVIDE 4 DRY WELLS 8'PJ x 8' DEEPFENCE WILL BE LAID TO AVOID LARGE TREES �2 ,� ' INGVEGETATION. ( AND DISTURBED AREA WILL BE REPLANTED `` s' � j REMAINDER OF AREA TO 32.00 FT. REQUIRED a �.,.�,-- - - ----__ / BLUE EYED GRASS RIM ELELV. 19.0' WITH NATIVE VEGETATION. `_ REMAIN NATURAL.NEW 4' (SISYRINCHIUM FENCE DRIVEWAY AVEL • ` a �1 � � ANGUSTIFOLIUM) D � LOT COVERAGE IF TREES ARE DAMAGED �, � 1 �/'o�� QQ F' SPACING DURING INSTALLATION - LOT AREA: 59,067.36 SF (1.356 ACRES) OF RETAINING WALL, / ` (� TREES FEB - 8 2023 - BUILDABLE AREA (LANDWARD OF CEHL LINE): 35,698 SF THEY ARE TO BE �" TEST H LE 6 FT ON CENTER - MAX. LOT COVERAGE (20% OF BUILDABLE AREA): 20% OF 35,698 SF = 7,139.6 S REPLACED WITH NATIVE, ----NOTE: SE MCDONALD NON-FERTILIZER Q Southold Town NEW F GEOSCI NCE 10/03/12 SHRUBS 0 TOTAL BUILDING COVERAGE: 5,559 SF RATI10 MINIMUM SITE(15.57%) DEPENDENT A 1:1 ENTRAN G�L� 3 FT ON CENTER Board of Trustees P ___PLAN _ �� - SCAL.E 1/32" _ V 0" GROUND COVER 150+ELL FROM \0� P� GALLON POTS, 18 INCHES ON CENTER PROPOSED 4" POTS, 12 INCHES ON CENTER SEPTIC -�� WELL DESIGNER: ' THIS IS A REVEGATION SITE PLAN BASED ON A SURVEY PREPARED BY: 1505 BIRDS EYE ROAD CARLOS ZAPPATA STUDIO 561 BROADWAY ORIENT, NY 11957 ANDREW POLLOCK ARCHITECT 4A/4B SCTM NO.: 1001-01700-0100-004000 56 SOUTH OXFORD STREET NEW YORK, NY 10013 BROOKLYN,NY 11217 S ® a AREA: 59,067.36 SQUARE FEET ARCHITECT: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING SITE PLAN PREPARED BY CES ON 12.05.22 ANDREW POLLOCK ARCHITECT, PC WETLAND PROJECT MANAGEMENT SCALE: 1"-32' UPDATED 02.07.23 56 SOUTH OXFORD STREET 425 MONTAUK HIGHWAY, EAST QUOGUE, NY 11942 BROOKLYN, NY 11217 (631)369-9445 Cantrell, Elizabeth From: Martha Reichert <mreichert@suffolklaw.com> Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2023 12:03 PM To: Cantrell, Elizabeth; Goldsmith, Glenn; Krupski, Nick; Gillooly, Liz; Peeples, Elizabeth; Sepenoski, Eric Cc: DiSalvo, Diane;Terry, Mark; DeChance, Paul; Collins, Michael; Dolores Quick Subject: Re:CORRESPONDENCE RE: 1505 Birdseye Road, Orient Attachments: 2-9-2023 Letter to Trustees w GPI Review.pdf Please find attached correspondence dated February 9, 2023 to supplement our letter dated February 8, 2023 which was submitted by email and in person. Kindly make this submission a part of the Application record. Sincerely, �; r Martha F. Reichert 1r,1 �1` Martha F. Reichert r,r; - c) Twomey, Latham,Shea, Kelley, Dubin &Quartararo LLP 33 West Second Street, P.O. Box 9398, Riverhead, NY 11901QuhOld Iow11 O: (631)727-2180 Ext. 305 Board of Trustees Direct Dial: (631)591-7329 I mreichert@suffolklaw.com I www.suffolklaw.com Twomey V,A' Latham S H E A, K E L L E Y, DUBIN & Q U A R T A R A R O, LLP Be Well Advised.® ® ® IMPORTANT:The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential.They are intended for the named recipient(s)only.If you have received this email by mistake,please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof. From: Martha Reichert<mreichert@suffolklaw.com> Date: Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 3:02 PM To: Cantrell, Elizabeth <elizabethc@town.southold.ny.us>, glenn.goldsmith@town.southold.ny.us <glenn.goldsmith@town.southold.ny.us>, nick.krupski@town.southold.ny.us <nick.krupski@town.southold.ny.us>, liz.gillooly@town.southold.ny.us<liz.gillooly@town.southold.ny.us>, elizabeth.peep les@town.southo Id.ny.us<elizabeth.peep les@town.southold.ny.us>, eric.sepenoski@town.southold.ny.us<eric.sepenoski@town.southold.ny.us> Cc: DiSalvo, Diane <diane.disaivo@town.southold.ny.us>, mark.terry@town.southold.ny.us <mark.terry@town.southold.ny.us>, pauld@southoldtownny.gov<pauld@southoldtownny.gov>, michael.collins@town.southold.ny.us<michael.collins@town.southold.ny.us> Subject: CORRESPONDENCE RE: 1505 Birdseye Road, Orient Dear All: 1 Please find attached correspondence regarding the current application before the Board of Trustees regarding 1505 Birdseye Road, Orient. Kindly make this letter and its exhibits part of the application record. Hard copies to follow. Sincerely, Martha Reichert Martha F. Reichert Twomey, Latham,Shea, Kelley, Dubin &Quartararo LLP 33 West Second Street, P.O. Box 9398, Riverhead, NY 11901 0: (631)727-2180 Ext. 305 Direct Dial: (631)591-7329 mreichert@suffolklaw.com I www.suffolklaw.com I Twomey VN Latham S H E A, K E L L E Y, DUBIN & QUAR 7 A R A R O, LLP Be Well Advised.® � u. -20 3 ® ® 4 _ IMPORTANT:The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential.They are intended for the named recipient(s)only.If you have received this email by Southold Tovvn mistake,please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to Board of Z rtASfOc�e ; anyone or make copies thereof. 2 Martha F.Reichert Associate NY BAR J s h -u` F 631.727.2180 x305 "% mreichert@suffolklaw.com ��uvcarrreg� � Latnam 33 West Second St. SHWA, KELLO, &U:BtN Si GUARTARARO, LLP P.O.Box9398 Riverhead,NY 11901 suffolklaw.com February 9, 2023 EC "--' P fE VIA EMAIL AND FEDERAL EXPRESS D Board of Trustees F E B - 9 20P3 Town of Southold Town Hall Annex 54375 Route 25 Southold Town oard cif Trustees Southold,NY 11971 h Re: Wetlands Application of 1505 Birdseye Road LLC 1505 Birdseye Road, Orient,New York(SCTM# 1000-17-1-14) Dear President Goldsmith and Members of the Board of Trustees: This office represents John Josephson and-Carolina Zapf, the owners of 1515 Birdseye Road and 900 Birdseye Road, Orient; Pamela Valentine and William Matassoni, the owners of 1525 Birdseye Road and 1675 Birdseye Road,Orient;and Interwellen Property Partners,LLC,the owner of 700 Birdseye Road, Orient, and Andrew Jordan, the owner of 1105 Birdseye Lane, Orient. As a supplement to our letter dated February 8,2023, please find enclosed a review by Mr. Kurt Weisskotten, M.S., of Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. regarding the insufficiency of the undated Cole Environmental Services Report. That report was submitted by the Applicant, 1505 Birdseye LLC, to support its opinion that there are no regulated wetlands in jurisdiction of the Applicant's property pursuant to Chapter 275 of the Southold Town Code, and that the Trustees' regulatory jurisdiction is limited to the portions of the project within the 100-footbluff setback. Mr. Weiskotten's review supports our position that the Trustees should not base any determinations on this report, as it is not competent or reliable. A comprehensive site visit and report should be prepared by a qualified wetlands scientist in order to support any determination made by the Trustees regarding regulated natural features, drainage, and other environmental impacts on this Property. We thank the Trustees for their time and consideration of our comments. Please include this letter and its Exhibits in the record of this Application. Sincerely, Marth F. Reichert /Enclosure Cc: Hon.Lori Hulse, Counsel to the Southold Town Board of Trustees GPIEngineering I Design I planning ruction Management th E � February 9 , 2023 -- - Town of Southold, Board of Trustees FEB 20,93 Attn: Chairperson Goldsmith 54375 Main Road Southold Town P.O. Box 1179 Board of Trustees Southold, NY 11971 RE: Review of Cole Environmental Services site assessment document for 1505 Birdseye Road, Orient, NY—Tax Map Parcel 1000-17-1-4 Dear Chairperson Goldsmith and Board Members: GPI has been retained by John Josephson, who owns properties at 1515 Birdseye Road, 900 Birdseye Road, and 700 Birdseye Road, to provide various environmental services. Mr. Josephson's properties are adjacent to the subject property at 1505 Birdseye Road. Specifically, I have been asked to review and comment on the undated document prepared by Cole Environmental Services (CES) regarding environmental conditions on the 1505 Birdseye Road property. This document was received by the Southold Board of Trustees on January 3rd, 2022. 1 have been an established environmental professional in New York State for over 40 years, the last ten (10) as a Sr. Environmental Scientist with GPI. I have conducted hundreds of environmental site and project plan reviews and countless wetland and waterway delineations and assessments and mitigation projects. I have been on the Board of Directors of the New York State Wetlands Forum for over ten years. My resume is attached for.your information. GPI is a full-service engineering firm with an exceptional staff of 1,700+ professionals working for numerous public and private clients. Our Corporate Headquarters are in Babylon, Long Island. After a thorough analysis of the CES document, I have many observations and comments regarding its adequacy in addressing environmental issues on the subject site, and especially in addressing wetland conditions that may exist there. To this end, below are my specific comments regarding the document: 1. There is no date on the report (however it is stamped as received by Southold Board of Trustees on January 3rd, 2022). 2. There is no author, only a header on the first page identifying Cole Environmental Services. 3. There is no cover sheet or identifying title of the report. It is unknown if this is an Environmental Site Assessment Report, a Wetland Delineation Report, a simple findings document, or something else. There is also no Table of Contents directing the reader to what type of document this is. 4. The opening paragraph of the introductory statement of the document states that CES was "...contacted to review the subject property, evaluate the vegetation present, and research the presence of wetlands regulated by the NYSDEC": This is a vague indicator of the purpose of the document-"... to review the property..."for what purpose? No other description of the task at hand or purpose is given. And to "...evaluate the vegetation..." is a severely limited scope of an environmental site assessment, especially considering CES was"research i ng'wetlands"which by definition are identified by investigating hydric soil and hydrology indicators, in addition to merely vegetation. Any complete site review, especially for wetlands, will look for the three parameters of wetland presence (soils, vegetations, and hydrology)as well as examine site topography, contours, drainage patterns, human impacts, and the overall lay of the land, among other factors. Over 50 offices throughout the United Slates www.gpinet.com An Equal Opportunity Employer E E B 9 9 r7 Southoid Town Board f 7'r ,s Also, the mention of"... researching the presence of NYSDEC wetlands"(State re ated< `ees wetlands) is limited in scope as well, since State wetlands are typically those wetlands over 12.4 acres (5 hectares). There is no mention of researching, or looking for, the presence of Federal wetlands (those regulated by the US Army Corps of Engineers- COE)or the Town of Southold Town Code, Chapter 275, which do not have size limits and would be more likely to be present on a smaller parcel such as this. There is no reference to the Environmental Laboratories 1987 Corps Manual or the 2009 Regional Supplement which are the standard guidance documents for delineating wetlands. Likewise, reference to NYSDEC delineation guidance is lacking. 5. The second paragraph of the introductory statements indicates that the report should be used as a"guide" and not be all encompassing. It continues by stating that the information included in the report is sourced from "third parties". The final sentence states that CES makes."no guarantees" regarding information in the report. These statements are not complimentary to a report that would stand up to scrutiny and be a trusted document. 6. Lot Description Section: There is no further discussion in this brief section other than the property location and size. A thorough report would have descriptions of topography, elevations, vegetative cover, anthropomorphic features, and other characteristics present. 7. Preliminary Research Section—Wetlands: It should be noted that use of the on-line NWI Mapper and the NYSDEC Environmental Mapper are screening tools that may indicate the possibility of wetlands occurring in the general area being reviewed. It is often the case that wetlands, especially smaller federal wetlands, are actually found on a site when screening map shows no wetlands present. A boots on the ground site visit by a competent wetland scientist should always be conducted to determine if wetlands are actually present. 8. Soils Section: This section is accurate, although it.should be noted that despite soils indicated occurring on a site based on the Soil Survey mapping, there may be microtopography circumstances that allow for drainage, ponding, and organic material to alter conditions and that will allow hydric soils to develop and that may support hydrophytic vegetation. 9. Topography Section: There is mention of a man-made berm feature in the southeast portion of the parcel with an accompanying clogged culvert as well as a statement that there is a low-lying confined area that may allow for ponding of stormwater at times. A 2001 aerial exhibit on the next page labels this low area as a "low natural area, intermittently flooded', which potentially indicates a wetland at this site. Although man-made features may alter the landscape with no apparent effect, they may result in regulated wetlands forming over time which exhibit overall wetland characteristics. This section concludes with a statement that signs of ponding here are anecdotal (not based on facts) and not documented, further indicating that this parcel should be more fully investigated for wetlands occurrence. 10. On-site Findings Section: The entirety of this section concentrates on the presence or absence of a vernal pool on the property. There are discrepancies in the discussion about vernal pools, primarily that they are fall features, when in fact they are springtime features, and hydrology is present mostly at this time, thus being "vernal" pools. Vernal pool surface hydrology is temporary by nature, and this is why they are important elements in the landscape. The"pool"does not typically persist through the course of the year, and therefore does not develop higher trophic levels of predatory insect and fish populations, which would in turn prey on spring breeding amphibians such as Tiger Salamanders, Spotted Salamanders, Spring Peepers, and Wood Frogs. The presence of water by ponding or soil saturation.is not always a good indicator of wetlands. Not finding water present certainly does not mean that there are no wetlands, as wetlands are formally defined as areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support hydrophytic vegetation. These conditions can develop over the course of only a few weeks of saturation. The rest of the year wetlands can appear.dry. Page 2 4883-3030-5104,v.1 By only concentrating on vernal pools in this section the over-reaching subject of wetlands in general on the site is not discussed. Where is the discussion regarding signs of(or lack of) hydrology such as water-stained leaves, shallow roots, buttressed tree trunks, drainage patterns etc.? There should also be a more in-depth discussion of soil profiles, horizons, and possible reduction features. The final sentence in this section says that the low-lying area cannot be classified as a vernal pool, but there is no reasoning as to why this area cannot potentially qualify as a wetland of another type, such as a forested or shrub/scrub wetland. In regard to the discussion on plant species present, the plant list provided does not appear extensive and is lacking herbaceous species that would be expected with site visits made in August, September, and November. There is a goldonrod listed but no species, so a wetland indicator cannot be established for this plant. Three of the species listed have wetland indicator status attributed to them (Poison Ivy—FAC, Red Maple— FAC, and Silver Maple— FACW) but since there is no dominance or abundance discussed for any of the plants listed, there is no way to know if the wetland plant parameter is met. This is especially difficult and meaningless since the list of plants is for the"site", and not directed at specific locations throughout the site. A more extensive and descriptive plant list and vegetative community mapping is needed. 11. Recommendations Section: This section does not make any recommendations other than using native plantings and controlling invasive species, and one statement about protecting the low-lying area. It is unclear why they are recommending that this area be protected if they stated earlier that this area is not a vernal pool (and therefore not a wetland?). This is contradictory. 12.Attachments: These were difficult to read as a scanned document and I, therefore, cannot comment. In summary, it is my recommendation that the CES document is not a sufficient report on current environmental and wetland conditions on the subject parcel and that a comprehensive site visit be conducted by a wetland scientist, concentrating on the low-lying "swale" area (see attached map.) This visit would include using the routine method for delineation followed in the 1987 Corps Manual, including collection of complete vegetation information, excavation of soil data holes, documentation of hydrology, completion of COE data sheets, and photographic evidence. A full report should be prepared of the processes used to delineate environmental features on-site and the results of such an effort. And finally, a survey of the site for threatened and endangered species should be conducted. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, _ GPI/GREENMAN-PEDERSEN, INC. P E Y% l�� Il Kurt Weiskotten Sr. Environmental Scientist Southold `town 80 Wolf Road, Suite 300, Albany, NY 12205 Board of Trustees 518.898.9553 1 kweiskotten(cDgpinet.com Cc: Martha Reichert, Esq./Twomey Latham Shea Kelley Dubin &Quartararo, LLP Keith Holley, GPI Hon. Lori Hulse, Esq. Page 3 4883-3030-5104,v.1 1505 Birdseye Road - Site Location y , Town of Southold,Suffolk County, NY 411 NEWY00.K AVE� MA EL'k:EN MITGHELL RESIDENG 7 ARSON 'losEPr+soN --- r r - Legend Potential Extent of Low Lying Swale =' 0 Approx Parcel Boundary y, PART E Elc 0 s0 100 200Feec` 10ft Contour PRIVATE w e OMeeers Ro JOINT 0 10 2,e0 40 ------ 2ft Contour nk.,—Dne 2AU2023 Resume Kurt Weiskotten, M.S. Senior Environmental Scientist PROPOSED PROJECT _nior Environmental Professional Profile Scientist Mr.Weiskotten has 38+years' experience in the environmental field,with 26+years of experience as an Environmental Specialist. His experience includes environmental policy development, project design review and guidance, conducting environmental -EDUCATION: screenings and analysis for state and federal aid projects, including NEPA, SEQRA, 19911MS1Environme'ntal StudieslSUNY ESF state and federal wetlands and streams,flora and fauna ecology,endangered species, 19891B81EnvironmentalStudieslSUNYESF vegetation management, invasive species control and management, and cultural 19831AAS1Natural: resources.He is an experienced field naturalist and natural history interpreter.He has ;Resburces/COnservation/SUNYATC also managed and supervised staff in conducting numerous environmental °,1983ftreatFlora&Field"OrriithologylUniv.of screenings, project reviews and processing. He has coordinated all levels of projects Michigan' with various agencies including NYSDEC, NYSDOS,ACOE, USFWS, and SHPO in -preparing and obtaining all necessary wetland and wildlife permits needed for REGISTRATION/CERTIFICATIONS: transportation and environmental projects. He is proficient in developing erosion and Nydric Soiis sediment control plans, landscape plans, and in using GPS and GIS-to screen and Methodologypt'Wetland'Delineation,' plan for environmental resource impacts. Beyond transportation planning and . Techniques of Wetland Mitigation and environmental processing,he has extensive field experience in wetlands,wildlife,and i Construction natural history. His specialties include bird identification and biology, insect ecology, Stormwater and Erosion Control Principles':,, wildlife issues, plant identification, habitat management, vegetation management, USACOE Nationwide-Permits landscape design,wetland and stream ecology and dynamics and restoration,wetland r` Geographic lnformation:Systems%GIS delineation, wetland mitigation design and monitoring, and environmental teaching Global Positioning SystemsrGPS- and training,among others. Fluvial Geomorphology.ModulelFGM, 'USACOE Stream'Restoration Techniques.• As an Environmental Scientist, he is responsible for various project review.and I coordination, permitting, and environmental subject matter input for highway, structural,land development,architectural,and traffic units. He provides expertise on `YEARS_W1TH FIRM: 10 ' biology, fish and wildlife, aquatic and terrestrial habitat management, vegetation TOTAL YEARS.EXPERIENCE:.38�y' management, invasive species control, water quality protection, regulatory interpretation,and environmental stewardship.guidance.Clients include NYS Thruway Authority and Canal Corporation, NYS Department of Transportation, County and `PROFESSIONAL,AFFILIATIONS: Local Highway Departments, Private Developers, Environmental Agencies and New York State Ornithological Society- Organizations,and Non-Governmental Organizations. 'New York State Wetlands Forum{Board f Member) Project Experience I.`New•York Sfate-F/ora Association Conference Planning Member,,lCOET,Lake State Transportation Placid,•NY PIN 90380A, Route 363 Gateway Project in Binghamton, Broome County, NY. 20,17-2018. Environmental Scientist. This project consists of the initial project preparation and progressing through the scoping phases to develop a scoping report. i. . Responsibilities include preparation of environmental documents,field identification of wetland`boundaries,inventory of endangered species habitat.GPI and their team are -° - provided all conceptual design services including conceptual drawings, cost estimates,site investigations,regulatory compliance,alternative investigations,public information meeting and outreach, and environmental reviews. Mr. Weiskotten evaluated each alternative to determine its impact on the flora and fauna as well as waters of the US. As part of the project GPI also prepared a hazardous materials '[ screening report. This 1,300+ page document discusses the screenings that were performed, records that were reviewed and findings for the project corridor. Client ! F 023NYSDOT, Daniel Gates, Consultant- Manager, 518.485.0830, daniel°gates@dot°ny.gov D031345, PIN 3EST01 &2 NYSDOT Empire State Trail, Region 3,Syracuse, NY: Southold Town 08/17-12/20. Environmental Scientist..This 100% state funded project has a sole Board of:Trustee.s purpose to extend the Empire State Trail,a shared/multi use Pedestrian and Bicyclist GPI Pathway, across NYSDOT Region 3. The project will extend the Empire State Trail system through the Town of Camillus, City of Syracuse,and Town of Dewitt.This will be one of the last segments,which will complete the 750-mile Empire State Trail,from New York City to Canada and from Albany to Buffalo. Responsibilities include progressing this project through the scoping phase,preliminary and final design.This includes the preparation of scoping and design report,traffic modeling, and public outreach plan generation and cost estimating.The trail will contain a mixture of on-road routes,side paths and separate trails systems including the design and construction of_a 300-ft dedicated bicyclist/pedestrian bridge over 1-481. Mr.Weiskotten was responsible for overseeing all environmental aspects of the project. He reviewed reports and findings submitted by the subconsultants and provided technical guidance throughout the design process. He also proposed tree species that were native to the area and would thrive in their proposed environment. Client.NYSDOT; Contact.Daniel Gates, PE, Consultant Manager, 518.485.0830, daniel.gates@dot.ny.gov New York State Canal Corporation, Upland Disposal Site 4-33, Utica, NY. 2017. Environmental Scientist. Project involved the field delineation of wetlands areas within and surrounding the disposal site and documentation of tree species type and distribution within the site.A full wetland documentation report was prepared to be used when coordinating site usage with resource agencies.Attended field Jurisdictional Determination meeting to interpret findings with the US Army Corps of Engineers and NYS Department of Environmental Conservation. All wetlands' boundaries were collected using GPS technology and final boundary exhibits and documentation were provided to the Canal Corporation. Client:NYS Canal Corporation;Contact:Mark Miller, 518.449.6040 New York State Canal Corporation, Upland Disposal Site C-1, Waterford, Saratoga County, NY. 2016. Environmental Scientist. Project involved the field delineation of wetlands from upland areas within the disposal site and analysis for feasibility of site for future disposal of canal dredge material. All wetlands' boundaries were collected using GPS technology and a final boundary product.was created and provided to the Canal Corporation in report form. Client.NYS Canal Corporation;Contact:Mark Miller, 518.449.6040 The New NY Bridge over the Hudson River[PIN 8TZ.100],South Nyack,Tarrytown,NY.2013-2017. Member of the Design Quality Assurance Team, responsible for performing independent reviews of various environmental design packages and reports related to the project's highway and civil-related elements. Responsible for the environmental review of numerous design documents for conformance with project requirements, the Approved Design Quality Management System, and the Design Quality Assurance Plan. Prepare and submit QA Certifications for the Design Quality Assurance Manager. Client: Tappan Zee Constructors, LLC, Contact: Dan Domalik, 914.789.3226 D214295 Term Agreement for Design Services— NYS Thruway Authority, Primarily in the Albany &Syracuse Divisions, NY. 2014-2017.Environmental Scientist.This three-year term agreement project involves a wide range of highway and bridge design support services. Responsibilities include the full array of environmental duties that may be required for Thruway capital program projects. Projects under this term include: • MP 340.15/13574.1 Exit 43 Manchester Interchange—Wetland delineation and reporting services for an interchange bridge replacement project along the Thruway near Rochester NY. GPS was used to gather field data and boundary points. Responsibilities also included preparation of Design Report environmental sections and responding to comments for Thruway Authority. Contact:Pete Weisbecker, 518.471.5375 • A351.1 Mahwah Radio Tower — Responsibilities for this project to relocate a communication tower along the Thruway in downstate NY included extensive coordination with the Thruway, Federal Aviation Administration,and NYSDEC.Topics resolved included work adjacent to a Wild and Scenic River, a Negative Declaration through the NEPA and SEQRA process, and telecommunication permitting with FAA. Contact.Pete Weisbecker, 518.471.5375 D214143 Term Agreement for Design Services— NYS Thruway Authority, Primarily in the New York &Albany Divisions, NY. 2013-2017.Environmental Scientist.This four-year term agreement project involves a wide range of highway and bridge design support services.Responsibilities include the full array of environmental duties that may be required for Thruway capital program projects. Example projects under this term: • Syracuse Division Culvert Repairs—06/13-09/13included various maintenance repair and rehabilitation efforts at 24 culverts sites across the Syracuse Division of the Thruway mainline.Work at each culvert varied, but included replacing headwalls and wingwalls, extending deteriorated end sections, cleaning of accumulated sediments, and slip-lining or cured-in-place liner installations within culverts. Responsible for preparation and coordination of a complete permit package for Thruway Authority submittal to NYSDEC and ACOE for impacts to state and federal wetlands and streams.Contact:Pete Weisbecker, 518.471.5375 • MP 154-1631 R Environmental Support—06/14-11-14. Environmental Specialist. Responsibilities for this nine-mile 1 R project with safety improvements included wetland delineations along all slope flattening areas, culvert inventories for water resource impacts,and evaluation for sediment and erosion control.A Joint Application was prepared and submitted on behalf of the Thruway Authority to secure COE and DEC permits for wetland and stream impacts. Contact:Pete Weisbecker, 518.471.5375 lD - r GPI i Pag i eiskotten MP 253-2621R Environmental Support—04/13-01/14. Environmental Scientist.This project is an 18-mile length of Eastbound and Westbound 1-90 mainline corridor that will receive pavement resurfacing along with culvert rehabs and extensive slope flattening treatments to provide a recoverable foreslope in as many locations as possible.Responsibilities include a formal wetland delineation along the entire project corridor. The delineation will allow for appropriate avoidance and minimization of wetland impacts, and submittal planning for wetland permitting. A full wetland delineation report is part of the delineation process. It is anticipated that complete permitting services will be provided,as well. Contact.Pete Weisbecker, 518.471.5375 • Wetland Mitigation Site Monitoring, Interchanges 23-24— 11/13-09/16. Multi-year responsibility for monitoring conditions at three separate wetland mitigation sites along the Thruway mainline near Albany. Responsibilities include field documentation of wetland conditions, plant communities, plant survivorship; photographic documentation of sites, and preparation of a yearly monitoring report to satisfy permit conditions for the project for a five-year term. A formal wetland delineation of the sites was completed as part of year three monitoring. • D214589,US Route 9&1.87 Interchange 9 Ramps&Intersection Improvements,Tarrytown, NY.07/19+.As Environmental Scientist,was responsible for preparing all environmental screenings and documentation for preliminary and final design for the reconstruction of Interchange 9 Ramp A and B of Interstate 87 and intersection improvements at Route 9. Extensive coordination with Thruway Authority is on-going.This is a joint project between the New York State Thruway Authority(NYSTA)and the New York State Department of Transportation(NYSDOT). Contact.Ameerudin Audil, PE, 518.471.4254 Local Transportation Gilbert Road Drainage Improvements,Saratoga Springs,NY.03/19-06/19. Environmental Scientist.GPI performed.a drainage study to evaluate the existing hydrology of the Spring Run and the tributaries of Lake Lonely to determine potential solutions and alternatives' to improve hydraulic efficiency in the area along Gilbert Road.This study evaluated all stream and tributary elements-including culverts and adjacent runoff areas in the project area. Based upon the study recommendations, GPI prepared final design plans that included replacement of the existing culvert over the Tributary to Lake Lonely with a 10-ft x 6-ft concrete box culvert, realignment of stream corridors, medium stone fill at both upstream and downstream sides, replace existing pavement within the limits of construction and a temporary access road needed for construction. Responsiblilities included analysis of site environmental constraints; delineation of wetlands and stream corridor boundaries and Ordinary High Water lines,development of permit packages for NYSDEC and USACOE and ultimate issuance of permits,and coordination,design and implementation of stream enhancements and improvements. Client:City of Saratoga.Springs,NY,Contact:Michael Veitch, DPW Business Manager, 518.587.3550 x2556 Switzer Hill Road Drainage, Fonda, NY. 01/18-06/18. Environmental Scientist. GPI is investigating the existing drainage along an approximately 1,600-LF section of Switzer Hill Road(CR 31)from NYS Route 5 north including r6 failing cross culvert and crib retaining wall and other structures that are showing significant signs of deterioration and failure. Several replacement and repair alternatives are, being evaluated in this study.A full drainage study of the area will be performed as part of the scope.Mr.Weiskotten was responsible for a full wetland delineation of the site and evaluation of stream biology and geomorphology.Application for NYSDEC and USACOE permits were provided for all work in the stream and adjacent wetlands. Stream enhancements and wildlife passage features will be provided as part of final design. Client.Montgomery County DPW, Eric Mead, 518.365.1680, emead@co.montgomery.ny.us Rehabilitation of Shore Airport Road(CR 43), Essex County, NY. 04/17-04/18. Environmental Scientist.This 3.99-mile segment of roadway exhibits pavement deterioration due to extensive heavy vehicle traffic. Phase I consisted of roadway surface preservation,full depth asphalt repair, 10,000-ft of guiderail replacement,and MUTCD signage. Phase II consists of relining(12)culverts varying in size Up to a 16-ft x 10-ft multi-plate arch and minor improvements to three others.Mr.Weiskotten was responsible for securing all APA,DEC; and ACOE wetland and water permits via Pre-Construction Notification for Nationwide Permit for work in and around the project culverts. A variety of technologies were employed including profile wall pipe, cured-in place pipe, and shotcrete application; all requiring cooperative coordination of solutions during permitting to address for beaver activity,fish passage,and other biological concerns.Client. Essex County,NY,Contact:Jim Dougan, 518.873.3739,jdougan@co.essex.ny.us Route 9 Over Indian Creek Bridge Replacement,Town of Chatham, Columbia County, NY. 2014-2017. Environmental Scientist. The project involved complete replacement of CR 9 over Indian Creek. Responsibilities included complex coordination with ACOE and DEC to fulfill aquatic organism passage requirements regarding a protected trout spawning stream, wetland and water resource permitting, USFWS coordination for endangered species protection,and SHPO review for historic resource issues. SEQRA and NEPA processing was also completed,as well as erosion and sediment control design and guidance,and invasive species control.Full review of project plans and completion of environmental portions of the Design Report were also undertaken. Client Columbia County, NY, Contact:Barbara Otty, 518.828.7011,barbara.offy@columbiacountyny.com Route 5S Emergency Watershed Protection, Rotterdam, NY. 06/14-11/14. Environmental Scientist. Due to flooding and erosion events,this project included pollution control measures,debris removal,earth fill,ro protect'+p=n;Tc tream v�nes;-numerous plantings of native materials, and site restoration. GPI prepared preliminary and final design pins, ilize�i sream Fluialeo73' rp is (FGM) P1 eiskotten GPI a' design methods,and created cost estimate and construction bid documents of the preferred treatment to stabilize and protect the stream. In addition,the streambed was realigned to create a more direct flow channel as the creek approaches the downstream bridge and rock vanes were installed to direct energy away from the erodible stream bank. To accommodate stream hydraulics and habitat during dry periods, a 5-ft low flow channel was designed and installed in the middle of the stream. GPI coordinated all project activities with the Town,NYSDOT,NYSDEC,NRCS and ACOE.As Environmental Scientist,he was responsible for obtaining all environmental approvals and permits and project documentation. Client: Town of Rotterdam, NY, Contact. Peter Comenzo, 518.355.7575, pcomenzo@rotterdamny.org Elk Drive Bridge over the LaChute River(PIN 1757.60),Town of Ticonderoga, Essex County, NY.2014. Environmental Scientist. This Locally Administered Federal Aid Project involved complete replacement of the bridge, along with drainage and approach - improvements.As Environmental Scientist, responsible for all environmental screenings,SEQRA and NEPA process,coordination with the Adirondack Park Agency, and obtaining all permits. Client: Essex County, NY, Contact: Robert Leveille, 518.873.3745; r1evefile@co.essex.ny.us Route 9 Corridor Gateway Improvements(PIN 1759.67),Lake George,NY,2014.Environmental Scientist.This Locally Administered Federal Aid Project involves improving pedestrian access and'safety throughout the corridor and pavement preservation of the travel lanes.As the Environmental Scientist, he was responsible for all environmental screenings,SEQRA processing,erosion,and sediment control feature design,and obtaining all permits.Mr.Weiskotten also reviewed the extensive plantings to ensure all species were native to the area and would thrive in their proposed location. Client: Town of Lake George, NY, Contact:Dan Barsca, Director of Planning, 518.668.5131 x5 Housatonic Street Improvements,Town of Dalton, MA.2013-2014. Environmental Scientist.This Locally Administered Federal Aid Project included new horizontal.and vertical alignment to eliminate sub-standard geometry in several locations and selected full depth reconstruction of the pavement to improve the substandard conditions. The remaining scope of work consisted of asphalt reclamation and shoulder widening;construction of sidewalks on the north side of the road;and improvements to the existing drainage system.Tasks included wetland delineation,environmental review and permitting,and development of a wetland mitigation plan including site selection, hydrologic analysis, planting plans, and construction oversight.The total estimated cost for the project is$5M. Client: Town of Dalton, MA;Contact:Ken Walto,413.684.6111 Trails/Shared Bike Facilities PINS 1762.43&1762.58,Zim Smith Trail Northern Extension,Saratoga County, NY. 10/22+. Environmental Scientist. Responsible, for conducting environmental field work and coordinating permit applications with NYSDEC and ACOE for regularity review and processing-for the extension of this trail. GPI is providing trail design, right-of-way incidental and acquisition,environmental screenings and permitting, and wetland delineation professional services for this project.This project proposes to construct approximately 4-miles of multi-use trail,extending the Zim Smith Trail from the current terminus on Oak Street in the Town of Ballston Spa to the Saratoga Spa State Park at E West Street in the City of Saratoga Springs.The project will involve construction of a new asphalt trail generally following the Saratoga County sewer easement on primarily undeveloped parcels. The project will include a new pedestrian/bicycle bridge over . the Kayaderosseras Creek,various culvert installations,construction of 10-ft wide ADA accessible trail, installation of safety items,and trailhead amenities such as parking lots, benches, etc. Client. Saratoga County, NY, Contact: Jason Kemper, 518.884.4705, JKemper@saratogacountyny.gov Zim Smith Northern Trail Extension, Saratoga County, NY. 02/20-03/20. Environmental Scientist. Responsible for assisting in environmental field work and coordinating permit applications with NYSDEC for regularity review and processing for the extension and widening of an existing stone dust trail to 10 ft wide paved trail.Prepared permit packages and currently'working on securing final permits -for regulated activities in state waters and wetlands. Client Saratoga County, NY; Contact Jason Kemper, 518.884.4705, jkemper@saratogacounty.gov Mohawk River Trail Phase II &III (PIN 2650.18), City of Rome, Oneida County, NY. 09/17+. Environmental Scientist. This Locally Administered Federal Aid Project involved the construction of a multi-use path/trail, beginning at E. Chestnut Street and ending at the Delta Dam. The total length of the path/trail is approximately 3.84 miles. Mr. Weiskotten conducted all field wetland delineations and endangered species surveys.'Additionally, he has contributed to the development of environmental sections of the design report and coordination of cultural resource screening and sign off and will secure all wetland permits for the project. Client. City of Rome, NY, Contact Matt Andrews, 315.339.7628,mandrews@romecitygov.com Albany-Hudson Electric Trail (AHET): Empire State Trail, Rensselaer & Columbia Counties, NY. 09/17-10/20. Environmental Scientist.GPI was designated a$3.5M term contract with the Hudson River Valley Greenway(HRVG)for the proposed development of a 35-mile trail through Rensselaer and Columbia Counties,NY.The trail connects the City o,#Re se�laer� Y tq tthe City°of Hudson, NY and follows a trolley line corridor,which was;abandoned in 1929 and now operates has an efectnotrarFsmiiof co�Wido . Mr �Neiskotten was heavily involved in all aspects of wetland and water resource inventory and do a�mentation,development of an Ind'�i uat.Permit with PI I G FEB r pa a 4 eiskotten To—utl',o1d To��a the NYSDEC,ACOE,and NYSDOS, and design of several acres of tidal wetland mitigation.Avoidance and minimization of impacts to endangered species such as bats,cerulean warblers,and bald eagles was also successfully completed.Other responsibilities included development of a full Environmental Impact Statement, coordination with the DOS for work within the Coastal Zone and LWRPs, and cultural resource processing. Client. Hudson River Valley Greenway (HRVG); Contact. Andy Beers, Director Empire State Trail, 518.473.3835,Andy.Beers@hudsongreenway.ny.gov Geyser Road Trail I Bicycle&Pedestrian Trail,Saratoga County, NY.2017-2020. Environmental Scientist. Provided environmental services for the development of a multi-use trail along Geyser Road(County Route 43)located in Saratoga Springs,NY.The project area presently consists of 12-ft travel lanes with varying shoulder widths along with several non-connected sidewalks. In the project area are community resources, such as a school and athletic fields, residential community and the Saratoga Spa State Park. Responsible for project length wetland delineations and suitable bat habitat tree surveys, as well as design of an endangered Kamer Blue Butterfly mitigation site adjacent to the corridor.Full coordination with NYSDEC to protect the butterfly and lupine habitat along the highway.Client. City of Saratoga Springs,NY, Contact Matthew Veitch, 518.587.2198, mveitch@saratogacountyny.gov Empires State Trail(EST)Canalway Trail on the Champlain Canal,Towns of Kingsbury and Village of Fort Ann,NY.09/16-12/18. Environmental Scientist. This project involved the new construction of a shared use trail from Kingsbury to Fort Ann along the former Champlain Canal towpath. Responsibilities include review of sub-consultant wetland delineations, re-delineation of wetland boundaries, field jurisdictional determinations with COE,development of permit applications to NYSDEC and COE,and coordination of off-site wetland mitigation solutions,including in lieu fee options.Client.New York State Thruway Authority,Contact:Mr.Robert Schabhetl:518.436.3140, bob.schabhetl@thruway.ny.gov Zim Smith Mid-County Trail Southern Extension, from Coons Crossing Road to Mechanicville, Saratoga County, NY. (PIN 1758.62).05/16-12/18. Environmental Scientist.This project involved development of Conceptual and final Plans to extend a new 10-ft wide paved trail to the City of Mechanicville. Responsibilities included conducting a project wide delineation of all wetland and water resources throughout the entire 2.5-mile corridor and screening site for suitable bat habitat.Additionally,assisted engineering staff with solutions to trail alignment scenarios involving stream and wetland crossings,endangered and invasive species,and cultural resources. Complex permit packages were prepared and submitted to NYSDC and COE, as well. Client. Saratoga County, NY, Contact Jason Kemper, 518.884.4705,jkemper@saratogacounty.gov Helderberg Hudson Rail Trail(PIN 1757.32),Albany County,NY.2013-2015.Environmental Scientist.This project was programmed through NYSDOT's Locally Administered Federal Aid Projects and involves preliminary and final design of 9-miles of trail system beginning in the Village of Voorheesville with an eastern terminus in the City of Albany.Responsibilities included full review of the entire corridor for wetland and water resources,including streams and tributaries to the Normanskill River,culvert replacement analysis,erosion and sediment control design, tree removal mapping and reporting, landscape planting plan development, and erosion and sediment control design.An emergency failed section of stream bank adjacent to the trail needed immediate environmental review and permitting as construction progressed. Client:Albany County DPW,Bill Anslow, 518.655.7920, wanslow@albanycounty.com Site 1 Hydraulics Minerva Lake Dam Rehabilitation, Minerva, NY. 07/18-05/19+. Environmental Scientist. Responsible for environmental field work (wetland delineations, Ordinary High-Water mark determinations,tree surveys) and meetings with Adirondack Park Agency, NYSDEC, and USCOE for regularity review and processing for the rehabilitation of the dam and shoreline of the reservoir.Prepared permit packages and secured final permits for regulated activities in state and federal waters and wetlands. Client. Town of Minerva, NY;Contact.Steve McNally, 518.251.2869;Minerva.supervisor@frontiemet.com Hydrologic&Hydraulic Study,Johnstown,NY.2015-2016.Environmental Scientist.This project involved the preparation of inclusive Hydrologic and Hydraulic studies of four stream reaches to determine possible solutions to rectify flooding issues within the city. Responsibilities included a full wetland and stream delineation throughout the City of Johnstown;of which all resources mapped were surveyed using GPS technology. Client:City of Johnstown, NY,Contact.Chris Vose, 518.736.4014, cvose@cityogohnstown.ny.gov Scoping &Studies Kindle Mobile Home Park Phase 1,Brunswick,NY.07/20+.Environmental Scientist/Permitting.GPI has been hired to design Phase 1 Engineering project to replace the electrical infrastructure at a mobile home community and to upgrade their water and wastewater systems.The work will include new photovoltaic systems sized to power the entire community,new net metering and digital submetering of the tenants. Client.Kindle Associates LP;Contact:Bryan Wolofsky;514.658.9876,bwolofsky@yahoo.com Statewide Tire Remediation,Various Locations,NY.04120-01/22.Environmental Scientist/Permitting.GPI,under contract with OGS, is providing NYS DEC with professional engineering and construction related services for the program to abate waste tires at 21 known waste tire stockpile sites. The known sites are said to contain and estimated 1 M waste,tires-GP-1-performed=field_investigations of the lF-r - r various sites and developed site assessments for inclusion into the Project Manual. Clien 'NYSOjGS,Branp�on 8tahtieldj518:337- 8901 GPI P. ge 5 lWeis often Brandon.Stanfield@ogs.ny.gov 'Farmhouse-Country Inn II, Rhinebeck, NY. 02/19-06/24. Environmental Scientist. GPI will be performing Civil engineering and Landscape Architectural Design services for Soho House&Co.for the development of a Farmhouse Concept retreat style resort hotel. The project includes creating a small lake on the property, design of roadways, extension of municipal water service and design of a package wastewater treatment plant. GPI will also assist in coordinating with Central Hudson for 3 phase power to the site. Off-site improvements will include upgrading a Village Water Main to an 8"line running approximately 2/3 of a mile along Mill Road, NYS Rout 9,Asher Road,Huntington Road,and Knollwood Road.An update will be completed for a Generic Environmental Impact Statement that had been completed for a prior master plan for the property.The update will cover the lands added for the lake improvement and for the off-site water line extension work. Client:Soho House Design,LLC,Jarrett Sthul,jarrett.stuhl@sohohouse.com Prior Firm Experience New York State Thruway Authority/Canal Corporation, Albany HQ. 2009-2013. Environmental Specialist 2. Responsible for the overall environmental review and processing of the Thruway and Canal capital design program,including NEPA and SEQRA,State and Federal wetlands and waters protection and permitting, GIS analysis, ROW operations and maintenance subjects, highway and canal vegetation management,SHPO topics,and ecology and endangered species issues.He was also responsible for herbicide and pesticide . training and annual user:certification and record-keeping.Additionally,he provided guidance to designers and consultants to ensure that projects are progressed in a timely manner and are environmentally compliant and protective. He coordinated and met with regulatory and environmental agencies concerning needs-and interests of project design and implementation. New York State Thruway Authority/Canal Corporation, Syracuse Division. 2004-2009. Division Environmental Specialist 2.Acted . as Division Environmental Contact to all Federal, State, and local regulatory agencies and organizations. Provided environmental assistance and oversight to all Division Thruway and Canal Corporation operations, including capital program, vegetation and wildlife management and protection,stormwater management,water quality protection,wetland delineations and permitting,dredging operations and upland disposal sites, pesticide programs,spills, illicit discharges,and construction compliance. Inspected all Thruway,Canal,and floating plant facilities to identify environmental issues.Coordinated and managed environmental consultants and contractors as required. Participated in project meetings with Thruway and Canal staff,regulatory agencies,and consultants.Reviewed environmental regulations and proposed and implemented Thruway and Canal policies and directives as needed. Example projects in this capacity: • NYS Thruway Authority Pavement Reconstruction,from MP 378.20 to 393.70,D213654,Buffalo Division, NY.2009-2012. Environmental Specialist.This project involved a full-depth reconstruction of a 15-mile thruway segment between Exits 47 and 48. As an Environmental Specialist,worked with consultants and in-house design staff to develop plans that avoided wetland impacts to the greatest extent possible,and then produced Individual Permit packages to be submitted to the DEC and COE. Numerous visits to the project site with resource agency personnel resulted in the project permitting moving forward,despite complex issues of wetland impact analysis and developing off-site mitigation solutions. He developed successful mitigation options at nearby federal lands for several acres of project mitigation.Full overview of project erosion and sediment control plans and frequent visits during construction for compliance review. Contact:Ameerudin Audil, PE, 518.471.4254 • NYS Thruway Authority Pavement Reconstruction, from MP 289.0 to 304.00, Syracuse Division, NY., 2008-2011. Environmental Specialist.This project involved a full-depth reconstruction of a several miles of mainline west of Syracuse.As an Environmental Specialist, he worked closely with in-house and design staff to develop plans that avoided wetland and water impacts to the greatest extent possible.Complex coordination with NYSDEC and USACE resulted in securing an Individual Permit that included 14 acres of wetland mitigation on nearby DEC refuge lands.Extensive coordination with resource agency,personnel resulted in the project permitting moving forward, despite complex issues of wetland impact analysis"and developing off-site mitigation solutions. Erosion and sediment controls, cultural resources, and endangered species were also analyzed and processed. Contact.Theodore Soltesz, PE, 518.471.4430 New York State Department of Transportation,Environmental Analysis Bureau,Albany,NY.1995-2004.Environmental Specialist. Responsible for the preparation and dissemination of environmental compliance guidance material related to statewide capital infrastructure,operations,'and maintenance transportation projects.He wrote statewide guidance for USACOE Waters of the US,Coastal Zone Management,Erosion Control,Aquifers,and Endangered Species.He also authored ROW Mowing Practices Guidelines,Wild and Scenic River Statewide Guidance,Wetland Delineation and Mitigation Manuals,and Wildlife Connectivity and Aquatic Organism Passage Guidance. He reviewed and provided comments for numerous Environmental Impact Statements and Design Reports. New York State Department of Transportation, Environmental/Landscape Unit, Poughkeepsie, NY. 1993-1995. Environmental Specialist.Responsible for tracking and review of transportation projects from initial project development stages through post-construction monitoring-and assessment. Reviewed projects for a myriad of environmental regulations and policies and provided guidance and interpretation of'polices affecting transportation projects to designers and engineers. Performed state_and_federal-wetland-boundary delineations. r L GPI 1 Page 6 eisgkT'Atel ' FED 9! 2p02-3 b '�1 J' �-_'Uu.C.b The Museum of the Hudson Highlands, Cornwall-on-Hudson, NY. 1991-1993. Director of Wetland Restoration, Staff Biologist. Organized and implemented the Museum's Hudson River Restoration Program. He created working relationships with organizations including USFWS, USACOE, and NYSDEC to further restoration goals of the program. He acquired State and Federal wetland permits as needed and developed goals,objectives,proposals,and reports concerning the Museums research and wetland and river restoration. He created hydrologic and vegetative management plans for restoration sites,as well as recruited,organized,and directed student and adult volunteers to perform actual field work of restoration of Emergent and Submerged Aquatic Vegetation within Hudson River tidal wetlands and tributaries. Cornell University,Department of Natural Resources,Watertown,NY.1991.Research Biologist.In association with the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Mr.Weiskotten performed numerous tasks related to field research and practice of wetland restoration and monitoring. He was responsible for development of research methods, botanical inventory of research plots,and compilation of avifauna data from study sites. He prepared herbarium collections, contour surveying and design of wetland restoration projects, and was responsible for research site selection and landowner contact and interaction. Professional Publications&Affiliations: • Authored NYSDOT Environmental Procedures Manual Chapters on Water/Ecology, Coastal Zone Management, Endangered Species,and Wild and Scenic Rivers. • Co-authored NYSDOT Conservation Area Mowing Program (CAMPS) Guidance. Program developed an innovative statewide mowing approach to reducing costs and overall impacts of mowing practices and ROW management. • Co-authored NYSDOT Wetland Mitigation and Delineation Guideline Manuals. Manual was made available to all employees statewide for inclusive guidance on mitigation and delineation. • Co-authored NYSTA Right-of-Way Maintenance Guidelines Manual. Environmental representative on committee�to write comprehensive guidance for Thruway ROW policies. I out olcf Town Board of I rLAstees GPI Page 7 1 Weiskotten Martha F.Reichert Associate ' - NY BAR 9 7 3 - 2 C ? 3 631.727.2180 i1305 ' mreic6rt&uffo1 klaw.com ,fT_womey, Latham 33 West Second St. = - SHEA, 'KELLEY; DUB-IN .& QUARTARARO, LLP P.O.Box9398 Riverhead,NY 11901 suffolklaw.com February 8,.2023 — - VIA EMAIL AND FEDERAL EXPRESS �a .� �w . d �. 2d Board of.Trustees Town of Southold Southhold Tom Town Hall Annex Board of Trustees 54375 Route 25 Southold,NY 11971 Re: Wetlands Application of 1505 Birdseye Road LLC 1505 Birdseye Road, Orient,New York(SCTM# 1000-17-1-14) Dear President Goldsmith and Members of the Board of Trustees: This office represents John Josephson and Carolina Zapf, the owners of 1515 Birdseye Road and 900 Birdseye Road, Orient; Pamela Valentine and William Matassoni, the owners-of 1525 Birdseye Road and 1675 Birdseye Road,Orient; and Interwellen Property Partners;LLC,the owner of 700 Birdseye Road, Orient, and Andrew Jordan, the owner of 1105 Birdseye .Lane, Orient. We are writing in furtherance of our letter dated September 21, 2022 and-to express our strong opposition once again to the above-referenced Application of 1505 Birdseye Road LLC(the "Applicant" or "Birdseye") for an Administrative Permit from the Town.of Southold Board of Trustees to develop 1505 Birdseye Road, Orient (the "Premises") with a single -family residence. and by, inter alia, clearing 18,365 sq. ft of mature vegetation and infilling of 590.5 cubic yards (301.5 cu. yds. from excavation and 289 cu. yds.from off-site)-on a property containing (i) bluff fronting on Long Island Sound,(ii)large areas of steep slopes of 15%or greater,and,(iii)a potential vernal-pond or other type of freshwater wetland. The Project is depicted on the Applicant's site. plan prepared by Andrew Pollack, Architect, P.C. dated April 1, 2019 and last revised April 22, 2022,-and'stamped received by the Trustees on December 2, 2022. A copy of this Site Plan is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Birdseye has long attempted to overdevelop this property,albeit unsuccessfully,which was summarized in-our September 21, 2022 letter. Following the Suffolk County Supreme Court'& April 4, 2022 Order, which invalidated Trustees Permit No. 9455, Birdseye submitted the instant Application on July 26,2022 for an administrative permit. At the Trustees' August 15,2022 work session, the .Trustees decided to table any further review until Birdseye submitted a full .non- administrative Wetlands Permit Application and supplied additional information. ; a February 8, 2023 1 Town of Southold Board of Trustees F F r 3 Page 2 of 14 Despite the Trustees' decision,we recently learned that at their January 2023 work session, the'Trustees .reversed their decision and are now processing the instant Application as an administrative wetlands permit, even though much of the required information still has not been supplied and the required referrals have not been made to the Conservation Advisory Council.or Stormwater Management Officer pursuant to §275-8(B). We submit that for the foregoing reasons - Birdseye's Application is incomplete, and it is not eligible for administrative review. Moreover,,. it has not met the standards for the issuance of a permit pursuant to Chapter 275 of the Southold Town Code. As such, the Trustees must hold a public hearing once the Application is deemed . complete.and in compliance with the submission and review requirements set forth in Chapter . 275.' I. 'The Proiect Is Not Eligible for an Administrative Permit Southold Town Code §275-2 defines an "administrative.permit" as "A permit intended to provide an expedited review for projects that are deemed consistent with.the Trustee's policy regarding protection of wetland resources." (Emphasis added). Town Code §275-5(B)(1) further provides: .The administrative permit review process is intended to provide for'expedited review of projects that.are deemed consistent with - the.Board's_policy regarding protection of wetland resources. If . the proposed operations meet with all the current setback requirements as defined by § 275-3 and do not pose a threat to the overall function and condition of wetlands or adjacent buffer areas, applicants may request an administrative permit review. This review does not.relieve the applicant.of-providing - all the application requirements (& 275-6) or obtaining permits from other jurisdictions, including,-but not limited to, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and the United States Army Corps of Engineers. (Emphasis added). Town Code §275-5(B)(2) contains a list of activities that generally are considered to be eligible. for an administrative permit because they are deemed to have no adverse impact. See Town Code. §275-8(H) ("An administrative permit includes operations that are deemed to have no adverse environmental 'impact; and a public hearing and notice are not required prior to issuance of a permit.") The Applicant's project does not.fit the description of any of those enumerated . activities. Moreover, it is incongruent that the Project, which has been deemed inconsistent with Policy 4.1 to "minimize losses of human life and structures from flooding and erosion" of the Town's Local Waterfront-Revitalization Plan(LWRP), could be considered to have no adverse environmental impacts. See Exhibit B, Memorandum from Mark Terry, LWRP Coordinator to the Town of Southold Board of Trustees, dated August 15, 2022 at p.2-3. ' The Trustees held two public hearings:on a similarly situated,nearby property at 905 Stepheson Road,Orient involving the development of a previously vacant parcel fronting on Long Island Sound in connection with the construction of a single-family residence—clearly demonstrating that the Applicant's Project is not eligible for administrative review. - I C. V . February 8, 2023 Town of Southold Board of Trustees 8 .2023' Page 3.of 14 SOU hold. Town es Therefore,.in order to be eligible for consideration as an administrative permit'project Elie Applicant must demonstrate all of the following four elements: (1)that the project is,consistent -with the Board'.s policies; (2)that it meets all setback requirements; (3)that the project does not pose a threat to the overall function and conditions of the wetlands and adjacent.buffer area; and (4)that the application has met the.application requirements of§275-6. In this matter, the Mplicanthas not met any of these elements. Simply put,the Applicant is not.entitled t_o the- administrative review process as of right. Finally.,when it comes to the expedited review process for an administrative permit,the only procedural steps,to be omitted under the Town Code §275-8 ("Processing of application") :are the public hearing.and-notice requirements. See §275-8(H) Town Code. In all other- respects; an administrative permit is still required to be processed pursuant t'o §275-8, including §275-'8(B) ("Investigations and Coordination"): Upon.receipt of the application, the office of the Trustees shall maintain the original in the file and forward one copy thereof to each of the following as necessary:"'the.Conservation Advisory Council_;-the LWRP Coordinator,the Stormwater Management Officer, the Planning Department, and the Zoning Board. The Conservation Advisory Council shall review said application' and the effect, if any, on the wetlands and tidal waters-of the Town that may result from the proposed operations and shall, within 20 days of receipt of the same,forward'its written report of findings and recommendations with respect to such application to the Trustees. If the Conservation Advisory Council shall-recommend that such application be disapproved, the reasons for such-disapproval shall be set forth in such report. If no response is received within 20 days, the review by the Conservation Advisory Council shall be deemed waived. (Emphasis added.) A review of the Application file reveals that only a referral to the LWRP Coordinator was. made. .No referrals were made to the Conservation Advisory Council. Furthermore,no"referral was made to the Stormwater Management Officer even though this Property, is characterized as- having large.portions of steep slopes of 15% or greater and the UWW f6und thafthe.Applicant's proposal to clear the entire area within the 100 foot bluff setback was inconsistent with the LWRP policy concerning flooding and erosion. Given the history of this Application and the prior litigation where.the Court invalidated the Trustees' prior grant of a permit as arbitrary and capricious, we submit that this Board must . require this Applicant to comply with Chapters 1-11 and 275 of the Town Code, and the Board must conduct a public hearing so that it may receive public comments,testimony, and sufficient information that would allow it to render a rational and well-reasoned-determination. February 8,-2023 Town of Southold Board of Trustees Page 4 of 14 A. The Application is Not Consistent with the Board's Policies and Precedent The Trustees' policies and regulations are set forth in the following chapters of the Town . Code, over,which they exert regulatory control, i.e., Chapter 96 -Boats, Docks, and'Wharves; Chapter 111 - Town of Southold Coastal Erosion Hazard Area Law; Chapter 219 -Shellfish and other Marine Resources; and Chapter 275 - Wetlands Law of the Town of Southold. Pursuant to Chapter 111, a Coastal Erosion Management Permit is required for activities proposed in the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area, which in this Application includes:(i)the installation of an-8'ft. high deer fence through the mid-section of bluff; (ii) clearing and grubbing a total of 18,190 sq. ft. within the 100-foot bluff setback, starting from the top of the bluff and moving in a landward- direction, including clearing and-grubbing some 3,000 sq. ft. seaward of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Line ("CEHL"-), and clearing and grubbing some 15,000,sq. ft. in an area containing 15% slopes; (iii) and the clearing and construction of 4' wide beach access path with wood steps cut into the bluff. Thus,the Trustees'jurisdiction over this Application is two-fold under Chapter 275'and . Chapter 111, however,the Applicant has not submitted the proper application form for a Wetland-Coastal Erosion Permit. Instead,the Applicant submitted an Administrative-Wetlands . Permit Application—even though the Applicant now claims there are no wetlands within . ,jurisdiction. The Board should require the Applicant to submit the proper application form. Finally,there is no provision for an administrative permit pursuant to the Town's Coastal Erosion Hazard Law, meaning that the instant Project cannot be processed as an administrative - - permit, which is only permissible for a qualifying project pursuant to a Chapter.275 Wetlands Permit. As further discussed below, even if this Application was only for a Chapter 275- Wetlands permit,the Applicant still has not met the criteria to be reviewed administratively. i. The Deer Fence The proposed deer fence,which roughly follows the 18' contour line, is not consistent with the Trustees' policy of protecting bluffs as a fragile,regulated natural resource. Attached hereto as Exhibit C, is.a copy of the June 2, 2014 report provided by the Suffolk County Soil and Water Conservation District to the Southold ZBA (the"SCSWCD Report").' The SCSWCD Report specifically characterized the proposed construction of the deer fence as an"unacceptable erosion hazard to the bluff," further stating: The second item of concern is the proposal to install deer fencing . on the entire perimeter of the property, including on the bluff. While most of the deer fence would not pose a resource concern, the proposed installation of deer fence,on the bluff face would . 4) posean unacceptable erosion hazard to the bluff. Deer fence `�° posts are typically pounded in, and heavy equipment is r- necessary to tension the wire fencing. This sort of equipment ° and activity is-extremely detrimental to bluff stability. We astrongly recommend against installing-deer fence on the bluff. M (Emphasis added). C E VLP February 8, 2023 Town.of Southold Board of Trustees FES a o '20,23' Page 5 of 14 Squ hold lbwh. EV ' w Trustees Moreover; allowing a shore-parallel deer fence along the mid-section o elff`rsar morem- detrimental to bluff stability than the existing deer fence located at the top of the-bluff at 500 Soundview Drive',.Orient, which the Trustees recently required the landowner to remove pursuant to.a permit issued on January 18, 2023. That permit legalized portions of fencing on that property, but required the removal of the deer fence along the top of the.bluff citing erosion concerns. As such,the approval of the Applicant's deer fence in this application runs contrary to the Trustees'policies and its recent precedent. ii. Shoreline Access Path With respect to the Trustees' specific regulations on bluff protection in Chapter 111, a shoreline access path is a permitted regulated activity provided it meets the criteria enumerated in §111-14(B)(2) & (3). In the instant application, however,the Applicant has failed to provide any information regarding the angle, slope, and extent of bluff cuts needed to construct the proposed shoreline access path and stairs as required under §111-14(B)(2) & (3). No.plans, . elevations, or profiles were submitted, and therefore,the record must be supplemented with this required information. iii. Clearing and Grubbing of 18, 365 sq.ft From the Top of the Bluff The Applicant proposes to clear and grub, i.e., the removal of stumps and roots that may remain in the soil after clearing, 18,365 scl. ft of existing, established, deep-rooted vegetation. The.area of clearing and grubbing is divided into-two areas as shown on the-current site plan. See Exhibit A. The first area is a shocking 3,176 sq.ft.,that isl5-feet in width starting from the top of the bluff,:which is to be cleared and grubbed in order to establish a"non-turf buffer with permissible vegetation."Normally, where there is development of a vegetated'vacant parcel,the first 50 feet landward of the top of bluff is generally designated as a non-distutbance, non-turf buffer in order to protect the existing vegetation that serves to stabilize the bluff and.stave off erosion. Here,the Applicant is proposing to clear cut 3,176 sq. ft. along the top-of-the bluff, much of which is located seaward of the CEHL. See Exhibit.A. This clearing will requite-the use of heavy machinery and equipment at the top of the bluff,which the Suffolk'County Soil and Water Conservation District already found would be"extremely detrimental to bluff stability.'.'. See Exhibit C at 1. It is simply irresponsible and unconscionable-to destabilize this well- established vegetation so.close to the top of the bluff. Such a proposal is antithetical to the Board's well-established policies, science, and coastal erosion management. The detrimental precedential value of permitting any applicant to clear any area immediately landward of the top of bluff should give this Board pause. There is simply no justifiable reason to risk bluff destabilization by altering the natural landscape so close to the top of the bluff other than.the Applicant's self-serving desire to create a better view. This is a self-created hardship of the highest order that only stands to negatively impact the stability, of the buff and drainage issued to the detriment of neighbors and the environment. \J .i- 1i _tJ 11-a py r ? February 8 ", 2023 �� - o , �,.�; Town of Southold Board of Trustees j Page 6 of 14 Southold Rowlj 7 ' Board of Trustees The second area to be cleared and grubbed is a 15,190 sq. ft. area, where the appl� icanr .." proposes to regrade and plant"indigenous grasses." There is no indication that this area will - . . contain any restrictions or serve as a non-disturbance or a non-turf buffer. In other words,this area could easily become a fertilized lawn of mowed native grasses. We note that the., "Revegetation/Restoration Plan" included in the Cole Environmental Services Report(the "Cole Report')that was submitted to the Trustees is entirely illegible. A copy of the Cole Report'is attached hereto as Exhibit D. As such, we reserve the right to revise our comments'regarding' any proposed planting plan for this area pending the submission of a legible plan to this Board- and our review of the same. The Applicant's proposal to clear, grub, and regrade is patently excessive on such an environmentally sensitive and constrained parcel. The Applicant has.not supplied any information about the resulting regrading and the resulting drainage impacts even though the. SCSWCD Report found the low-lying area on the Property that may be a.wetland"appears to receive a significant amount of runoff from surrounding land, including neighboring,property: Exhibit C at p.1. The.Applicant has also not submitted any information regarding what erosion . control measures will be taken during construction and thereafter to comply with stormwater management pursuant Chapter 236 of the Town Code. As noted earlier,no referral has been made to the Stormwater Management Officer pursuant to Town Code §27.5-8(B)It bears reminding that.the Applicant's property contains large areas of slopes equal to.or greater' . than 15%..See Exhibit D;Memorandum from Mark-Terry,LWRP Coordinator to the Town of Southold Board of Trustees, dated August 15, 2021 Furthermore,LWRP-Coordinator Mark Terry found,that the proposed clearing and grubbing of 18,365 sq. ft. proposed in this Application is inconsistent with Policy 4.1 of the LWRP and the LWRP itself. Mr. Terry specifically found that: Existing vegetation should be retained to stabilize soils on the - slopes. The file record shows the importance of preserving the existing vegetation. The request to clear is the segmentation of the process and does not acknowledge the resource management decisions already made to accommodate development on this sensitive parcel: (See ZBA Files) Exhibit B at p.3 (Emphasis added). Mr.,Terry's current findings are nothing new, and they were corroborated in the 2018 ZBA proceeding for Application# 7140 by coastal and environmental scientist,by Bob Grover, of Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. Mr. Grover wrote the following in a letter stamped received February 28, 2018, about the adverse impacts of approving clearing within the 100 foot bluff setback: Any.clearance, soil disturbance, building construction and/or operation of heavy-equipment within the'100-f6ot bluff'setback area certainly has the potential'to,destabilize the bluff,'thereby producing an unnecessary adverse impact to the environmental conditions of the Subject Premises and to the neighboring properties, and would likely be a detriment to the neighboring February 8, 2023 Town of Southold Board of Trustees f E, 202,3. Page 7 of 14 I outhold Town properties. In an extreme case, not subject to prediction sflch3rd of VUSteea activities could cause soil liquefaction, resulting in sudden, _catastrophic, collapse of the bluff. Exhibit E at p L (Emphasis added). In.sum,the Applicant's Project is a clear threat to bluff stability,.it is.not consistent with the LWRP, and it is not consistent with the Board's policies in both Chapters 111 and.275.,The improvements located within the bluff area clearly run contrary to best practices for protecting the bluff, and they have been found by at least one agency to be "an unacceptable erosion hazard."As such, the Applicant has failed to meet the first criterion for eligibility for an administrative permit and therefore,must apply for a non-administrative permit. B. The Proiect Does Not Meet the Setback Requirements in Chapter 275 The second element for an administrative permit is whether the Project meets.setback requirements. Pursuant-to §275-3(D)(1)(b),the minimum setback for a sanitary leaching pool and for a residence is 100 feet. Neither the proposed septic tank at 75 feet,nor its associated leaching pools,nor the proposed house meet the minimum setback of 100' from the.top of the bluff. Simply stated,the Project does'not meet the second'administrative permit criterion. Furthermore, and contrary to the Applicant's representation,the proposed residence might be in the Trustees'jurisdiction because it appears to be less than 100 feet from-the bluff setback? .Notwithstanding the fact that there is no administrative permit option for activities requiring a Coastal Erosion Management Permit, as discussed in Section I(A) above, Birdseye's Application fails to meet the second necessary element to qualify for an administrative permit with respect to compliance with the required setbacks. C. The Proiect Poses a Threat to the Wetlands and Adiacent Buffer.'At"a It has-long been documented that the southeasterly portion of the property contains a large depression—a low-lying area that is intermittently wet. The SCSWCD Report-stated that this depression"appears to receive a significant amount of runoff from surrounding land. Exhibit C. During the public hearings for ZBA Application#7140,the Applicant's agent,Mike Kimack, stated on March 1, 2018: "The property drops down into an area that really is an intermittent ponding area primarily not necessarily a wetlands,there's.no vegetative wetlands plants there.but there's.a sensitivity factor." A.copy of the transcript from the March 18, 2018 ZBA public hearing is attached hereto as Exhibit F. 2 We note that the Applicant's site plan prepared by Andrew Pollack,Architect P.C.,Sheet A.100.1,dated April 1, 2019 and last revised April 22,2022(stamped received by the Trustees'December 2,2022),is unstamped and contains no dimensions from the top of bluff to the proposed residence. Our estimate using the available plan is that the northerly edge of the proposed house is approximately 95 feet from the top of the bluff. As stated in our prior correspondence dated September 21,2022,the Project must be shown on a stamped and sealed survey as required pursuant to Town§275-6(A)(8)("Such application shall be accompanied by a survey and topographical map ... certified by a registered land surveyor or registered professional engineer licensed by the State of New York."). February 8, 2023 _ 8 , Town of Southold Board of Trustees .��s,� Page 8of14 � Southold Towti. Board �.Twstaes At the same March 18, 2018 ZBA hearing, Mr. Kimack,when speaking-aboutodramage. -- on,the property; stated: It all drains back towards the low area. It doesn't have an outlet. There's no culvert on it so whatever water runs in there in the' springtime. It accumulates into an intermittent pond. That's. . what it is and they [the Trustees] looked at it we get a letter from Trustees, they looked at it. It's a sensitive area; they wanted it [the Project] away from there as much as possible. Exhibit F at p.31. From 2017 to 2019, it was the Applicant and his agents who insisted this low-lying area Was an"intermittent pond," and they depicted it as such on site plans submitted to the Trustees dated April 1,2019 and November 16, 2017. Copies of these site plans are attached hereto as Exhibit G"and Exhibit H. Whether the low area on this property constitutes an intermittent or vernal pond,a freshwater wetland, a natural swale, or some combination thereof is a clear-material issue of fact that needs to be competently analyzed by the Trustees in order to render a determination regarding the extent of their jurisdiction whether the Applicant's project poses a threat to this potential wetland and its adjacent areas. The undated Cole Report (stamped received by the Trustees on January 3, 2022)3 does not resolve the issue of whether this low-lying area is a wetland—and therefore the extent of the Board's jurisdiction remains a live and open question. The Cole Report makes the conclusory statement that the low-lying area is not a vernal pond, however,the author did not visit the area in the Spring during its hydric period when it is undisputedly wet. The Trustees'-August-15,. 2022 field inspection report by Trustee Sepenoski states: Review in house to discuss freshwater wetlands on portion of property. Discuss necessity of landscaping plan. Property was wet March 2511 when visiting property. (Emphasis.added). As such, resolving the question of whether this low-lying area is a protected natural - resource is a.paramount issue that must be resolved to avoid a potential iurisdietional defect in any Trustee determination. Because the Trustees do,not have-an environmental analyst or.wetlands expert on staff,the Applicant should be required to pay the-consultant fee pursuant to §275-7(D),which provides: The Board, at its discretion, depending on the scale and potential impact.of proposed operations, is authorized to require the posting of a consultant fee by an applicant. This fee shall be used to hire an s We recognize that the"2022"on the Trustees'stamp may be in error and should most likely read"2023"based on the context of correspondence in the Applicant's file between Mr.Kimack and Ms.Diane DiSalvo dated December 21,2022 stating that Cole Environmental Services had been retained to submit a report. February 8,2023 F ' Town of Southold Board of Trustees Page 9 of 14 SoUthodcd Touv Board of truste s independent, expert consultant to investigate the site for the proposed proiect and to examine the plans or other information submitted by the applicant to assist the Board in evaluating potential adverse impacts upon a resource area by the proposed rp oiect. The Cole Report contains several inconsistencies and inaccuracies, which may account for its unusual arid-extraordinary disclaimer: This report is to be used solely as.a guide and is not intended to be all encompassing. While the information included in this report,is.based on scientific evidence, it is sourced from.third parties. Please note that Cole Environmental-Services makes no_, guarantees regarding the information detailed in this report. (Emphasis added). This disclaimer is an automatic red flag regarding the-report's probative value. For example,the report states:."A test hole done in 2012 shows at the lowest point groundwater is 4' below the -surface,therefore the low-lying area does not have a hydrologic connection to.ground water." The location of the test hole done by McDonald Geoscience on 10/03/2012,however,was not conducted near the low-lying area which contains the lowest point on the Property. To wit, the test hole was located between the 22' and 24' contour,whereas the low-lying area in.question is located between the 12'-8' contours. In other words,the test hole showing ground water at 4' below was taken at a part of the property 10%12' higher than the potential wetland in the low- lying area. As such, clarification is needed as well as a hydrological analysis of the low-lying area. The Cole Report simply is not reliable, and this Board should not be using it as a.rational basis for their jurisdiction or any determination. The.Cole Report is self-serving document intended to support the Applicant's changed- tune that the area in question is no longer an intermittent pond or�a wetland. This is simply a. rehashing of the Applicant's same deceitful tactic that it used in its prior Application to this Board where it claimed the bluff was not a"bluff'but a"bank" instead so that the stricter bluff . setback would not apply. This tactic and the Trustees' reliance and approval;was subsequently invalidated by the Supreme Court, where it found that the Trustees' acceptance of the Applicant's position was arbitrary and capricious. In its prior Application,the Applicant,claimed this area was an intermittent pond, when it stood to benefit by using the low-lying area as justification for a 50-foot variance from-the 100- foot bluff setback: The ZBA rejected that effort and denied the variances. Now,the Applicant wants this Board to ignore its past representations and the Board's own observations regarding water, drainage, and ponding in the low-lying area. The only way to resolve this issue is by hiring an independent,.competent expert of the Trustees' choosing to determine the natural resource values of the low-lying area and whether it qualifies as a wetland under Chapter 275. Even the Cole Report recommends that"the low-lying area should be preserved and'protected by enhancing the surrounding buffer with native vegetation." However, a review of the Applicant's site plan shows no buffer area in or adjacent to the low-lying area. In sum,the Application I}LN FEB o 2023 FCpCpkp�!llF»�i��s�sQ�Js�iJ@"' February 8, 2023 Town of Southold Board of Trustees "outaolci Town Page 10 of 14 board of Trustees should be scheduled for a public hearing where competent and reliable information can be- presented and discussed in an open public forum, and the issue of the-Board's jurisdiction and .. . whether this area constitutes a wetland can be resolved. D. The Application Does Not Meet the Requirements of Town Code U754 Even when an application can be processed as an administrative permit, Town §275- 5(B)(1) is clear that the administrative permit review process "does not relieve the applicant of providing-all the application requirements N 275-6) or obtaining permits from other . jurisdictions."-(Emphasis added). In addition to not using the proper Application Form for a Wetlands-Coastal Erosion Permit,the Applicant has also failed to meet several of the requirements set forth in §275-6(A)for its Application to be deemed complete, including: i. Town Code §275-6(A)(8)requires the Applicant to provide a survey prepared within 5 years of the application and certified by a licensed land surveyor or engineer. -The Applicant has provided an unsigned and unsealed copy of a site plan prepared by architect Andrew Pollack, Architect, P.C. dated April 1, 2019 and last revised April 22, 2022, which was stamped received on December 2, 2022. None of the Applicant's filings in this Application contain a survey. A site plan prepared by an architect, especially one that is uncertified, i.e., it does not bear the design professional's signature and stamp or seal, clearly violates this requirement. Moreover;the Applicant has not asked the Board to waive this requirement pursuant to §275- 6(B),nor should the Board grant any waiver as there are discernable discrepancies regarding the veracity of the CEHL'-line depicted on the site plan in Exhibit A(see Letter from Twomey Latham to Town of Southold Trustees, dated September 21, 2022,p. 3), and the accuracy of the setbacks from the top of the bluff for the proposed residence. Moreover,the information on the uncertified site plan in Exhibit A, demonstrates that the bluff line was last flagged nearly 9 years ago in 2014. The Board should not only require that-the Applicant submit a certified survey, but the Board should also require that that the survey be current and that the natural features to be protected such as the bluff and any wetlands within 200 feet of the proposed project be flagged by a qualified, independent.environmental expert of the Board's choosing pursuant to Town Code §275-7(D). The Applicant has not-provided any -affirmative proof or statements that it attempted to locate wetlands within 200 feet of the Project. The Cole Report, which is unguaranteed, is limited to the low-lying area and is entirely silent as . to whether the entire Project was flagged for wetlands delineation 200 feet from regulated activities, as is required under the Code. Without, at a minimum, a current survey of the Property,there is no way to tell whether the.Applicant has complied with the Town Code. This is more than a procedural defect. How can the Trustees be expected to provide a well-reasoned decision if they do not have the requisite - information to form a rational basis for their determination and their jurisdiction? ii. Town Code §275-6(A)(5) requires "a description of the area from which the removal or in which the deposit of material is proposed, or in which structures are to be �� F, � V E ' j 4. � j�_ February 8, 2023 Town of Southold Board of Trustees F s I° 2 Page 11 of'14 - erected. The description shall be appropriately referenced to a permanent reference[_ou t OTTrus ee' monument.. Here;the Applicant has not provided sufficient information regarding the.590 cubic_. yards of infilling it proposes to satisfy this requirement. iii. The Applicant has also failed to address §275-6(A)(6) and(7)with respect to providing information on"the depth to which the removal or the deposit of material.is proposed throughout the area of operations, and the proposed angle of repose of all slopes",and the"manner in which the material will be removed or deposited, or structures.erected." This information is particularly relevant given that the Applicant's property is. characterized as containing large-areas of slopes equal to or greater than 15%." See Exhibit B. Jt :also.bears reminding that the LVW Coordinator Mark Terry found that the proposed clearing and grubbing of 18,365 sq. ft. is inconsistent with Policy 4.1 of the LVWRP due to the likelihood " for flooding'and erosion as a result of this clearing,regarding, and infilling. Moreover, it is undisputed that this low-lying area/swale is integral for drainage from surrounding properties, and any"change to the natural topography stands to impact not only the low-lying area but also. . . - neighboring properties. The Applicant has not submitted any grading plans, drainage plans, or storinwater management plans for review. As such,the Applicant has not sufficiently satisfied the enumerated criteria of Town§2757 6.as it is;required to do. In sum, the Application is incomplete, and it clearly does not satisfy any of the required elements to make it eligible to be processed as an administrative application. II. The Cole Report Should Be Disregarded The Cole Report prepared by Cole Environmental Services (Exhibit D) is not a definitive: " analysis regarding the existence of any freshwater wetlands either on the Applicant's Property or. within 200 feet of the.proposed Project, and it should be disregarded. The.Report contains the disclaiming language that the Board should take into consideration when determining whether to give this report any weight: This report is to be used solely as a guide and is not intended to be all encompassing. While the"information included in this- report is based on scientific evidence, it is sourced from third parties. Please note that Cole Environmental Services makes no - guarantees regarding the information detailed in.this report. (Emphasis added). As such, the Board of Trustees should not base a decision as important as,the environmental impacts involved here on an unguaranteed report that claims it should be used solely as a"guide" and is "sourced from third parties" and"not intended to be all encompassing." Furthermore,the report is unsigned and does not contain the identity of who performed the assessment or their qualifications. It is not a wetlands delineation report. Even though the person preparing the report allegedly visited the property on three occasions, the vegetation list is surprisingly sparse. The vegetation list does, however, note the presence of Red Maple (acer -.. �3 `03 February 8,2023 1J) Town of Southold Board of Trustees _ Page 12 of 14 wn oodlof�Trustees rubrum) and Silver Maple (acer saccharinum). This is relevant because Red Maple is a Facultative (FAC)plant,meaning it occurs in wetlands and non-wetlands, and Silver Maple is a Facultative Wetlands plant(FACW),meaning it usually occurs in wetlands, but may occur in non-wetlands. These plants predominately occur with hydric soils, often in geomorphic settings where water saturated the soils or floors the soil surface at least seasonally. See National Wetland. Plant List Indicator Rating Definitions, July 2012 (littps://www.fws.gov/wetlands/ documents/national-wetland-plant-list-indicator-rating-definitions.pdf). As such,the presence of such plants leads to the reasonable inference that a seasonal freshwater wetland could be present. More analysis is needed. As detailed above,the Cole Report relies on test hole data that was performed by McDonald Geoscience,which test hole is shown on the Site Plan in Exhibit A. This test hole was not performed in the low-lying area, and, as such, it should not be relied on as being a " definitive analysis as to whether there are hydric soils in the low-lying area. We submit that the Board should employ a competent expert of its choosing, at the Applicant's cost,to review the vegetation, including herbaceous vegetation,that may be present in the Spring and determine the extent of any wetland. This expert can dig test holes in the relevant area and analyze the area's hydrology, as well as, stormwater management and erosion control issues. Our clients have retained Kurt Weiskotten, M.S., an environmental scientist with Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. with more than 26 years of experience that include certifications and qualifications in hydric soils, wetlands delineation, wetland mitigation, and stormwater and erosion control principles. Mr. Weiskotten's curriculum vitae is attached here as Exhibit I. This letter will be supplemented with his findings III. Recommendations As stated in our September 21, 2022 letter to this Board: Birdseve's consistently shoddy and misleading paperwork is an abuse to its neighbors, who have diligently sought to and borne the expense of holding the Applicant and the Trustees accountable through the permitting process and through successful litigation. Birdseye's conduct is also an abuse of this Board and the policies and regulations it is tasked with enforcing to protect natural resources in the Town of Southold. We make the following recommendations for any further review of this Application, which must be processed as a non-administrative permit and scheduled for a public hearing for the reasons discussed above: A. Require the Applicant to submit a complete Wetland-Coastal Erosion Permit Application since the scope of the project includes work on the bluff seaward of the CEHL and within the 100 ft. setback from the top of the bluff; B. Require the Applicant provide a currently certified survey depicting: 1. The CEHL; 2. The newly delineated top of bluff; 3. Any delineated wetlands; 4. The proposed structures and their dimensions from the top of bluff and any wetlands or other natural resource; and 5. The limits of clearing; February 8, 2023 Town of Southold Board of Trustees Page 13-of 14 C. Have the Town Engineer or Planning Department verify the survey provided by the Applicant; D. Require the submission of a clearing and grading plan to satisfy the requirements of Town Code §275-6(A)(5), (6), and(7). Such clearing should the minimum necessary to accommodate the proposed structures in order to be consistent with the LWRP. No clearing should be permitted within 65 feet landward from the top of the bluff; E. Have the Town Engineer or Planning Department review the clearing and grading plan for consistency with the requirements for proper drainage and stormwater management. F. Require the Applicant to submit a landscape plan depicting proposed plantings and examining the existing and proposed grading and elevation changes. G. Make the requisite referrals to the Conservation Advisory Council,the Stormwater Management Office, and any other relevant town agency pursuant to Town Code §275-8(B); and H. Require the Applicant to pay the requisite consultant fee pursuant to Town Code §275-7(D)to hire an independent reputable and qualified environmental consultant to: 1. Flag and delineate the top of the bluff; 2. Flag and delineate wetlands located within 200 feet of the Project. 3. Assess the low-lying area to determine whether it merits status as a wetland or has sufficient natural resource and drainage values to merit preservation as a buffer.area as recommended by the Applicant's environmental expert and in Trustees' documents. This analysis should include a flora and fauna inventory of the low-lying area and its adjacent areas during the pond's hydroperiod this Spring, and test holes for hydric soils. We thank the Trustees for their time and consideration of our comments. Please include this letter and its Exhibits in the record of this Application. Sincerely, Marth/RReichqert Cc: Hon. Lori Hulse, Counsel to the Southold Town Board of Trustees Paul DeChance, Town Attorney Conservation Advisory Council -- �_��-Mark Terry,Terr LWRP Coordinator I� c Michael Collins, P.E., Town Engineer Goan d ratZ�r'Jslees February 8, 2023 Town of Southold Board of Trustees Page 14'of 14 Exhibit List: Exhibit A: Site Plan,prepared by Andrew Pollack, Architect, P.C. dated April 1, 2019 and last revised April 22, 2022 and stamped received by the Trustees on December 2, 2022 Exhibit B: Memorandum from Mark Terry, LWRP Coordinator to the Town of Southold Board of Trustees, dated August 15,2022 Exhibit C: Suffolk County Soil and Water Conservation District Report, June 2, 2014 Exhibit D: Cole Environmental Services Report (undated), stamped received January 3, 2022 Exhibit E: Letter from Bob Grover, Greenman-Pedersen, Inc., stamped February 28, 2018 Exhibit F. Zoning Board of Appeals, March 18, 2018 Public Hearing Transcript Excerpt Exhibit G: Site Plan, dated April 1, 2019 .Exhibit H. Site Plan, dated November 16, 2017 Exhibit L• Curriculum Vitae of Kurt Weiskotten, M.S. bil J C R F E D 8 20 23 -- — bw._rsM� Sea�t�atyld T Board efTru'stees I rj - 0 Southold Town Boy-ard of Trustees_ Exhibit A: Site Plan, prepared by Andrew Pollack,.Architect, P.C: dated April 1, 2019 and last revised April 22, 2022..and stamped received by the Trustees on December. 2, 2022 SCDHS RFF# R 10 13 0032 SURVEY OF NOVEMKr.30,'z' T:o;s j PROPERTY JANIUAR .( ) AT ORIENT "U6UST 2, 2G13'RE'd75£D E-DG.ENVELOPE) 1 - - 4CT03'cR 30.2014 ,J�EAR::2C Fi 3LUTF LOCATION) TO WIV OF SO UTHOLD 3AN:: Y G3'G6Y� d.'0°GaL° °L's) SUTTOLh' COUNTY, N.,Y. SA 3ARY 1B,•(ftE`d.S,ONS) '.AP;i'L 2016'(��C-'fi50N5) OC 9,2.:cells E.LUCAINO 1000. 17-01-04 aCel11,2 241( (TREE. JTREE)i) SCALE '1'= 40 say I I,2 r2o(4`:;s �TREES) Q 18,2,322 tPENSSOi9S) . F� ! OCTOBER 17, 2012 ,,<i;'RF..2Z 2025:I :41KNS) ' \\c,,-0 /J s� 4'BEACH ACCESS _ CLEARED k BUILT `Al BY HAND ACCESS FROM LAND Zone Line J� OO GATE rS— — PALL RR SANDY ML %J// Zvi�cass W/TN GRAVEWLL IN LAYERS OF BLUFF LINE AS FLAGGED £c.as' s' BY JOHN DR£DEMEYER, TOWN TRUSTEE. WATER IN PALE BRONN S!!TY M! OP BLUFF c.". NON TURF BUFFER WITH ll' P g, PERMISSIBLE VEGETATION AS WA TER/N RROWN CLAYEY SAND Sr 7F�'• Zope _ APPROVED BY TOWN TRUSTEES / (SEE CHART)TOTAL:3,175SF N� �` I i I +I �� I I` REGRADED AND PLANTED E"I> U WATER IN BROWN FlN£TO COARSE SAND SP W/INDIGENOUS GRASSES AREA I I I •r i I ��i I I I I I .y p TOTAL: 15,190SF L��B O NOTE: WATER ENCOUNTERED 18' BELOW SURFACE EXISTING CREST OF BLUFF ' i j i � P<a TEST HOLE DATA F,'AGS ADDED BY INTER SCIFNCE ON 09123114, �' 1 '�F;7,a 51 Is I 1 i I �',` 5� 'S' WDONALD GEGSCIENCE( TEST HOLE .1 RD ED JJE STPN� , I Y 3 �Oy 1 suu:n.r.s. EXTENDING THE BLUFF CREST TO EASTERN LOT LINE. �I ' `j��' 10 0,3 12 I I i I I l Vg •lG_8� _'{�_ I L� d �IJ"ZR -NEW 4'FENCE E w I� evoao ' PROPOSED L •�( WELL O 5 7 1 � C' F�111HSE '�SFP RAIN RUNOFFCONTAINM.ENE o - \, ` �py�y ) ( 03 " PROPOSED HOUSE ROOF AREA=6,02E SOFT. '}Y� \ w e r\""'`F [ 6,028 4 0.17 X 1.0-1.024.76 CU.FT. {'tlnl'T'� 1,024.76 OU.FT./42.21 60.FT.m 24.2E LIN.FT. _ 0 NEW 4'FENCE � ` • FENCE WILL BE LAID TO AVOID LARGE TREES / (4•i '.�'f %-= PROVIDE(4)DRY WELLS 8'0 III DEEP 32.00 FT.REQUIRED AND DISTURBED AREA WILL BE REP LAMED WITH NAIR VEGETATION. \ "'( 3' RIM ELELV.19.0' a i\ NEW 4' rj] } H A.; FENCE r?•r�. LOTCOVERAGE I '\ CD -LOT AREA: 89,057.25 SF(ta 5 F.l.;RES) -BUILDABLE AREA(LANDWARD OF CEHL LINE): 35.698 SF �--- ,r �p NEST H LE -MAX.LOT COVERAGE(20%OF BUILDABLE AREA): 20%OF 35,69E SF=7,I[Zle S- - ?pOP NOTE: SE MCDONALD � � LtiF GEOSCI NCE,10/03/12 � TOTAL BUILDING COVERAGE: £,5:n35F(T5.5 �) ap'l /ENTRAN ,GA SITE PLAN t =3 . `SEPTIC�� \ -h0 WELL j''•� DESIGNER: ARCHEECT OF RECORD: PRojEr46 DRAWING TIRE MEND: .1705 . C A R L 0 s SITE PLAN DATE APR.01.2019 ORIENT HOUSE SEE Z A P A T A � SHEET NO..' ' Andrew Pollock Architect,PC S T U D 1 0 1505 BIRDSEYE ROAD 561doaMsy.a140 H YpkWY 13 %SOUTHONFORDSTRFET. 1 1 afteolanf:F7rZVYeRR.nzn ORIENT NY11957 -A I OO T 112966.92BP F Y129669141 8R00KLWJjI4 k&i Sout.holld Town, � w2ard aAste�s _ Exhibit B: Memorandum from Mark-Terry, LWRP Coordinator to the Town of Southold Board of Trustees, dated August 15, 2022 �QF so�j OFFICE LOCATION: �� yO� MAILING_ ADDRESS: Town Hall Annex � � P.O:Box 1179 54375 State Route 25 411 Southold,NY 119.71:. (cor.`Main Rd.&Youngs Ave.) CA' �e Southold 'NY 11971 �pQ Telephone:631 765-1938 21 LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM_ TOWN OF SOUTHOLD E a�z MEMORANDUM gg 1 . F ImiJ' � To: Glenn Goldsmith, President Town of Southold Board of Trustees South ®, n-- . aaro ref Trustees. S From: Mark-Terry,AICP s - LWRP Coordinator Date: August 15, 2022 Re: LWRP.Coastal Consistency-Review for 1506 BIRDSEYE ROAD LLC - SGTM#1000-17-1=4 Michael A..Kimack on.behalf of 1505 BIRDSEYE ROAD LLC requests an Administrative Permit for clearing 'and grubbing approximately18,365.sq.ft. (3,175 sq.ft. non turf buffer area and 15,190 sgIA. landward of non turf buffer to 100 foot setback-line)from westerly property line following top of bluff to easterly property.lihe and setback 100 feet. Infill approximately 590.5 cu. yds. (301.5 cu. yds.from excavation'and 289 cu. yds from off site)of the area from proposed landward side of proposedr non turf buffer to 100:foot setback line. Install proposed.I/A system seaward of 160 foot setback line from,bluff as approved by Suffolk County Wastewater Management Dept. Install 785 SF of walkway'consisting of a crushed bluestone base with pavers. Install a 4 foot wide by approximately 155 ft. in length ground . level,foot path, commencing from landward edge of proposed non-turf buffer•to-toe of bluff with Ipe O/E wood.step edges.-Create and perpetually maintain a 15 foot wide non turf buffer(3,175 sq.ft.) commencing at the westerly property line and following the top of bluff to the easterly property line,. planted with:permissible vegetation. Plant indigenous grass from landward edge of non turf buffer to 100 foot setback line (15,190 sq.ft.). Located: 1505 Birdseye Road, Orient. SCTM#:, 1000-17-1-4 The proposed action has been reviewed to Chapter.268, Waterfront Consistency Review of the Town,of= . Southold Town Code and the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) Policy Standards. Based upon the information provided on the LWRP Consistency Assessment Form submitted to this department, as well as the records available to me, it is my recommendation that the action for clearing and drubbina.awroximatelv18.365 sq.ft (3,175 sq ft non turf buffer area and 115190 sqft landward of non turf buffer.to 100 foot setback line)from westerly property line following top of bluff to easterly ro ert line and setback 1.00 feet. Infill ajPptdx1matW 590.6 cu.Vds. 501.5 cu:yds.from excavation and 289 cu:yds from off-site)of.the area from proposed landward side of proposed non turf,buffer to 100 foot setback line is INCONSISTENT with the below listed Policy Standards and therefore is INCONSISTENT with the LWRP. Policy 4.1. Minimize losses of human life and structures from flooding and erosion hazards. The following management measures to minimize losses of human life and structures from flooding and erosion-hazards are recommended.specifically A. Minimize potential loss and damage by locating development and structures away from flooding and erosion hazards. The property contains large areas of slopes equal to or greater than 15 percent (Figures 1 and 2). .. . . � „�r':y�Y3,'' _ L'r' ',13�•'ss°�y'•s.�_ ^"'• .�: �.i.,.e£z$;'.F, .,l`�;:'''-'';:�' �'�'+.�?Iy�''c"` . � ;,ftr`t..,��' ITY..i'J ..��• �" �f '•wY'''.t. - ff,3,y-,�+tt -£�Sv'w'S�,y;+' 'v •'t+`D'�.r,`'x�^�"�'�ir " 1- .._L.m' A f•. 4 ,�J't' �.N f �iiR•u"•`• M�._ Ry ,,'}��..3+ ��4y�.'.> - *��. �•,��' �,} G.,• � .t �^h':�u.� �c"E�':'-J$ w'✓^1�F+:✓e'`<i+ms.'�'r," . 'T4 _.� >x' �.x#:•, iv�:r.., -1:' �Tn' Y,tiu�*V�'�":.d':?�aCi'1 �a•'k�Y- - g '#z..;��a.` Y ,av��& {,y - = ^'.,jg;°F �S,:o:.,, " a'F�v'ef=:"a,ra;�. Si,t•Ch.�viy`�.'.g.. A•K:"�:,, 1. i1 ,tp.x 1 r'� ,+°jii��, .., ..:� r=; 4•. .. - �?:t�i�&�x.a:y'e�t }•;J ,rx.i F.^�'�., t„d>:',:'_. i3��i:ia. J�',..�'��:�:.,'>..".q'£:S"iih® w�i. -,,, .:4;,, iF4:.„- � t �Ei, },�' ka�,.'�.�• .y'+�x c'44", tdF�y"v" � w G#x t ' hY� ra ^ty'� ar �2 4.� ;, •a-4,'ii�:'�,c.• y��$SL - � �� -`a'N c` --"�f�h� r� -•."Fr�'i: �rt�wl - u ya{p'"x dx".• ,{�E �r>A�dp'` `h�}P'0 ,yt�.�E5� �k �z �x ") A .d�'�'-a ...'� ^Y' .•b r .r.`t�gi:. .�J i � +�'a'; _ w, .�1�.-,. �"-=a-�tr'„#.,•,�:ru '" 4.- - � d� �.,i� _;; ;k - %M,',vn:.d. �`,•{, ;�,r. :'c'�a'i'E ^1rM�E-. c + .�' `r'C.^"', .n ,+b,.,'��, S.I " :,s^��,� ra},v�6'h.a�'�':�`•,.:,csul',G'�:.i v,,.��:W,, g'ri ' t •5 'x-h . ' �: ,y �.__u:i �'" r-• i" i i#:.gay.u;r.� �,..Sf'<'.,.5, +�' 7 r (' di+.r''`^c.>r.�,y-�'_ , t3.µ tr , E�` �i.'.• ;` ','F'J,^t'---'"i,+: 'Tc * "-�'��-inµ �C mar 3� r ;fy1raF,zk , L..x -iW a a�� _',�.,.. :ii'.'�::,,;>�;e...•;; ' hi' �1�. _ '"aa� G.x ,�';H'i-�N "ti. - "J:-}�•n.kk.,.. ��:a;;';-+`-:�. _ - -.�• ..`.li'��;¢'f;( _ -' �h i�:?a,,;�,'.,.:.#�'-:rFi�e _ -c'r_:�[ r+�q,,,_�'� fxf;m,,� -+,-� i;;_C.vl i•_"' 'a: - - � .��m •-,afi- �' 1. .�- ::,::{.: j'''>1 7:" �"e'. S� ".'r rr Y v"" '^ V� .kY;y". „{ a,d, � '�� * d�#=a.rt•:, � �' � ;`�•��' �' 3 �' �.�,y i �a�' xtl .� .�F�a�":��•y:'�:;�.�• z{.s;."'L: �'.Y?.a�t`t f'.1,11iT ,l.'� .�M1k' .-i'zi..�; `�.,,t+'� a.?�'�rn:.v 'ir^%, ,•'.Yi; mF' '"`f�l,i~t",i�?i :-af'^:5 .,.,-�r'1.,aCrS.=t�F:r�'',""-; .•''4;'� ?'� - 1.'�'•,�w9^.�iY ii� t��^;� .' �'l+. t',° '`kr.ryi" :£�• YeL �:-.:i„ L)jC, _ F7,�,-, ( } �:� A7 p .p��p +;.,.: t•:= ;�`�=''''�::"rr,: eys-s., -i�.-ar.4t - ,aP.p.4Bs....,��F, ,.:y. .;.�':,'4=:- „c... „., e..•.A+,.P\e>;._5;..,,,.;:F:%'..,.. .,-z-�:'�,�<:e�;:,7�'.°.:?.".,:y;::..: Figure.1. Subject parcel showing 15Ypercent or more slopes as solid polygons (ArcMap) pre development. r E P� �U SouItiold Town Board of T�-isstoes .. _ .. a>rtr?n<:»;r•=e^.^.;t<^„1';v!!ri :° .a�,_m,.�,:,,, ,, t _ '.., 5;•,,'e'�sf, ",a .. ^` �,-k ,N.51, .." �R.::',+�",:!a'iA, #Y✓ »'-Y8''9��``q''# irQ - 'faak.i-"y�•'"�" ..'Y x:i'. 1,...X:✓' ;'y'P�!•i✓''.'a'ty' a. r,n''',,"".£p�,y .FAW�;p�, ,'.^r w.�!'."" � �r dk1`,nmx ''i✓e" z'_ - �ir'��yy..!rt'�"♦�,✓:�. r..r`. '��:,f u,. ,� ''`�'i:.;?s+t a� >e^ ,�3.. l ,?s'.iw:r...: •r+.�` ^.�'.,.t�ti k::t", w4; .�:� :+e��• . . A'k":.a+".ri:��,75•?q. :i�a.:w ,r :.�.s,�,.r. _j3.,, :r��+c.,yfa"5,.€:a�:�G?r dt:��'.4,a;G: �d'� rFt?; F.TRW 7',,, ±�,,.;yy:.,>,. �3;:'J rl.��f'''',�7V^' `v"Y ;'i .,`+..w�qJ. ),''�'•- ,,�. "�:y+��d.�y�, C. '8.:F..4A;tl'r:„Q.,M`: nn 3+'S.a` Y P' w* '.',',�'',�:IiY R. ✓. Y"•',.;cr4a+°�°''A:'�;,v;?" Ir,�''_"s:a:^,%;.Y ";.ri' .,,N� uk- 7r,�..,�'r�,n:a°,:�',J��:.v '.;„"„w+r`:Li ��/`r, } � t;•::, y'"';;ti.;:- •t,::!�s"`.., � �;,;^,�'':,r',�e7s.�:r�'�.V 'yk'sm, ';��b'�.'.r:'!k^.�..'+�t�';?r,,.'�'�o-�.�'',,.:'°,"'t'?: ,e� .'"::..� .�a.:, a,�w,�;q�''y.::::"?;.',`':•. ,; :�;,;,5:�.'x"'T.''' s� - ;J.... „�,a-.�,r.^.y#F '�'d.'7 - -k"•,; ,.<.�Pr .,� f, .,�., ..1*+,,,r.+P', F '? �8� �tg,,,..•: ` +V.fr. Y'..;:'x'-., u' �%,tr =,,fx,:'fY;':,".R:,'!'ir.;,�;N--;. °"�,�;,'�r;',r+° ..f:# s' ;t "'�t' ,y f•,. -c, �c' .,;;,1.:�.`d'�?s�.s,,;.,,::,•';s. �..,�u.:,,�. "_,*•;.r� .,°u,":•�i','°v.,h i',�`dv'�P'e�id. 'a� - ..�,.?T,�A�:��! ,+,d, .i:4i:ri,;'T«'[,:i" .,.�.�.+t v:." *$�`rd'r ,"r�°',��°. -� - - ,7 :<;fl,:•z'4'+t,. (,$�' r:,r.',� .Rs^::F"�>i;�'�S 1 �Ma .:+F J' f�"�' ;=`�'-�;;,':�.:` ."$. y(y�'q�c.,s ' a� • .. Y':;s .n e�;;�+r* f:,5•�": ;-..��,";S A•n'p�Ta�y�,dd: ih"'!�k' y,^,r•�-�.'".�; - ,,��' 50.R BIRDS EYE .'•i"B,'izyts7�a�.��-q.'Sa°''�� QY'w":s'a�''.? e.t�i� '.w..�`fi>as":' dd-��,'a;x">-,.' '�;ry,_ ,xs. z'� �e^ ,,x�`• "� r. �� a' + VET''.�"t '•'r':;�,{, .r,r'� * Y" •'t:, 's>,^� �:. £�r....;, _ rl �t � � �a"�K �� .+�` -.�j�'`^ 1� s• r :�A3 fs �," t �X' y�, � - ¢-.r�:'-.��.,:'�.". `r:p,:,s,'Y dt��,aa�;'.�5' ,��,j'' :�Etl. ,�, s ».,.. 'r=;_�,�`.=;;:;r°=�� .,;..>,�;,`.,,',-,�1,,,. • ly 'OF 4 }�at y5i _ _,qt•' ^ •yi�f�nty,,,. * r«+. , ,�d,#'s',,�"'e*Fi,.�p!',.�?�r y. ,�i;•.!: ' '' a�-'+T."fix* ..t '"".:.� �� r rA.,.S•`,c ��,,��ddi `s J' 1, 'F,; ,i T.'Er "� >'�.k• ' ,'i,... .. Ti ,r".' ✓. ,,.n : a°�'��.''r i.a9''_ °q,;:d•g,�' t:re*,d.ti~"kk''. ,_w+. �'`'.!�.';=.', � �.A's,,'JV' ql.'+", °''4" y§Y"R. 9�'�,w".. n;F'::'^;s{t�;e' { ^'r. •., �,. 12�;�EtRDSE1FR6y,fc±.� " 'C",{c. �� .k;�9°''`.�.k=✓•:��,'�'�,.'g.;f°,;r:" t..a�"'h_ '.T i�'.,�'R,:' i-� !��r,<;,�'R'rf :TMs''; i+'j;-"'.uFFF s�f9 ..r"� f',..,e�. ...'.ir. .t},�' a,Y+ '�{'.,*R; ,p°.N,. V J '*:+L..:,^b;;',3 :t' 'e^ .1'.G } F'!�''. «f�,"~ 1,••' �.:'t,,,�.4:;> ''Y: • '�ha'u'a��.;$'.��r .C':t:�fl�w`� rv;I": �a.�;fr'' .�u�,'':`- �.,`�'�_,. . . . ;�": r.,.�" .ae.,�-•^ ";fir"''?.�:, .d•',: �="r','�^`,i�:�.�;;� r`,� .,.y;�",°r":a., s.- :Ar^ ,. ..�,;d.,,f".'.�-L'�r?lk;.>x:;v �f ;d. .:;r�:b, -�. esr.. .^..'��;°''.�;".?,:`l,,r. •-�� J +`;!.3R��i,,}�'r,i'£:.::�„ -,��.:-!r . �i;;ci�;�F°:ra.•�''4t�'"r'��•s.'a'•:`r q ,:t':!, �'"t3 :�:_.v,.Y. ,t f ' t,�4,,',i.;s,:'ux' Figure 2. Subject property showing FEMA flood zones and.LIDAR topography., Note .,that the,parcel contains a hill (Suffolk County GIS). Existing vegetation should be retained to stabilize soils on the slopes. The file ' " record shows the importance of preserving the existing vegetation. The request to clear is'the segmentation of the process And.does not acknowledge the. resource management decisions already made to accommodate development on this sensitive parcel. (See ZBA Files) Policy.6.1- Protect and restore tidal and freshwater wetlands. E° Maintain buffers to ensure that adverse effects of adjacent or nearby development are avoided. 1. Maintain buffers to achieve a high filtration efficiency of surface runoff. 2. Avoid permanent or unnecessary disturbance within buffer areas. 3. Maintain existing indigenous vegetation within buffer areas. " In the event the action is approved, it is recommended that a non- ED buffer is established.from the-CEHL, seaward to prevent �r; erosion on slopes, preserve the integrity of the bluff, limit turf areas and FEB. " °� — " preserve groundwater and surface water quality. R a. Recommended activities in the non-disturbance buffer include: South: lip down e Board cat`rr_ustees R� -� i. Prohibiting-the cutting, removal or disturbance of vegetation, including trees, shrubs, and groundcover unless vegetation has been determined to be'hazardous to life and property. ii. Trimming tree limbs up to a height of 15 feet to maintain view sheds. iii. Supplemental planting with native vegetation to achieve soil stabilization. iv. Prohibiting structures. v. Prohibiting excavation, grading and removal of materials other than to repair erosion hazards. vi. Prohibiting dumping of unsightly or offensive materials. vii. The establishment of a four-foot-wide access path constructed of pervious material for access to the water-body. viii. Installation of deer fencing. The.1nstallation of the'UA OWTS and the foot path are recommended as Consistent. Pursuant to Chapter 268,the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals shall consider this recommendation in preparing its written'determina#ion regarding the consistency of the proposed action. Cc: Honorable Lori Hulse, Attorney Southold Town . .SGa of Trustees lm� . Exhibit C: Suffolk County Soil and Water Conservation District Report, June 2, 2014 E-� 'Southold Town €�_�._ Board of rgst�.os -Suffolk County SWCD r_7 O�K CO `� Corey Humphrey 423 Griffing-Avenue mil' (:� r • . ��J �;, District Manager , Suite 110 " ? _ - "V� (631)862-3286 Riverhead,NY 11901 'V -�- L www.SuffolkSWCD.org _ Rob Carpenter Chairman .�c �,ee'=�=;• �. ,,rram� i 00 CONSVM �•,r��=-fry__:•�n1-�tY�At�n�ra s� p June 2,2014 . _.,� ! r:�.-..�� ) Chairperson Leslie K.WeismanF E B _ R� Southold Town Board of Appeals 53095'Main Road _ PA. Box 1179 � m==Southoid Town Southold,NY 11971-0959 -- 8o` rd of'Trustees RE:-ZBA File No.7140—1505 Birdseye Rd.,LLC SCTM#100-17-1-4 Dear Chairperson Weisman: As per the.request of your office,a site investigation was conducted at 1505 Birdseye Rd,Orient NY. This-site investigation was performed to evaluate the potential environmental impacts that would be caused by the construction of anew dwelling on the currently vacant property. District staff visited the property.on December 6th,2017.The following are the observations and recommendations of our office based on the findings of this inspection. The parcel in question is vacant at the moment.Towards the north end of the parcel nearthe bluff,the land is well vegetated,mostly with small to medium sized dense brush and vines.The bluff itself.is very well vegetated,with no signs of erosion. Of note,at southern end of the parcel,is a large depression that appears to receive a significant amount of runoff from surrounding land,including neighboring property. In the owner's application to the ZBA, this depression is given as the reason for building closer to the bluff,.rather than being set back 100 feet from the bluff top. The first item of potential.concern is the installation of a septic system at this site.Due to the proximity of the septic system to surface water and groundwater,water quality could potentially be impacted by this project.Our office recommends that the owners seek out guidelines from the Suffolk County Health Department to ensure that the septic system will riot adversely impact water quality. The second item of concern is•the proposal to install deer fencing on the entire perimeter of the property,-including on the bluff.While most of the deer fence would not pose a resource concern,the proposed installation of deer fence on the bluff face would pose an unacceptable erosion hazard to the bluff. Deer fence posts are typically pounded in,and heavy equipment is necessary to tension the wire' fencing.This sort'of equipment and activity is extremely detrimental to bluff stability.We strongly recommend against installing deer fence on the bluff. The third and final concern we have considering this project is the potential for soil erosion during construction.The site will undergo significant land clearing,excavation,and preparation,with the Office Hours:Monday through Thursday 7:30 a.m.to 4:00 p.m. Friday 7:30 am.through 3:00 p.m. Page 1 ev associated large and heavy equipment during construction.These activities will cause significant soil disturbance.Proper erosion control measures must be taken during construction.Additionally, machinery and equipment should be set back at least 25 feet from the bluffs edge wherever possible. Weight and vibration from machinery operation can cause bluff instability. _ Should you require further assistance in this matter,please don't hesitate to contact our office. Thank you, Ken Johnson �— Soil District Technician, t y � t�+ _, V LE FI-I F E 6 8 L �3- ��oLAh-()_j 'T:i:o . r Page 2 Board of l Trustees Exhibit D: Cole Environmental Services Report (undated), stamped received January 3, 2022 b 425 Montauk Highway Environmental Consulting East Quogue, NY 11942(631)369-9445 Wetland Project Management 1505 Birdseye Road Orient,NY 11957 SCTM No.:1000-017-0100-004000 Cole Environmental Services(CES)was contacted to review the subject property,evaluate the vegetation present, and research the presence of wetlands regulated by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)and/or the Town of Southold. CES conducted site visits on August 19,2022,and September 9,2022,and November 8,2022. This report is to be used solely as a guide and is not intended to be all encompassing. While the information included in this report is based on scientific evidence,It is sourced from third parties. Please note that Cole Environmental Services makes no guarantees regarding the information detailed In this report. LOT DESCRIPTION The subject property, known as 1505 Birdseye Road,Orient, NY,is located along the Long Island Sound, north of Gardiners Bay. The lot is approximately 1.37 acres which is approximately 59,067 square feet. The property is currently vacant. PRELIMINARY RESEARCH WETLANDS Prior to inspecting the site,CES reviewed the U.S.Fish&Wildlife Service(USFWS)National Wetlands Inventory Wetlands Mapper as well as the NYSDEC Environmental Resource Mapper. No wetlands were identified on the FWS National Wetlands Inventory maps, nor were any freshwater wetlands identified on the NYSDEC Freshwater Wetlands Inventory maps. No inland wetlands were identified on the NYSDEC Tidal Wetlands Maps,however,wetland areas identified as Littoral Zone(LZ)and Costal Shoals and Mudflats(SM)were identified on TW Map No 724- 558 along the coastal areas fronting Long Island Sound. Please see the map below. E V E JAN ' 3 2022 Sool"old'Town SMlu1d!i�}(!yflfl Beardfll'trist� T 425 Montauk Highway • East Quogue, NY 11942 Environmental Consulting (631)369-9445 Wetland Project Management - `t ''+G"d' .r ; ✓-� i }{ • Legend O 'r,F,,; �� 'N 4 s�nllanfol( �remcwall C�doaalnad:hrt bra Legend: V( yr DFC11daIMIjidAtcas o u d1 t R •r, v ,j - `. 0 yy` �� fta�rync:• e V1 Legend: Ored;ed5o71(OS) .� (yQ Formerly Canncctcd iFC) r9ri Frawl j�ti �` `e r NeO.-Aanh(FtA) °�!^• '•J Ifiglt Manh(fiM) Intcrddal Malsh(W) fn r' 11 Litcnlal lnnC(iZ) ,42� � j CoasWl5hon4,Ban and RLrAffars iShs) VV 1, ,� „`, :� d F.clgrasshrtls � IJ tw " Sic ArcaWStatewide n A 11' Scenignificance v 4 Long 151111d Sound Com m; ^S SOILS CES also reviewed United States Department of Agriculture(USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey, Soils CpE Carver and Plymouth soils 15 to 35%slopes-non- hydric MkC Montauk Loam 8 to 15%slopes-non-hydric Bs Beaches and sand along Long Island Sound These soils on this site are generally well drained and associated with glacial moraine coarse-loamy soils that generally do not flood. During a winter freeze, some ponding may occur in this vicinity. TOPOGRAPHY The subject property and surrounding area slope toward the southeastern portion of the subject property. This area of the property has a bermed section,which allows the neighboring property to gain access to the shore. This berm/dirt road Is manmade,as evidenced by the presence of a clogged culvert that was observed on site. Aerial photographs from 2001 show a clearly defined dirt roadway,that appears to come from a property just south,and terminates at the beach(Long Island Sound). This road is at a higher point along the eastern property line. It Is likely that,while well drained,this low area is confined by the presence of the existing berm along the southeast property line. This confined bermed area may allow for temporary ponding of stormwater before the coarse soils allow for percolation. No water was observed at the site during the site visits. There is anecdotal evidence of ponding, however, the cause and length of time have!not been documented. www.ColeEnvironmentalServices.com t 8 202 Board of Trustees F • I 1 • F 4T� RFmF'y,�'J' �r,�p t?A �t�x uahhi�i ua , ikk �gR � ! y 7kFf'r191��'!!o f � �c�YY� S�1 ��ZC�.�!��, S!��)� a 11'✓�,�'•d�' �!"�' n � `� � ,�s�',b3��1 '� { �.Pir.�Irj M �1 1 d�. ,� It /s{!�!I y��, �L7' Ic J � �j n S +.y1 z �, ✓ :5`Nb ttAF• ��c 1'w r !f 66 t �I �4,�t 1k� }�+� ;,� � a�i t ti a .,hsrn 'h"4 r Yr -� g111, � '�. I�, �6` ."X•+`fH � CS .t +n,•r+554 J�IPtiT�1�b pP y��e9�t��$f�jq{�,�,♦I'A, �T � *� ��: �Lv¢ IP c I "� �. �� i�{� I i&�✓+�/�t a1<�,��'�Y�1L�'�,"?' f �a I �" � ,1 y� '.�'�' ,,rz I� u 4 r r �. •T �,s � , ��o xtt kf}y}1 rryrT}�� P�t� TY..�'Pryl r��. •rye ! I! I s }t# ,"y.. �.+w'� t.. f �+ 11�ka a �?r.7}If! � L� �.�.�•t.� "s^�. i '' - rf��l,�`. t�! P��.�}�''i '•+t.1�,I e' � 'F�,xP�� ,.x� d''rl .� dN�^.,,Ry�•�' ^�M i� ,F c 1 f Y i 1 +�� y • Vi1 IttSE� YV(f�++,t�r �y�� f! � '.fl V. M .R r.',�. t' ��l�3 t 'F.1.�""�.J _ 7 •IL�A�e' a,i c ! I,y r f 9� r i � y�e gyp! �rR � a'"r� •� 1 t� 1,1 x" � � •�1+t �" t3 � ,# g" P r t, J 3 iY' F 'ft CREATED BY I 1LE ENVIROMMENTAL.SERVICES . 111 1 11 I 11 1 111 10.13.72 i I it 4 425 Montauk Highway East Quogue, NY 11942 Environmental Consulting (631)369-9445 Wetland Project Management ON-SITE FINDINGS When identifying vernal pools,there are key characteristics to consider. As the New York Natural Heritage Program(NYNHP)vernal pool guide notes,"vernal pools are intermittently to ephemerally ponded,small, shallow depressions"and"typically occupy a confined basin(i.e,,a standing waterbody without a flowing outlet)". While dry during the surnmer,they are typically flooded during the fall. CES visited the subject property on August 19(summer),September 9 (late summer),and November 8, (fall). While the slopes of the area direct storm water to the low-lying area in the southeastern section of the subject property, pooling water was not observed during any visit. Stormwater does not appear to be present for prolonged periods of time due to the permeability of the existing sandy and coarse substrate. This is supported by the lack of substantial tannin staining on the existing trees. Furthermore,a culvert,although currently blocked,was observed along the eastern property line. When functioning,the culvert would act as a flowing outlet. Vernal pools are also characteristically"surrounded by upland forest with trees that overhang the pool, providing a continuous leaf litter substrate,"which covers hydric soils. CES observed a lack of buildup of organic matter in the area in question. As previously mentioned,the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey documented non-hydric soils in the area. Additionally,A test hole done in 2012 shows at the lowest point groundwater is 4' below the surface,therefore,the low-lying area does not have hydrologic connection to groundwater. The coarse,non-hydric Carver Plymouth soils,and the high permeability of existing soils all allow for the water to percolate into the ground relatively quickly. Using these identifying characteristics,the low- lying area in the southeastern section of the property cannot be classified as a vernal pool. EXISTING PLANT SPECIES ON SITE Silver Maple-Acersaccharinum Red Maple(Ater rubrum) Black Cherry(Prunus serotina) Multi-flora rose (Rosa multiflora*) Privet—(Ligustrum spp. C _ Black Raspberry(Rubus occidentali,) Er Oriental Bittersweet(Celastrus orbiculatus*) � Black Locust(Robinia pseudoacocia) Poison Ivy(Toxicodendron radicans) F E r) — U 2 0 M Virginia Creeper(Parthenocissus quinquefolia) Goldenrod (Solidago spp.) _Southold-down Pokeweed(Phytolacca americana) i.__ _ Board ?_ _Trustees Mile-A-Minute(Persicaria perfoliate*) www.ColeE[IvironmentalServices.com 425 Montauk Highway East Quogue, NY 11942 Environmental Consulting (631)369-9445 Wetland Project Management RECOMMENDATIONS Cole Environmental Services reviewed the initial site plan with the property owner and agent. CES's recommendation are reflected In the updated site plan. Native,non-fertilizer depended vegetation should be used on site to the maximum extent possible. Deep-rooted native vegetation should be planted specifically for areas fronting the bluff. The low-lying area should be preserved and protected by enhancing the surrounding buffer with native vegetation. Additionally,a significant number of invasive species were observed on-site. CES recommends the removal of the existing invasive species along with revegetation with native vegetation. FEB s S()uthoI T-Owf'] iLjj d of Trustees www.ColeEnyiron mentalServices.cbm N 425 Montauk Highway East Quogue,NY 11942 Environmental Consulting (631)369-9445 Wetland Project Management N DK0 SC:UHS RMY R—JO—J3-0002 .4CA&Fr` l'— 40' . OLYWFR 12.7019 ��O T iS,a •9� U an a VQ , �ti IWO I Y WR J L F h••ryN. !/ .ate �q':•�1.-c. r+.ala• 0.r a..6 w c�• n le Ile &UTF NKpfu.dn` rN' rtncc� '-••RY fYJ; nN bc'JS/eL. •-'-'•`�,•.• G 17• ro '••aRa t<Iwi tW rl ach r �,•,, *�<''"e,y p....•r snot rRt�.uw�n. - :.., ]'• WOWAn w4•a w.•.v Ivoa civ w Om9WON"k ow r// � K[,MK�NS.µ•![df. ...w.rrra• NR&.1'IMMY ht TI IY.•t,Yw'• • QR TWl {'Il y: JC '��1 • N AO�NA7.0 2ehV:N1:CD W'OtaO»•A t•A_t rAs7wG CNEST Or a:L._—— — .l j•' ••:•'!•"•; TEST r7gre'OiTA r1141.]�a71 R]a,l):k tUA,%M 4ajhl�]•r '. ` T. rfr^•J•'b.0 C:62:tiilt.'e/1 T�5'T N,J.0 tflnNf113 Ai p14.F[ilSf N Na'2NN tOf LDv J (. � yY� '•`"" ••.r � 10/11.7r7� �M+1..ur ' 410 ftW RAIN A41Mtr Kgli.[V¢C!a[ 4 yq� �/) •'••.; �•'t. .�� a �•• Tr i r V.a'••• 1 rntTaal6•[cl:t AI'lt uti�.�e Art I P ti , / ••"��•'�• t 4:p a¢UY A-•rtA ar RaR •._ •'`. yr" r.rrwc u I _A wane wn/uv wrt_, .w .•r r, n.vot N/"W rnpa 01ero.r[d 'rvrcc.0 rE[lu rD,•�tir'iM ot.",iti ; Y' )2 R. xm i'q pOrva6aa Ku •i �] `lf .....�.. . �arcoverince � , '� -U7TMCaV •!,t•r�•IAI•r•.`!4 a735, %� •--• .. •O.,II[Y L'KJAKa+'Ni.:9TCbG7[.:t Ir.K4F �y •� ILT � (.._•• _ .OLU.tpi,;JYaAN]l'11aY4:]pG['AT.p A4Zne rnoT ans7-r•nua ' t� eKI: .r WJJOyRV. .»,,h.r•r � n]Ty.atgi'lChtatsR ]:set .... �;.-_ a 7 tn• '.; tR[t. R •» .t .e w Kr.:...... xn„„'uuiti:ivy.o .. �•+R+,r..in.n N:r.u¢rr+.0 A,.n,.:a.n wr:.0 a:....wly ay.:.ru, owr:'«.nni' .a.•».ia,n.• E S, CES REVEGETATION/RESTORATION PLAN wwweColeEnvironmentalServices.com f F _ J , f�U 01ed Th nor ryM#a �.�d 1 mrr �{1,r"�i r�' i� {Yr 'L xy�>#�I�`�.�'at,��'n "'y J;I r�y d1r'q•yl'` p J„Er`• ^y�S h N{y�I � Ii #� •• �I. ,f i LI t'' � X "}kxri+i�t ko;, ' i �,• � �!C!, .t•�.s 1. h 1 �#i rnti��,M,� , !t�'n �r �r �'.4t-` � a r �cnV�$�'J'a I,•N^ ,."-rT�e�{,}� � rt r�w"�" �� u;�rt,q`. €r. [ i� r'{. F'�"a t v""'�. tl�• �lRkMs#its t'�'r t!��.i rp �•i*t.sr" r d � � J a �t•`'r J( �{,� r [�r p v „' a i� Ik•� I��d N •' ..v+ � �u q y 9` d j +f 3� '"EI� i• s�.{ Y tiw ta"+ ° r��L ,y p •` �ri $�� !�'� # +� #a{k} �a�� xrA.S"FG�k Iv' +C�'�.G i r �' • �.✓; ir d4 F � 't�r"�� Tr t.1�°i�rev ci S r r � '�+r r� 3 �K`tt �'�•�;� �'[ 1 Py' ""� tn''yy !i( �'N '+{{F r 3 r r y yy r 4 to f•. #�Pt 3� xY A F�j",; e �1< p•t y 41 / r�+h +Y 4 .' br a 4'�J MJ .it L F i �i•�rl•c r�7 sX° ..yb.. )}r" �r f <y Isk dd � �. I. 1S I"'r1j. r��tik lr�.t,V1 ta'<.'i "^ )),+1 t W !! °iV •,rr5w �ny1 + 4 ql r �,:riirY uf{,p�y�.4-J,�'A, i"` 1"1 j, r r wp4+ f t�i'". r., •s t yi� k.��,+� "wq r y it '�24 i.tx itt',t.:r is""! �t 1 S��'Y r; ,�•d°. i' F� �{{ ^v� � A�a�{✓s�k t �.yK +` ,n, sr � Ftf k•r{#,I+ rT+N1�`m' t# ,,,�({,� }}t >.{a��t_rarc. M e t o •?'' r �f �, I 1 7 i$�''•�r'rE.) �e L�r��`hu.,,,Sw t !� �Y�R r�,!5ttt ! ,, ��.�+t��s,.�{��"y.!�S�C pii V ` wl {5��! c ai tlMyf rairiiR6� dray di6�t�! rf3 z1 r' ) '# y� F ��•,�� byt,�di �'.}r !#r"f fir#fm 9 4 fYys "D'4tir+ � k".t��, i Lr�Y�/,,,,••C}� yp '+. r'Ids (.{ +n7 j of �'F ik, r✓ irrfA,Y :4+q tr{C#.*'''.d•IJJi. ,r£1+bY9.+' Y 5'rr •1 u °;� Alr'+J� ! c `k i i t t r w •'+ y{ s,,,' y.+ G r r N.;I fit°V {•r'" 6� �rr-ey1� � .7�' �°i,#�4yxr ,F, y r t r x�'y�,. {r!r r� S�„J I 7 9 A, +•��r,�d�` ' � � � a".. ti,�'J�{_ A( c r k � r.L7 L'A'�I" �'b °�4 '{".1'p Y A aF c'y ty•• f r a.rR'k ( Fe � L '�{ i#�"5 r 1 -J t� ?T {5 r�+^ 4•[ '1 i^t 4• " > p > ' 1�+ t"t 1 ,f .yy •�{r t .r.Jl r l' r f r•ti xah 1 �T aid$ 4 t'ttk t { y�st"I s} t#1 f �r yr,i i Ja•.r t ` as Ss ti.V ft"� !a A d r {, ."j�4 � � F� y h :r" } °Ai -i '�r t w t F,y`"n �'`K'..y; � •lu� +ir °r A r'�y�4�Nj',. ?AAi" �1 �S� $- �1 Mr�, •'�..�". t l S"a"y t 3 a o " W f 1 5r xT ^•'r i"d!r'' r F"' n�1r #a �3 j :.P4 a r t r Q II!ti7S r i1i r 4w• ,! p a�w, 4v � rn4 d�t�� 17 �K 4y+Ihj �.h+.+.'. r �+ dW••+"}. 9" : �Y# r�� k• .+�w� _ •. .#Y�� WYIS { k 4 11t1 r i 4s t +is �"'"- t y � tC Zy' #*I � 'i + t4 �•r, ^ {'1 rf r`u.;w l!' yL�t" vrgl' ��h'll. ltt(t .hw @� ��?�� I �' � �, i."y , ei fa• �bRj r'r. +rayr r i( ,�� ,n8��i��a.a4k � .f f r �� F it dwf r1y1y rf �+ >( #`�d��A#y{�v. � P 1.,1,.�•�rSr(r F i, i d lwc.> .� k ,�„ t Y"-L; A �+ d : d•v'(y h�,, rr t Z ��'��f rr� tf ix 1 4 F 4 • t:" c.i � ! �4 �tiT cd, � .:''f r�tF s 4.� I �� 'i`�"'i^-y,4S t.+✓1 Iv1VA ( pJ' •tU ,4..e-� r ,u[ .�)t4 y-L��rni 'tr fi�y s t " r'�"e p`� c Zee � �. qtb Ate'- ra,�.+t s1,,�1 bE�. t� a'f �1 ti ti+ q 's I rtr -:YG '{r{ ±y� ��fY� I 6{7 !'#O i{ d r b,. k .( Si yt•„ {''��'4W's" �at irw p y �..� 1F { 1 t.. 2". 1 '� YV".'! •u€ " ^'fi 4�1�.�f J$�_`` ' i a t t4+w +i r.•:r#!4`#� ^c>� p k {�n.i "� k" s" t 44 t,wfi+• Y1 ,�•+,y;, `Ia f� v yi {kjA'r + x r[ M s b' r i I }�� 'j�+ �' a•34X L � w,d+ F s ��F #� J.3 +�� ! � r C r I c ! k r �• �� t M1 '� + f'dr�"h M. 49 #irt 1 nT�b ry f�' a .k r -s as,{ IiF #'lr f'� y{ g,�'° s" �r� L-. QTwy #t'+�, •ii•F t`� d�e�tF F1�"i'ft �Y�J� �,.. R ,. #p•� ° 4ro+I,' �p h rsp� rt�� -.i �I r��ra� t1�M� {.b4 " t1 c{+ M �a 4#+y yiL 4 • ✓,��Lr1(rY *"r ',^'ty, r �rvY'I r i 1J # 4+`i LL1s,1 y ^l rJi 'V1f rk v F �.�'. i "t•. + t d( 1 7 r y t+yp "3:y(� _;o '-'• h w[+ r 'y+�'t' f C .S r {'# if {'y. .Jxry J•M t ,5 � h'� F "x T.r r° [ r r .. 1 { t }. •1 ate"WS b { .I � r•M+'x� i rr t.+ �`� t fir# � M` T I ! r�. �P!�h �Y'b�;�A t �d�'�r.{,�-,r� .#+?' �•.Ja�r:� � �? .t�I I I Its a rye +..t �ai f t t��{}�� f { +r� a >,.'Mt , II J+.a• 4J r a r#i,a'� g9 �I'`'�'' �' {r {Ir'�� `� r �°.•�{ 'Fa �tS i"- A '�r'}n'" #S� ry'� Vii { �yal,3C'ef1 #i•ti t Van ar•'t rs d.+ 61�+hi "' •w C! il� �, J .'� !!` �,r% '`{ t� j!I r,,.•j i•rd '� �+A :r � aw F.jA 6 +.+'r rt' >f� +I�'�f r�� e �'�S. � s !':'r Y� � Y� i •�' { r .r L s, k� t r„r� q�, T3h z!ri t�;, r �i• r T t. �r•� �.�'fa -h y� t r, t{, r p i�"fs'�,� �'!�r 4,.�� tl" '�� " r+' i/,- �� `,�� }�i�,Ali � ' � •1�� » �'V ++y r1'i �:'' ,��- �a '•� iefr '4�x.�Eu✓'i �ti, �. d;r41p.�,r.'�,'>�2,,;t, y�.,'tll��.�.t� ;{u�t.�•o :L�iai: I I Exhibit E: Letter from Bob Grover, Greenman-Pedersen, Inc., stamped February 28, 2018 r., I qg� � F E B 8 202 Thwn sn a I oqad ` GPI Engineering Design Planning]Construction Manager VIA HAND DELIVERY Southold,Town Zoning Board of Appeals RECEIVED Attention: Leslie Kanes Weisman,Chairperson 54375 Main Road FEB 2 8 2018 P.O.Box 1179 -Southold NY 11971 ZQN1W BGARD-0P.1Pp1sL§.___-- -Re: Application of for Variances 1505 Birdseye Road,LLC ZBA File No. 7140 Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-17-1-4 ' r�tai:�; da9 Town t ,3caird or TrusteF°szr Dear Chairperson Weisman and Board Members: By way of background,I am the Vice-President and Director of Environmental and Coastal Sciences at Greenman-Pedersen;Inc. (GPI),which is a firm with a staff of over 1,300 professionals,including engineers,planners, scientists,technicians,and inspectors. I have been employed by GPI for over forty(40) years as an Environmental Scientist specializing in coastal issues,which has included projects relating to coastal management studies,tidal/fresh water wetlands,environmental impact investigations,and,erosion, studies. I have conducted over three hundred(300)environmental evaluations,including well over fifty (50)on the East End of Long Island. I have been a consultant for many municipalities on coastal studies, including serving presently as the environmental consultant for the County of Suffolk on the Fire Island to Montauk Project. In addition,I served as the Environmental Scientist on the Sebonack Golf Course in Southampton,which included being responsible for preparing the environmental impact statement,habitat inventory,natural resources plans,native habitat restoration plan,and water resources protection plan. A copy of my resume is enclosed. My firm has been retained by John Josephson,who owns properties located at 1515.Birdseye Road, 900 Birdseye Road and 700 Birdseye Road,adjacent to the property owned by 1505 Birdseye Road,LLC. (the"Applicant"). In this regard, I have reviewed the application of the Applicant for multiple variances in order to construct(i)a 6,028 square foot dwelling with a terrace,pool and pool deck fifty(50)feet from the top of the bluff; (ii)a 796 square foot pedestrian entry bridge that is 41.7 feet from the front property line; . and(ii) 8-foot deer fence around the perimeter of the property,part of which is located in the front yard. On February 21,2018,I conducted a site investigation of the property located at 1505 Birdseye Road, Orient(the"Subject Premises"). The Subject Premises is a heavily vegetated vacant lot,which contains extreme geological constraints,including steep slopes,swales and coastal bluffs. Because of these " extreme constraints,it is my professional opinion that this parcel is not suitable for any development. This may be the reason why this property has never been developed. If this property must be developed,there certainly is plenty of room on the Subject Premises for a reasonably sized house and other improvements to be sited beyond the 100-foot bluff setback line as required by the Southold Town Code,without encroaching on the swale. As such,there is no question that the Applicant has feasible alternatives other than the requested variances. Locating a house and any other Greenman-Pedersen,Inc 325 West Main Street Babylon,NY 11702 p 631-587-5060 An Equal Opportunity Employer i improvements in a conforming location setback 100 feet from the bluff will require'some grading and possibly some retaining walls,however,the adverse impacts to neighboring properties and the bluff would certainly be less than the impact if the requested variances are granted. I also see no basis for granting the -front property setback variance when the proposed pedestrian bridge can be moved 8.3 feet south to conforin to the Code. Any clearance,soil disturbance,building construction and/or operation of heavy equipment within the I00-foot bluff setback area certainly has the potential to destabilize the bluff,thereby producing an unnecessary adverse impact to the environmental conditions of the Subject Premises and to the neighboring properties, and would likely be a detriment to the neighboring properties. In an extreme case,not subject to,. prediction, such activities could cause soil liquefaction,resulting in sudden,catastrophic,collapse of the bluff. Moreover,introducing impermeable surfaces within the 100-foot.bluff setback area will result in the alteration.of significant drainage on the Subject Premises,and will change the soil structure and vegetation .upon the Subject Premises, which will likely have the effect over time of damaging the bluff,:resalting in damages to the proposed dwelling and to the neighboring properties. In addition,,although a deer fence may. appear innocuous,the installation of the necessary posts within the bluff setback will have a destabilizing 'effect'on the bluff. During my site investigation,I observed that there was silt fence on the Subject Premises. A.silt fence is typically used for erosion and sediment control,especially where there is to:be soil disturbance, particularly near wetlands and waterways. Since,to my knowledge,no permits have been granted for soil . disturbance in this area,the presence of the silt fence is a mystery. A copy of the photograph that I took during-my site investigation of the Subject Premises,which shows the dense vegetation as well as the black: silt fence,is enclosed. In'sum,it is my:professional opinion that there are no scientific reasons why the multiple variances requested by the Applicant should be granted when the Applicant can site a reasonably sized house.and other improvements beyond the 100-foot bluff setback line in conformance with the Town Code,and when by placing the proposed dwelling merely 50 feet from the top of the bluff would clearly result in a detriment.. to the bluff and to nearby properties and have an adverse impact on the environmental conditions on the, Subject Premises and the neighboring properties. It is for these reasons that I recommend that the Applicant's requested variances be denied. Sincerely, '' Robert Grover Vice President, �;�'� Director of Environmental and Coastal Sciences aFEB. m 3-`rustees ..wY9 i 1 i WE I)qo _ Resume Robert Graver' Director of Environmental Sciences. Professional Profile Mr. Grover provides hazard analysis, environmental designs;.coastal flooding and . erosion evaluations, recommendations;and support for major projects.in.both the . ,;. ::, ;i., :, ,'- ,,.:, 3� r _ public and private sectors. He has a comprehensive. grasp 'of'legal, social; and {: DUCA7I.ON: political considerations and their environmental.ramifications. Mr. Grover has BSft9TllEnvlronme raj 5cr`epces-- ,. - ;,,.;. authored Flood Plain Land Use Regulations for the Town-of East'Hampton,Village of ` 3 " � '� - `,.'• Babylon and the Village of Lindenhurst. These municipalities have adopted_these regulations in order to comply with the Federal Emergency Management Agency 1fEARS.W,,IHFIRIUI;46 , (FEMA) requirements regarding Land Use and the use of Flood_ Insurance Rate T O"IAL'YEiQRS EXPEjiENCE::.$G:_ Maps FIRM's This experience.at the local,community level'is Very important in conducting local coordination for large state projects. He has coordinated over 1;000 '-COURSE WORK-:• �"�°:' ;''!'�' ';.: environmental regulatory permit proceedings with State and Federal Agencies. �.- _�U HourOSNA Gorr"st�ucfion;Safety;6;Hea(i{i On projects with NYCDOT, he has interpreted 100-year flood information obtained ;w.TiainiggzCourse'.t Y� .,. • . ; from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)-to establish MWAN'tflc'No7se Mip 11h �.Qflarrdo,.. a +r• ( _ ' various flood events used In developing critical roadway and bridge elevations along ' ' '_ Y x•,'y •t == .,:,� •ti:; the Belt Parkway and other major routes. He established britical flood"elevations-at ,PROFESSIONAL AFEILIAI jONS: ',`•t`: the Paerdegat Basin Bridge, Roosevelt Island Bridge and Coney Island Creek Bridge Amerii;an A`ssociatror�fortlii• di!ancemen('of locations,and this information provided to NYCDOT engineers who utilized it iri their [Wdoan.Orplf determination of critical'roadway and bridge elevations within the project corridor.hblgglsts•Unfoit :':•';�'".:. :- {- In a project with the SCDPW,GPI is providing professional engineering'services for t4asfal:EducafionandReseaCh. ourfdatlori' `.. the Smith Point County Park Seawall Extension. Mr. Grover recently conducted a Corig'/;;tand'Soatli Shore•Estuary Receive__' Cariricili •' : - _:�i•. .'� r'-' 1:, wave scour study in this area to determine wail height and dune..requirements. ' ""`' ' necessary for the extension of an existing seawall in,order to rotect the Fit ht 800 ' I Af&e:ork:Stble.Orrirthologlcal`Soclety, ry 9 p g 1."Sut(ollfCouaty(NYJ,.Ve(larids;Mariagemegf ;•; Memorial located at Smith Point Park In the Town of,Brookhaven; He has been . oik;Group:^'4'" .., �., .;;�.• .,.� responsible for a major portion of GPI's environmental impact statements and . assessments,which includes noise abatement studies involving highway,airport and �. �- :,�• r .; , .':. �•.' -.. construction noise, and has prepared over 250 environmental reports for major ti;�. Z:;,A.,��,;q s • highway and bridge projects, parks and recreation facilities, public buildings,-solid - '�'_"' " ' ' " ` ' • waste management facilities, and resource management plans, He-is.thoroughly d° •};,a,a'':=`='} � "� familiar with state-of-the-art methods of transportation noise evaluation using the latest computer modeling techniques. Mr. Grover is a noted authority on coastal environments. Mr. Grover has extensive r ` = �' "' '''- :` •'r• experience over the fast 40 years relating to coastal management studies, wetland r}: ;• projects,sea level rise,environmental impact investigations and erosion studies.Mr. . c?:�..4 rr "� t L Grover is thoroughly familiar with state-of-the-art methods of environmental analysis , requiring specialized services such as surface and groundwaterimpact analysis.and tiTY , _,; ..r• « e s,. _, • . -�F transportation noise evaluation using the latest computermodeling Techniques and measurement equipment. He is also a member of the South Shore Estuary Council ;�•;t •';�` ,`' _ r and the Suffolk County Wetlands Management Work Group. A well-known environmental expert, he serves on numerous organizational'boards and committees, and delivers numerous lectures. For many years, he lectured on. Environmental Law lecture at Southampton College.He writes environmental articles ,,.r A „` . £:;ter^°•- a'".`: ` ' :. ;,� , for periodicals, Including a regular conservation column for an Audubon publication. He was the recipient of the 2001 Conservation Award,presented by the Great South ± `� `-_ +•'' r Bay Audubon Society. • :�' r� :n` He is thoroughly familiar with state-of-the-art methods of environmental analysis requiring specialized services such as wetland and special habitat mitigation;coastal processes antl ero5lon/sedlmentatlonstuuies;and hydrogeological and groundwater studies. - G P1 I� 02^• Project Experience South Shore of Long Island,NY.Mr,Grover is currently serving as the consultant to Suffolk County on the Corps of Engineers plan to restore and protect 83 miles of Atlantic Ocean shoreline. He is assisting/advising the County Dept. of Public,Works on various elements of the project including storm protection,tidal inlet management,sea level rise,beach nourishment,coastal process features, breach and'overwash response,endangered species and wetlands.Client:Suffolk County Dept.of Public Works Engineering Assessment of Groins along the Sea Wall and Beach at Edgewater Park, Bronx, NY; 8/14-11/14.'Senion. 'Environmental Scientist.This project involved developing a condition assessment report for the existing groin fields and sea wall that lines the perimeter of the'development's waterfront. Mr. Grover provided coastal processes analyses and recommendations for-storm protection and recreational beach restoration for this urban community protected by an aging seawall nearing the end of.its useful.life.. Various levels of storm protection were discussed,with maintenance of the coastal aesthetics being a priority, as well as options for repairing a series of groins, piers, and access ramps. In this location,Superstorm Sandy exceed the projected FEMA 100-year.flood, 'and so the discussion Included a wide range of hurricane protection scenarios.Client Edgewater Park Owner's Cooperative Overjook Beach-Sand Placement Analysis, Babylon,NY;7/13-8/13,Project Director.The project involved collecting elevation.-data on Overlook Beach for an area approximately 1,000-ft- long by 600-ft-deep; This.survey established the existing "post-Sandy" topography of the beach.Client:Town of Babylon Giacopelli vs.Strecker,Quogue, NY;9/12, Project Director.This project involved the examination of shoreline and determination.of cause of shoreline.alteration. This project also included expert testimony on causes of shoreline change. Client: Sinnreich.Kosakof& Messina,LLP Sebonack Neck Private Golf Course Property,Southampton,NY.Environmental Scientist.This project involved an Environmental Impact Statement, preliminary design,final design,construction documents,permitting and construction support fora new organic.golf course located on environmentally sensitive land'abutting the Peconic Bay. Mr. Grover prepared complete EIS, habitat inventory, Natural Resources Management'Plans,wildlife inventory, native habitat restoration plan and water resources protection plan for 298 acre,waterfront property.Mr.Grover was responsible for creating a plan which preserved 80 acres.of tidal and freshwater wetlands with adequate buffers.and runoff controls to ensure their protection. Work included scope determination, wetlands, endangered species, - Audubon.certification assistance, irrigaflon analysis and coordination. Project included extensive mitigation and provision of public benefits.Client:Sebonack Properties LLC Long Island Expressway/Cross Island Parkway, Exits 29.32, Contract 0012553, Queens, NY. Environmental Scientist. This-. $147-million project involved construction inspection services for the rehabilitation of the Long Island Expressway/Cross Island Parkway(LIE/CIP)interchange.A key element of the project was the restoration of.the original Alley Pond,which had become chocked with sediment and covered with Phragmites. The plan included the construction of sediment basins and various BMP's"and the dredging,of contaminated sediments and the Phragmites root mass from the pond. During construction, inspected by GPI, our personnel.were -responsible for continuous turbidity monitoring for the protection of Alley Creek, a tributary.of Little Neck Bay. Responsibilities included providing technical assistance/construction support for-erosion/sediment control and for the restoration of a degraded urban pond/wetland system.The restoration included removal of invasive species and dredging to restore open.water for use by'resident and wintering waterfowl and other wildlife.Client:New York State Dept.of Transportation Smith.Point County Park,Suffolk County, NY. Environmental Scientist.This project Included an.update of the Master Plan-and the design of a program and plans for the management of sediment.In response to a sediment budget disruption caused by Moriches Inlet, GPI designed a-multi-phased management plan.Phase I involved the dredging of 250,000 cu yds of sediment.from an offshore borrow. area for use as beach nourishment. Phase II involved the construction of ponds for storebird habitat,with the resulting 250,000'cu:yds of spoil being used as beach nourishment, as well. Phase III involves working with Federal Agencies to modify Moriches Inlet maintenance practices.Several extensive Environmental Assessments were prepared.Client:Suffolk County Dept.of Public Works Other projects include: • Erosion/Hurricane Mitigation Studies,South Shore, LI • NYS Tidal Wetlands Acquisition Program • Santapogue Creek Environmental Studies,Babylon,NY • Jones Beach Theater,Village of East Hampton,NY • Bellport-Wetlands Assessment,Bellport,NY • Lattington.Wetlands Investigations,Lattington,NY • Hydrogeological Study,area surrounding the headwaters of Strong's Creek,Village of Lindenhurst,NY • Lake Montauk Water Quality,Town of East Hampton,NY -C7PI .. '�N;1 Page 2 I Grover rah id Tairdn a`fr ste-es v _ Utica Wetlands Mitigation,Brooklyn-Queens Expressway noise and air quality evaluations • New Highway Environmental Impact Statement • Glenridge Road Environmental Assessment and Wetland Investigation(NYS Dept of Transportation) • Udalis Cove Wetlands Assessment for the NYS DEC • Fuel farm investigations and remedial action plans,Stewart Airport,NY • Flood Plain Management Ordinance(Village of Babylon) • Coastal Dynamics of the Town of Oyster Bay Beach(Town of Oyster Bay) • Wetlands Mitigation&EIS for the Cohoes Arterial(NYS Dept.of Transportation) • Periodic Erosion of Sand Barriers Gives Life to Coastal Ponds(published in National Fisherman) Mr. Grover currently serves on the South Shore Estuary Reserve Council, which is empowered by State legislation to direct and oversee a comprehensive management plan for the Long Island South Shore Estuary Complex. Mr. Grover has also been responsible for a major portion of GPI's Environmental impact Statements and Assessments and has prepared over 100 environmental reports for coastal/marine development projects, parks and recreation facilities, solid waste management facilities,highway and bridge projects and resource management plans. Mr. Grover is thoroughly familiar with state-of-the-art methods of environmental analysis requiring specialized services.such as the following: • Coastal processes and erosion/sedimentation studies. • Wetland and special habitat mitigation. • Hydrogeologlcal and groundwater studies. • Highway air quality assessments and models. • Transportation noise evaluation using the latest computer modeling techniques. Additionally, he is thoroughly knowledgeable in federal and state environmental laws and procedures as they relate to the Long Island Environment, Mr. Grover has written and published numerous technical documents relating to coastal processes and hydrology: A partial list includes: • Fire Island Inlet to Montauk Point,US Army Corps of Engineers • Oak Beach Erosion Study,Town of Babylon,NY • Report on Cedar Beach Dynamics,Town of Babylon,NY • Tanner Park Shoreline Report,Town of Babylon,NY • Erosion of Town Owned Property Report,Town of East Hampton,NY • Report on Open Space: Dunes,County of Suffolk,NY Erosion of Georglca Beach,Village of East Hampton,NY • Coastal Setback and Related Laws Report,Town of East Hampton,NY • Report on Beach and Dune Erosion,Private Client • Report on Erosion of Jones Beach,Private Client • Report on Coastal Stability,Private Client • Goldsmith Inlet Jetty Shoreline Impact Study,County of Suffolk,NY Mr.Grover has also served as the Environmental Quality Review agent for the Village of Lindenhurst,New York.He has prepared flood plain management,environmental quality review and community noise regulations for numerous local communities,and as a public service,Mr.Grover has delivered more than a dozen lectures before citizen and conservation groups and on television and radio.He is thoroughly familiar with current methods of environmental analysis requiring specialized services,including wetland and special habitat mitigation,transportation noise evaluation using modern computer modeling techniques,highway air quality assessments and models, coastal processes and erosion/sedimentation studies and hydrogeological and groundwater studies. Honors/Citations Guest Speaker at the"Save the Bays Workshop on Storm Water Runoff',sponsored by the Cornell Cooperative Extension(Marine Program)and letter of citation from the Village of Rockville Centre for his efforts in the preparation of the SEQRA evaluation for the proposed development of the north portion of the Village(reference;Mr.E.A.Yourch,Dep.Mayor) GPI f Page 3 1 Grover Via. O ��rtew:,ls_ 10wn The following is a partial list of publications/technical documents relating to coastal process and hydrogeology,through the late 1980's: Year, Title Client 1973 Report-on Open Space:Dunes Town of East Hampton,NY 1974 Fire Island Inlet to Montauk Point US Army,Corps of Engineers Long.Island Beach Erosion and.Hurricane Project, Phase I General De9ign'Memorandum 1975 Tanner Park Beach Facility Town of Babylon,NY 1976,. : Report on.Erosion of Jones Beach Private 1976 Feasibility Study for the Dredging of Back City of Annapolis,MD Creek 1977. Erosion of Georgica Beach Village of East Hampton,NY 1977 Report on'Beach and Dune Erosion at the Private Property of Frank Wyman 1978 Oak Beach Erosion Study Town of Babylon,NY 1979 . Hydrogeological Study,Area Surrounding the Village of Lindenhurst,NY Headwaters of Strong's Creek 1979 Report on Subsurface,Oil Spill at Scudder Copaigue School District,NY Avenue School,Copaigue,NY 1979 Salinity Has Risen in Great South Bay But No Published in National Fisherman One Knows Why 1980- Report on Coastal Stability,Laurel,Purchase Private Montauk,NY 1981. Tanner Park Shoreline Town of Babylon, NY 1981 .,Application of Spalding et.al.,Special Permit Town of East Hampton,NY For Timber Groin Field 1981- Report on the Erosion of Town Owned Town of East Hampton,NY _ Property Between Captain Kidd's Path and Block Island Sound 1981. Goldsmith Inlet Jetty Shoreline Impact Study County of Suffolk,NY 1982 Recommendations for Coastal Setback and Town of East Hampton,NY Related Laws- 1982 Lake Montauk Water Quality Town of East Hampton,NY 1982- Periodic Erosion of Sand Barriers Gives Published in National Fisherman Life to Coastal Ponds 1982. Iron Pier.Beach Town of Riverhead,NY I dry. a` f, kkI__ Rj a ggr_ 1982. Wetlands Mitigation/Cohoes New York State Arterial DOT 1982 Robbins Island Environmental Survey Suffolk County,NY 1983 -Regulatory Coordination/Port Jefferson Ferry Private " F I B 23 Terminal 1983 Shellfish Management Component/ Town of Brookhaven,NY - Brookhaven Coastal Plan `fown 1983 Speonk Jetty Erosion Study Suffolk County,NY �T,oarc! ,,, '—ffil;te,es 1983 ReVlew of Three-mile Harbor Plan Town of East Hampton,NY r �. 1983 Regulatory Coordination/Jones Beach Theater NYS Parks&Recreation 1983. Ronkonkoma Wetlands Survey and Assessment Suffolk County,NY 1984 Coastal Energy Impact Program Town of Brookhaven,NY 1984 -Biostatistical Analysis of Shellfish Populations Town of Brookhaven,NY 1984 Glenridge Road Wetland Investigations New York State Dept.of Transportation 1984 Wetlands Assessment and Expert Testimony Private Remsenburg,NY 1984' Utica Wetlands Mitigation Plan New York State DOT GPI Page 4 I Grover 1984 Mayo Beach Shore Erosion Study Anne Arundel County,MDr 1985 Santapogue Creek Environmental Study Town of Babylon,NY 1985 Feld Property.Seawall Impact Study Private 1986 Coastal Dynamics,Town Ocean Beaches Town of Babylon,NY 1986 Environmental Survey,3500-acre Private - Private Island . 1986 Coastal Dynamics of Town of Oyster Bay Beach Town of Oyster Bay,NY . . 1986 Swan Pond-Wetlands Assessment County of Suffolk,NY 1986 Lattingtown Wetlands.Investigations Village of Lattingtown,NY 1987 Flood Plain Management Ordinance Village of Lindenhurst,NY 1967 Bellport Wetlands Assessment New York State DEC 1987 Flood Plain Management Ordinance Village of Babylon,NY 1987 Udalis Cove Wetlands Assessment New York State DEC 1987 Moss Property,Shoreline Processes Private 1978 Annual Biostatistical Analysis/Shellfish and Town of Babylon,NY Predator Population RF F L ) GPI Page 5 I Grover i 4 1; ter• *ti �`, �i ' 7�f ♦ �t< �, .i� ,ti•1{{ ,, f' r 7�r .�'�y• � w {fib # � . J • ..w!�I rr ! f- r .ae - all ` . � .'- {r ,�1 aA .',:��a" g.. Q`••'��!r� t�' low fir„ ,� n. �� .• a>�T� 41'.� _ ✓�� .,��y` .� �"' ` � � ._ k+� � �� pit Zr' „ems. ,e1 �� ,� ♦ jv ',, +, -fit�! r, ++� �� - ► s� . ! 1 c,, +hnlri Tnwn Exhibit F: Zoning Board of Appeals, March 18, 2018 Public Hearing Transcript Excerpt i lu, hi a outheId Ibwn March 1,.2018 Regular Meeting . ,MEMBER GOEHRINGER :Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :All in favor? MEMBER DANTES :Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA :Aye. " = g � p MEMBER,GOEHRINGER :Aye. p..., CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Aye. I ;. F"u t I cold Town, .(See Minutes for Resolution) _ ;HEARING.#7140-1505 BIRDSEYE ROAD, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The next application before the Board is for 1505 Birdseye Road, LLC: # 7140. This is a request for variances from Article IV Section 280=18, Article-XXII Section 280 105, Article XXII Section 280-116 and the Building Inspector's November 17, 2017 amended November 22, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to . construct .a new single family dwelling and to erect deer fence at a height of 8 feet at 1) proposed single family dwelling located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 50 feet, 2) proposed dwelling,located less than the code required 100 feet-from the top of the bluff, 3) proposed deer fence more than the code permitted maximum 4 feet in Height when located in the front yard, located at 1505 Birdseye Rd. (adj. to the Long Island; :Sound) in Orient. Hello again Mike. MIKE KIMACK : Hello again, Michael Kimack on behalf of the applicant who is also present. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright let me just enter in to the record'the three variances that are part of this application.This is a single family dwelling located 50 feet from the top of the bluff where the code requires 100 feet. This is a front yard setback at 41.7 feet where the code, required a minimum of 50 feet,and the deer fencing partially in a front yard which is not permitted. It's permitted in side and rear yards. MIKE KIMACK : We're fortunate-that my client was able to put together a model of the entire piece of property with the proposed house on it. Is it situated in a way that everyone can see relative to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we can also just get up and go have a look at it:I haven't seen foam core in a while. :16 March 1,2018 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK : Well I think in this particular case it's going to be most helpful. I'd like to begin and.I'm going to walk away from the mic, I'll talk loudly. Picture it as if the house wasn't on the property at all and you were working with a property that has natural limitations to it and then' (inaudible)-with the governmental limitations. The entrance off of Birdseye which would be here comes in this way right to this particular point,the property drops down.irito an area that really-is an intermittent ponding area primarily not.necessarily a wetland, there's no vegetative wetland-plants there .but.there's a sensitivity factor and I'll just discuss that. It rises up and continues to rise up to its highest point right here and then drops down. Now your jurisdiction and I-just simply want to point it out to you,top of the bluff(inaudible) feet back.This property is a little unusual in a sense that about two thirds of that is bluff, the other one third a bank in' terms of its percentage.The bluff ends pretty much right here to this particular point and then the bank. Can you hear me? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you want to Mike cause we're going to get up and come closer, why don't you pull that table back so that while you're describing it you can be speaking into the MIKE KIMACK : So this is what we're starting with in terms of a not an easy piece of property basically.What we did primarily last August, I put in for a pre-application with the Trustees for a site visit which occurred on September 121" of last summer.They visited the site and we had it staked out where we pointed to them that we would like to be able to move this up the hill 50 feet in order to really stay away from that low ponding area. Their main concern was that low that (inaudible) ponding area.They considered it a sensitive area.They wanted to move it away as much as we could. At that time when you look at that the original house the -original proposed-structure was 20 feet closer to that area and the road going in to it came pretty much where the bridge is at the present time. So, after that particular meeting the owner Mr. Zapata went back and redesigned it in order to move the roadway away from that low ponding area -and move the constricted the house and redesigned the conformance of the house to be 20 feet further away from the pond. That's going to have some significance when we begin to point out all of the things that have to fit within this restricted area primarily and why we're requesting the 50 feet and I'll talk about the 50 feet first.Yeah go ahead Eric. MEMBER DANTES : Is there like a formal comment in here from the Trustees or is this just an informal meeting? MIKE KIMACK: I had the meeting with them basically.This was on site. I'm only going with what they told me when we looked on the site. MEMBER DANTES : But you don't have anything in writing? I understand but there's nothing in writing at this time? ILI Soulhoid Town _..._.. Board of Trustees March 1,2018 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK: No cause I haven't gone to them yet.They're the next after here.They basically_ wanted that lower-.area not have any trees cut in that one area pretty much left as it.was. .There's a lot of dead debris on the property which we would probably be able to take out but this area here all the way through here would be pretty much left unattended for the most part as their request and if you see on one of your map drawings it's laid out that way that one_ particular area is not to be it's,not part of the area to be cleared. So yes we had to basically move away from there but there are other mitigating factors.What we've got here is where the house is situated it is 50 feet from the top of the bank primarily but that's the roof line.for the. most part. The house is 143 feet from this point to this point, long and narrow for the most part, 3,700 square-feet proposed, there's 6,028 square feet roughly of drainage area including. the pools, the pond and the patios-primarily and basically the way this house is constructed is and the way it's put is to be able to fit where we have the septic area and to also. fit where we're able to-put the dry wells. It was designed so that the dry wells would not go on the upside but the drywells would go on the down side. If you can see this entire which would.be a photovoltaic roof, everything drains this way and the dry wells are going to be right through here. At that-particular point the drywells which will take all that water had to be at that . particular location which is the lowest point in order to maintain the two feet below them at the particular point two foot to water table cause water table at this point which is the now point right here about three foot below grade. The other thing too is because of the nature (inaudible) the septic area which had been designed, I did the original septic area for the prior owner and we got that septic area approved on site which is this area right here. This is the. .approved area. It's being amended at the present time.The reason it's there is because it has to be 150 feet away from the proposed well which is back in this corner right here and it has to be 150-:feet away from the neighboring wells of which there are two or three and when you draw• all of your'lines they come (inaudible)this is the only place for the septic area at this point. So -the location of a structure of the house in-order to have the gravity feed to the septic area is exactly where it needs to be at that particular point. Also what you've got is the grade is going up to the top of the bank so I essence there isn't going to be any drainage that's going to erode that.bank any further as a result of this house because not only is all of the storm water going the other way but also all of the natural drainage of the property goes this way too the property is elevating up. This whole hillside over here the whole slope is well vegetated. It hasn't been destroyed by any storms essential like that. It's in good shape,It survived along the way..l will point out that we have D.E.C. approval. D.E.C. limited except for.the pathway they limited any kind of removal on that slope to the 26 foot elevation and at 26 foot elevation is roughly right here you see this line right here like this so that there would be no'clearing and no cutting of vegetation (inaudible) for the proposed pathway to the beach at the 26 elevation seaward of that,that was in the D.E.C. so we got that.As a result of that the original proposal was to have the deer fence further back but I'll get to the deer fence later. When you look at the 50 foot ��ry `�,' � `- .. . .. .... _ .. -.. • ° lye i , p II _--- OIAIJI Id'I'UM�� . March 1,2018 Regular Meeting setback,the house if you can see the structure of the house the proposed pool is here.Actually this corner here to the top of the bluff is 85 feet to the foundation.This point here is 67 feet to.. the top and the closest point is 61 feet to the foundation. What you got is the 50 foot is really represented by the overhang roofs for the most part.They don't exceed but.l want to point.out to you that when you the reason for that 100 foot setback is to make sure that there's no degradation at the top of the bank.That there's no in fact the bank erodes that there's enough safe distance that there's going to be no problem with the house or any kind of structural changes on the house. In this particular case there isn't an issue with the slope. It's well vegetated, it's not eroding; D.E.C. has instructed us to make sure there's no cutting of vegetation on that.That's going to be left in place and we're back-far enough on the other side going on the downhill slope so that we got the foundation itself is going to be sufficiently well back never to really be a situation that's going to have any kind of impact on that. Another point which is a technical point but I might as well point it out here is you really have from this _point to this point 96 feet of bluff by definition and the other part this point here this is all bank so your jurisdiction as this particular point is 96 feet.The house is 143 foot long so one third of it is really on the bank,two thirds of it on the bluff.That portion that's on that connects to the bluff if you run the bluff line back this way parallel to the side line we're setback the foundation . is setback from 61 feet to 85 feet because of the way the contour's going there. So yes its 50 feet to the roofline but not to the foundation simply because of the overhangs. We've got and as far as the septic area is concerned it's a tight area right here, (inaudible) is right here and the disposal at this particular point, it's exactly 150 feet away. It's the only place it could go. And from the house perspective from the design perspective of the house it fits the property. Now, .there is concern I read some of the letters although I didn't have an opportunity to go through them all. Some of the neighbors were concerned about the size and scale of the house. The house basically fits the property. It's designed for the property; it's designed for the views. Given the limitations, both natural and governmental the house works in here and it works in that particular site alone but there is 6,028 square foot of overall area to be drained. That includes the house, roofs and the deck etc. like that but the house itself is 3,740 square feet. There's 2,300 square feet of pool and patio. I must point out that when you configure a house on most properties and you figure the square footage of the house, people never consider the patios and pools being added to that. In this particular case we had no other means or Mr. Zapata had no other means but to put everything within the confines of the same structure. There's no other place on the property to put a pool.There's no other place on the property to put a patio except contain within the design itself. So that when you look at the 6,000 square foot or the 2,300 square foot of the decks etc. like that that would be kind of similar to other people who have patios and pools and walkways that are not part of the square footage of the house-itself. I would like to give you a comparison. What you're looking at is the aerial view of the property superimposing the house on the property and the square footage and the square R9 ! r Souffiold Town - s - March 1,2018 Regular Meeting footage of all of the neighboring houses along the way. They're comparable. They're not: designed obviously as this is designed but this is the personal choice and personal preference of. the owner. This is what he does. This is his design work, but if you note that in terms of the. overall aerial and one thing to point out too is if you look at the location of the house in- reference to the adjoining houses it's no further and no closer to the water and it's not in their.' view line at all and also if you look at the house I can point out I'll walk over if you look at this. , house here their view is this way. Look at the house behind here,their view is this way and then this one their view is this way so the location of the houses not only meets the demands of the natural restrictions of the property and the governmental restrictions imposed but also it's put in away that doesn't interfere with anyone's line of sight in terms of where the house is being.- located: Is it an unusual house design?It is in a sense but'it does work with this particular piece of property and the restrictions up on it essential like that and given what has to be contained within it etc. like that it does really does not exceed the overall size in comparison to the neighboring itself. Now that's the house and that's the 50 foot setback from the house. The- other was the front yard setback which is the walkway bridge which you can see right here from. the parking area.That was we didn't want if you there's some soil to have to be added here-in. order to make the carport.We didn't want to create to build this out too much to interfere with the low area and the bridge basically would be connected to that_so this would slope down essentially like here. We wanted to stay-away at the foot in here and not be any closer to the- ponding area with the fill material. So the bridge basically starts at where the top of that bank begins which is 7 foot closer than I'think its 43 feet from the line rather than 50 feet from the line from the front yard line and that was the second variance request. The reason it's not 50 feet is because if we did that in.order to build out that far view would be interfering-further with the low area drainage at that particular time. So we kept that back in order not to and to see to what we know is going to be the Trustee's concerns that the toe of that new bank that we have to fill that in order for the parking does not interfere with the low drainage area that's that second requirement right there and that bridge was also moved back away from that area. The third request is for a deer fence. Originally the deer fence actually extended all the way down on the down side of the slope itself and when D.E.C:s comments came back they didn't Want that deer fence there.They wanted it left completely undisturbed and my client pulled it back to the house. You can see this line here this represents the deer fence. If you look.at the back property line here,there's a row of trees right here and the deer fence basically is almost 50 feet away from there. This is all heavily wooded through here and through here and it ties back to the house. He would like the deer fence because he has animals, he has dogs and it's as much to keep the dogs in as to keep the deer out so that they don't mix but putting the deer fence in that area given the kind of vegetation there and given the fact that it is not going to be visible to any of the neighbors at all it isn't something that is going to be visible, it's not something that's going to be intrusive to the neighbors at that particular point. He's also 201 U LiLFES) 1.31 20233 �Wn Ibo rd of Trustees Y March 1,2018 Regular Meeting planning to point out on the roof basically the complete structure of the roof is all going to be photovoltaic. He would like to able to be off the grid completely if possible and with his own electric sources etc. like that.It's a house that has a lot of visual appeal in terms of a lot of glass. It's all glass and steel and concrete. We believe that the design given the uniqueness of this piece of property given the natural limitations imposed upon it, given the government. restrictions that this is an given the personal likes of the client that this house fits on that property, without unduly causing any kind of problems with a 50 foot setback'at all which actually is to the roof line but basically the foundation is even further back from there as I -pointed out.I think that is it,if you have any questions of me. MEMBER DANTES : I have a question, the lot next door is that do you know if they have the, development rights in tact as a building lot or do you know if they've sold their development rights? MIKE KIMACK:That odd shaped one Eric? MEMBER DANTES :Yes. MIKE KIMACK : I don't know. Theirs is next right here as far as I know right here there's a walkway path that goes down to the water right here which is part of.that lot primarily and I. don't know if they've got development rights on it or not. MEMBER DANTES : Or is it owned by an association or I mean it says now or formerly but I don't know who owns it now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric-there are some neighbors here that I'm sure will want to testify - and perhaps they can clarify it. I think before any questions take place number one I think the Board should come down and take a closer look at the model and then there's a number of people in the audience who want to address the application so I want to give them plenty of time to do that too. So why don't we go take a look at the model. If anyone in the audience --wants to come forward and do the same thing please join us. If we're going to have a conversation it should be in the record. MIKE KIMACK : Originally we were going we had that roped over so Carlos redesigned it all to just completely stay away from here. I know that some of the concerns were, can you move it back literally 50 feet. We can't because not only are we restricted in getting into this area at all for the most part but we just really aren't able to because of the location of where that septic is here you simply can't actually (inaudible) and that's because the well is here, there's another well here and there's a well over here. (inaudible) this is the septic area see that the only way to (inaudible)the one neighbor's house is here I'm not quite sure who's it is (inaudible)for the most part. (Cannot hear the conversation going on-someone asking a question) My suggestion '3auithold Town 1 Boord of Trustees . March 1,2018 Regular Meeting to Carlos was to make sure we drain everything away from we did not want to introduce any more storm water into the ground that we had to so we put all the storm water devices down here because it would drain in to the water table (inaudible-someone else speaking) and that's one of the reasons we moved the road over. I will tell you one thing and I don't want to do it again,this whole thing is thorn bushes and I've gone up-there three times hacking away putting stakes in there. I got torn up basically doing it. It's not an easy piece of property there's no question. When Carlos picked it up his imagination took he put the design together but we worked together to be able to adapt it as much as we could to fit the natural restrictions and the government restrictions on the property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Well let's just review the red markers MIKE KIMACK:Is the property line. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Are the property lines.This is fencing? MIKE KIMACK:(inaudible) 15 to 20 foot setbacks. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Side yards. MIKE KIMACK .: This is the fencing. This is the CEA (inaudible) coastal erosion hazard line. As- . best I can figure I think this roughly is the 26 foot line non-disturbance from.the D.E.C. basically. so everything this way(inaudible) -CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does anyone have any questions that we could put on the record of thisotherwise we'll go back to our seats and hear from other people? Pat we can't have conversations off the record thank you. We've had quite a bit of information presented, at this point I'd like to see if there's anyone in the audience who wishes to address the application. MARTIN- FINNEGAN : Good morning Martin Finnegan,Twomey, Latham, Shea, Kelley, Dubin & Quartararo. I'm here today representing John Josephson and Carolina Zapf and they are the owners of the home and properties located at 1515 Birdseye so their property is here. They also own two other properties along the other side so their property is south of the subject property. We're.also joined today by representatives of the (inaudible)family and I believe the letters submitted (inaudible) all of the surrounding property owners in opposition to this application. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :I'm just concerned that when you're walking away from the mic that we're picking it up. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Okay I'll stay put.Ms.Zapf and Ms.Jordan and Ms. Livekia have submitted letters but they're also here and they may offer their own comments when I'm done. The I' ' • Beaard of Trusteos • March 1,2018 Regular Meeting 'overwhelming sentiment from my clients and their neighbors is that the proposed development: .... ..is entirely out.of character with the existing development in their community and that there are in fact feasible alternatives available to achieve the desired benefit here in the absence of .variance relief from this Board. You've heard a lot of sort of scientific evidence here today- presented by counsel for the applicant and it seems to me that there are no wetlands on the.' 'front portion the southern portion of this property. We're basing a lot of,this it seems on an ;informal meeting with the Trustees where there was a low .point identified but I.think it's important to note that there are-no wetlands and there are alternatives and we've invited Mr.. Bob-Grover here who's an environmental scientist from Grimm and Peterson who's going to speak to the 'propriety of developing this, property at all. There's no question'that- it's constrained-property but it is located obviously on the sound and there is a bluff there that is:-. _protected .by code and we certainly contend that there is an alternative configuration that would be entirely compliant with the setback in 280-116 and the bulk schedule and Mr."Grover will speak to that. We also have submitted for the record a letter from Mark Matthews who's an architect who has conducted a site inspection of the property, has evaluated it's.conditions' and offered his opinion regarding the existence of a substantial as of right building area on the: parcel and I'll speak to that in a moment.We're dealing with an application here to construct as you know a.six thousand square foot dwelling which includes a terrace and a pool and all that is to.occur within.50 foot of the bluff in contrary to the existing 100 foot setback. The applicant- . . also seeks to construct a walkway'within.the front yard setback and surround the property the. front =yard with a deer fence. I think in ,the -application 'itself there's -already been an: acknowledgment that this relief is substantial.The relief sought is substantial and the difficulty .here is self-created.We've had commentary about the foot bridge. I'm not sure why it's needed' ,.or why it needs to be within the setback but I think the record will confirm that there are no other deer fences in this community which seems to belie the contention that there is a deer haven there. I know that you're here and you have a job to do which is to conduct your balancing test so I just want to briefly address the 267 criteria.We are confident that the record. is going to establish that the detriment to the surrounding community and to the health,safety -.and welfare of that community opposed by this development is going to far outweigh any perceived benefit to the applicant. I just want to just briefly with respect to whether the variance will produce an undesirable change in the character- of the neighborhood- and a detriment.to the properties, clearly a 50 foot deviation from the codes 100 foot setback from- the top of the bluff will create an undesirable change.There are no other.houses in this area or no other variances have been granted to construct houses so close to the bluff line. There's clearly a reason as was referenced there's a reason for this limitation. There's a reason for the setback because the bluff is fragile and it needs to be protected and Mr. Grover-will address that'in more detail but our clients submit that a variance of this.magnitude is going to lead to -erosion, it's going to lead to instability of the bluff, it's going to accelerate the bluff recession 231, 3 ro f � .gd 4 March 1,2018 Regular Meeting and there's no question it's going to impact views.As to the deer fence on the entire front yard as I already mentioned that there are no other deer fences in the community so that's clearly going to change the character of this community particularly running along the entire front yard.There are not only no deer fences in front yards,there are no deer fences at all. As many of the neighbors have stated in their letters, the feeling is that this fencing is going to degrade the quaintness of this small community. It's a beautiful area, it's a beautiful neighborhood and that is going to change the way it looks for everybody. So the granting of setback relief here would clearly create a dangerous precedent for others who would seek similar relief from this Board in the future and I want to speak briefly to a prior case that came before this Board which Gerry you're probably the only one who might remember the Aliano case. - CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :I know it. MARTIN-FINNEGAN : Leslie you as well. That case as you may recall and for the benefit of the newer Board members involved an area variance permitting the construction of a dwelling 50 feet from the bluff and in that application the applicant proposed to construct a 1,600 square foot house which is obviously substantially smaller than the 6,028 square foot of development that is contemplated here. Among other things the ZBA's determination found that the presence of new impermeable surfaces and the alteration of drainage and soil structure had been responsible for accelerated bluff recession which could result in damage to the proposed dwelling as well as to neighboring properties. In applying your balancing test the Board at that time concluded that the grant of the proposed variance would produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties.There was a finding that the variance was too severe and that the proposed area variance to permit construction- within the 50 foot setback was substantial and also there was a finding of self-creation of the difficulty and as a result the variance was denied. There was an Article 78 that followed which was dismissed by the Supreme Court and on appeal the Appellate Division upheld this Board's action finding that it was rational and reasonable under the circumstances. We've-explained that whole thing in more detail in the written submission that I've provided and I also gave a copy of the case all of the case through the procedural history of that starting with the ZBA's determination through the Appellate Courts but sufficed to say that the concern for the stability of the bluff led to the denial of the application of a 1,600 square foot house in Aliano and here a structure nearly four times that is proposed. No question in our mind that alternatives could exist. Dealing with a parcel that's over an acre 1.36 acres about 59,000 square feet but the proposal here is to develop 19% of that almost maximize the available lot coverage on a property that the applicant understands does have some constraints. Feasible alternatives exist. We have submitted the letter as I mentioned of Mark Matthews who has offered an opinion and I would like to just there's an attachment to that but this is just a copy of the attachment to the letter that was submitted that-shows there's a buildable area of nearly 241 �fr Oa I • March 1,2018 Regular Meeting 13,000 square feet on the southern end of the parcel. Now you've heard some conflicting testimony about the constraints there whatever but yes it's a low area. There's a .lot of. properties with low areas that can be built up.There could be grading, there can be fill placed in it,-there could be retaining walls, there is the ability to build in that area.and not getting anywhere near the bluff and to honor the setback and that is what Mr. Matthews as(inaudible) Mr. Grover will elaborate on. So, while the applicant may be required to perhaps downsize, reduce the length of the pool or the terrace, make a smaller structure, move some earth we submit that the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community significantly outweighs the benefit sought by the applicant if he is relieved of the.obligation.to make some changes here.There is substantial vegetation on the northern end of the property as has been submitted for the record and it would be a lot harder to clear in this area we believe than in the southern end which is less vegetated. As for the walkway we're talking eight feet. I think that there's a way again with grading, with movement of earth or whatever to not invade the front yard setback and move that walkway to the extent that is required eight feet back. So substantiality I've already mentioned a fifty percent variance from the 100 foot setback particularly when you're talking about a bluff setback where the code clearly states that it should not be fewer than a 100 feet is a substantial variance. As the Aliano case again I'll refer to that is very similar and in their Board found that a 5o foot variance from a bluff is substantial' and it is indeed substantial here as well.The 50.foot variance from the 100 foot setback would have an adverse impact on the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood without question. It would bring the house substantially closer to the Sound. As in Aliano the presence of impermeable surfaces near the bluff changes in vegetation, in soil structures,septic system placement all that can accelerate bluff recession that will negatively impact on the Sound. and neighboring properties. As for self-creation is there really a difficulty here? Obviously whatever the problem is this applicant bought this property understanding as an architect I assume we can hold him to an understanding and even if he weren't he's charged with knowledge of our zoning rules, of our setbacks.so I don't think it can be stated that this is anything other than self-created.This is a choice to design a.property in what is the you know with the best view to place it where he's placing it and we believe that there are feasible alternatives available to moving the property to the south and a location in compliance-with the code. The walkway can be reduced in size and the deer fence there's a-reason why there's a restriction on deer fences in the code in front yards, it's because they're ugly,they're unsightly and there's recognition that they shouldn't be there and there's away to control.deer:outside of the front yard so we believe that there's really no basis for granting relief from that code section. I • , " March 1,2018 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I was just going to ask you, the other properties we have this aerial: you have the same,thing over there,are there any other non-conforming bluff setbacks of these - houses? MARTIN FINNEGAN :Not that I'm aware of.The research that we did we couldn't find any other variance relief granted.to any other of the neighboring structures in that area. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :So they're all conforming to the bulk'schedule in your research? . `MARTIN FINNEGAN : I believe so yes.Anyway bottom line is on behalf of Mr.Josephson.and Mr.: Zapf we submit that on balance the indisputable detriment to the environment and.to the;- neighboring properties caused by granting the.requested variances far outweigh any.benefit to .the applicant particularly in a case where feasible alternatives exist and so we're going to respectfully request that the application be denied. I'd like to invite Mr. Grover to come up and speak and-then I believe some of the neighbors might want to comment as well. MEBER DANTES : Leslie while I was driving through some of those-houses look pretty old so_ there might be some Pre C.0's in that area. I don't know about area variances but some of those structures are old. What I'm saying if it's a Pre C.O. it might not conform to the bulk schedule(inaudible) 'CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's just if you.eyeball it you-know on this aerial it looks like some of them are about the same location from the but the bluff can vary you know it's not-necessarily.. a straight line so it's just indicative of character of the neighborhood that's all. I just wanted to find out if we can find out a bit more about that. Please.state your name for the record.. ROBERT GROVER Good morning yes my name is Robert. Grover. I'm a director of environmental and coastal sciences for Green and Peterson Inc. otherwise known as GPI in - Babylon New York. I submitted a letter which you should all have and attached to that letter l believe was my resume. I'm not going to belabor too much of that. I think one highlight I should point out is I've been serving for several years now more than ten years now as the Suffolk_ County's consultant on that Fire Island restoration project and then that continued on to the, massive Fire Island Inlet to Montauk Point project so I'm very familiar with.coastal issues and since I don't think that I'm familiar to any of you let me just talk a little"bit'about..my background in Southold. I've been doing this for over forty five years now and going all the-way back in to the seventies I was retained by the Suffolk County Attorney's Office to do what I believe was the first quantitative study of the erosion rates at what is still always in the paper Kenney's Beach.That.was in the seventies a-long time ago and then fast forwarding a little bit in to the eighties I represented for several years the Peconic Sound Shores Association in this room many,many times many late nights trying to broker appropriate deal that would maintain � Id P FEB 4.d' • March 1,2018 Regular Meeting the ecological and water quality integrity of Goldsmith Inlet still one of my favorite spots. After Sandy I worked very hard trying to restore the access to Orient State Park so we rebuilt that road for them.They lost in the course of one night about twenty feet of shoreline which is not untypical for a (inaudible)which that is not a bluff but it kind of leads me into the topic of what happens during storms. So I'm going to talk just very briefly about the natural processes that occur on a bluff. They applicant's representative seemed to indicate that this is a very stable bluff, it's well vegetated. I agree it is well vegetated. Bluffs in general on the Sound here still if you do historic analysis they retreat at a rate of anywhere from one to three feet per year and that was kind of the rationale for the coastal erosion hazard line and by the way they have new maps still waiting for them to release them.They're going to be much more restrictive than the current maps but the point is yes we do have a chronic erosion problem with these bluffs it can't be ignored but that's not the only thing that happens. During Sandy for an example and I've seen this many times on bluff on long island. I had clients on Shelter Island who in the course of five minutes during Sandy lost had a catastrophic collapse of the bluff and they lost twenty to thirty feet of bluff instantaneously.That is not unusual it happens all the time. In this particular case when the applicants requesting a 50 foot setback, if he has one of those catastrophic bluff failures and by the way the bluff in Shelter Island was even more heavily vegetated than this all of a sudden you have one more catastrophic bluff fail away from losing your house.That's one of the reasons we have this 100 foot setback.There's a reason for a 100 foot setback. Now let me speak a little bit more specifically about this property. In my opinion this property is just not suitable for development. I'm not saying it's not possible. 1 work in an engineering firm with thirteen hundred engineers. I know if they can do, they can do some pretty amazing.things but from a coastal management and coastal processes standpoint if a client came to me and said I want to buy this property and develop it I'd say I'm not going to represent you. I think it's completely unwise to even attempt to develop this property. Not only that and this model kind of proves my point, there's plenty of room between the actual 100 foot setback and what was erroneously referred to as a pond and I want to talk about that a little bit.There's at least 50 feet between the 100 foot setback and this what I'm going to refer to correctly as a swale so there's a building envelope there,the views not going to be as good. There's going to be some engineering required but it's usually done.Any engineer worth his salt who does site plan work can engineer a building lot that is perfectly suitable.The sanitary issue that was raised by the applicant's representative that can be solved as well and none of these bluff setbacks are necessary. I don't really this is just an arbitrary self-imposed hardship..I can't imagine you would entertain granting something like this. Now what would be the impact of putting the house there?Well it could be severe.Again there's reasons why we have a 100 foot bluff setback. It's a setback that I recommended to the Town of East Hampton when I was their consultant back in the eighties so there's precedent for going way back and by the way to answer one of your questions I'm sure there are some older houses in the neighborhood that 271 FEB � 1 pd:Jwe�� 1n30c1Y"6'� k°�"dEfL&:�a�G� March 1,2018 Regular Meeting are probably non-conforming with your bluff setback. We know more than we did then. We - .knew more in the eighties than when we did then but it takes a while for the codes to catch up to,the science in many cases so there may be some houses but they're non-conforming and. they.were.built before everybody had the complete awareness that they,have now which was- obviously heightened by hurricane Sandy. So putting this house up here what's it going to-do.l mean-they're going to have to dig a foundation, there's going to be heavy equipment,up there,. they're talking about a pool which is extremely heavy. I did not hear them address what they're going to do with the back wash water, where's which going to be discharged?That could be an, issue and--could cause problems with discharging water in to the bluff soils but I'm really concerned about the idea of on the top of a sensitive bluff like this bringing heavy equipment and operating heavy equipment because when you're operation heavy equipment on on ' .long island bluff soils, these are glacial soils what happens is the vibrations of the.equipment . cause.-the soil particles to slip against each other and that alone can cause one of these. catastrophic failures. It doesn't happen often but it certainly.can and it's certainly a scary thought.The deer fence is mystifying to me. Looking at the model I'm not sure if-the deer fence- is,designed to keep the deer in or to keep the deer out.The applicant's attorney said it was you know partially to keep the dogs in, I am convinced I'm the biggest dog lover in this roo6and I have dogs and I keep them on my property very simply-with a simple wire buried in the ground the perimeter that I don't want-them to cross and they wear a collar and when they get near . the collar the collar beeps and they stop they realize they're not allowed and it takes very little. training to keep a 'dog yard trained and I've never had a problem with it. Now there are two . other things I wanted to real quick I want to mention to you, the-grading as shown on this. model is incorrect in my opinion. There's some interpellation of the grades that extend off the- site. If you look_at the applicant's survey you'll see that the grading only goes to the.property . line,the topography only goes to the property line. I have here I'd be happy to leave it with.you_ it's very hard to see but we have in our office in our library we have NYS DOT light (inaudible) for all of New York and is very precise, very accurate topography and it clearly shows that depression area again erroneously referred to earlier as a pond is actually a Swale that continues further towards:the northeast and eventually drains down the face of the bluff so,it's" not a self-contained pond like that. It's the head waters of a Swale and filling it would have no s . impact whatsoever. The_characterization ,by the-applicant's attorney that this depression-area :was more sensitive than _the-bluff-has no basis whatsoever in science: It's, just a ridiculous statement to make. Finally I would contend that the I'm not sure who determined on the survey the top of the bluff but it's wrong and I can demonstrate on their model if you'd like or I can show you on the survey but there's. a continuing rise past to the south past what is they show the top of bank-on their survey as along the 32 or I want to say it's the I can't read it anyway you can see there's another rise to the south'and that's,accurate so the top of the bluff is basically misrepresented by roughly eight to ten feet. So now all of a sudden the proposed 50 SoudrMd Town Bo ,.rd of Trustees, � March 1,2018 Regular Meeting foot variance is a 60 foot variance. It's an even more egregious variance.The house rather than:. being 50.foot from the top of the bluff is really closer to 40 and again I can show.you on the.' . model or I can show you on the topo if you'd like me to come up and point it out to.you but. that's something that needs to be corrected'because it causes the proposed house to become even more non-conforming and that's a further concern to me. So I think that kind of wraps up my concerns. This is a very important application because it .has serious implications. I don't . = know what kind of-precedence it might set for the town but I would think that they would be... severe and I highly recommend that this be denied and that the applicant be invited to explore. a conforming alternative to the location of the house which is very doable and I would be happy -to answer any questions you have. MEMBER DANTES:Can you just markup a survey where you think the top of the bluff ROBERT GROVER-: I can mark up one of yours if you like. MEMBER DANTES :Yeah that's fine. ROBERT GROVER : This one doesn't show the top of bluff as they staked it out but the-actual -top of bluff it goes see this is a little hill here yeah that'll do that has the topo on it. (inaudible). determine that this was the top of bluff but they have the top of the bluff you can see where that*line is.and then you can see it goes up two feet and then there's a hill.here so clearly'the real top of bluff goes through the top of that hill and then follows something like that so this' distance unfortunately this is not to scale so I can't measure it for you CHAIRPERSON WEIMSAN :No but the contour intervals are about ten feet I think. MEMBER DANTES :Can you put your initials on there when ROBERT:GROVER :Sure. UNAMED SPEAKER :This was done by a surveyor by the way. ROBERT GROVER : I understand that but surveyors do this wrong all the time. I mean it's anybody can look at that and say this is the top of bluff not this. MIKE KIMACK :What grade elevation are you picking? ROBERT GROVER:This is top of bluff right here not this. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It looks like it's one contour interval. ROBERT GROVER :Yes one and a half. \9 ILL it kk it • March 1,2018 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK:This is the top of the bluff as determined by the surveyor. ROBERT GROVER :Incorrectly in my opinion. MIKE KIMACK :As far as we're concerned it was correct. MA. DUFFY: Did he follow our code or make his own determination? MIKE KIMACK:There's a little high knoll in here but it's not T.A. DUFFY : Did he follow our code and use our definition of top of bluff or did..he do his own determination? MIKE KIMACK:Well top of bluff would be a continual basically T.A. DUFFY:We define top of bluff, did your architect or your surveyor follow our definition of - top of bluff? -MIKE KIMACK:Yes. ROBERT GROVER ; Unfortunately in my experience surveyors are not always experts in coastal theology so that's what we're dealing with. 'CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Look folks we've spent an awful lot of time. We have a lot of other. " hearings in front of us and there's an awful lot to digest. I will allow some continuation but please make your comments direct and brief: Clearly I think there's more to"uncover.and'l'm. not sure we should close this. I think we should probably continue it. We do need we have; some conflicting information about whether it's a pond or a Swale and.what the Trustees opinion'was and of course this will require Trustees approval also so once again we're back and. forth and we want to make sure that we find a way of coordinating the information so that we're all informed to the same extent. We certainly will need some.comments, from the,. ... .Trustees in writing to confirm what your meeting with them was Mike. I want to give th'e. neighbors and who is being represented by counsel an opportunity to look at-that also.and.see if they have any comments or their expert has any comments so I can see that.this'is going to continue.but I certainly want to give you an opportunity to address us now that you've heard.a good deal of information. MEMBER DANTES : I'm looking at the site plan (inaudible)it's labeled top of bluff but there isn't a stamp a surveyors stamp or an engineer's stamp. MIKE KIMACK You have a survey in there from Peconic Surveyors MEMBER DANTES It doesn't label the top of the bluff does it? 301 March 1,2018 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK:Yes it does. MEMBER DANTES : Does it have a line on it? MIKE KIMACK :Yeah. MEMBER DANTES : I have a label but I don't have a line. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Look those are details that we will be continuing so those are details we can certainly ask for and obtain. MIKE KIMACK : May I make some short comments? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Yes you may. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Excuse me Mike, do you want to hear from the neighbors first and then let Mike follow up or CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we have certainly things in writing and so those comments are - part of the public record but if you would like to make very brief comments please hold your comments just to a minute or two so that we can get to some of the other hearings. We will. again continue this hearing so it's not over. You'll have a chance to speak again at greater length if you wish but Mike why don't we let you make a couple of comments and see if the neighbors want to chime in. MIKE KIMACK : Look the comments about the fragility of the bluff,to be fair probably given the right storm that's coming our way and giving the right type of hit it's going to be every bluff is going to be subject to some kind of degradation.This one has not to the extent that it has taken Sandy and all the other prior storms to it, it was left,in place.The beach below it is well sanded; it doesn't look like it's been really DE gradated that much. Will there be a storm in the future" that comes along and takes out half of Long Island maybe along with everything else but at the present time and given what we know that area is well'vegetated and protected. D.E.C. set that. 26 foot line basically so they to be that they used I sent them the survey showing the top of the bluff where that was.They chose the 26 foot line to protect the vegetation.They feel that-that protects the vegetation on the slope at that particular point and then that was where their jurisdiction ended at the 26 foot line. If you can look at that under any circumstance from wherever the top of the bluff you may consider everything goes back, nothing drains toward it. It all drains back towards the low area. I called it a ponding area, the Trustees looked at it as a wetland ponding area. It doesn't have an outlet. There's no culvert on it so whatever water runs in there in'the springtime. It accumulates into an intermittent pond.That's what-it is-and they.looked at-it we get a letter-from the=Trustees,-they looked at it. It's a sensitive area; they I 4 , I °`ed;)�y16.'+it:.i "CflOIl�Y'I @ y^ y I March 1,2018 Regular Meeting wanted.it-away from there as much as.possible.;The location to whoever the architect was laid . it out to move.this down another 50 feet puts us right in to that low area and we'can'.t be there. The Trustees will.tell us we can't be there, we shouldn't be there. The only place.we can be is where the,house is now located. It doesn't interfere with the slope, it doesn't interfere with-the integrity of the slope primarily and all of the water that we have coming off of the house, off of the property drains back into that low area so there's no (inaudible) and as far' as the construction my background and I might as well lay it out for you right now. I have built two. hundred homes,golf courses,ski areas,sewage treatment plants, roads, dams, bridges over the years. I know soils, I know conditions, I know construction. What that gentleman was talking about was the ponding of the (inaudible) requires any kind of vibration requires some kind of water to.get in there to be able to (inaudible). The water depth of where is 19 feet down. . There's not going to be any of that occurring. We already had approval of the septic area from the Health Department. So they've already approved that location. There's isn't a question as to where it's supposed to go. One of their requirements is that it has to be at least 65.feet back from the top of the bluff which it is and that's one of the reasons it's in that location no less than that.or at least 100 feet back from the top of the bluff-and that's why it was-there. So Health Department had their own location about where the septic system was going. There is. no'what that that house can be relocated lower down the bank no way into that area. What'l can basically do is while I'll let you to your own thing is contact the Trustees and.have them put . together a letter as a result of the meeting that we had and their recommendations to us which was taken up and put on to that plan. If you look at one of those plans that I gave you, you'll- see the area that has been set aside from any cutting essential like that at their request. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well at the very least we need to have their comments because they are a Board that you're going to have to get approval from and we'll have.to see what they have to say. Perhaps may need to get their approvals first before we make decisions..This is- where it's very,very difficult process wise to figure out. MIKE'KIMACK : We've been there before. That may be a possibility that we may go if you so desire we may go to the Trustees and then have that delineated as we delineate it'so that we can remove that as a speculative issue in terms of what their concerns and requirements will be given the property: and you're right, I do not speak for them but I can only tell you what we discussed when we visited the site and what their concern was when they looked at this: As a matter of.fact they didn't want any clearing without one of them being present in that particular area if I remember correctly. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright you know these are just things that have to be accurately represented in the public records with writing and so on and we'll have to determine March 1,2018 Regular Meeting procedurally.what the best way to move forward on this is but before we conclude for today I'd. like to see if the neighbors want to make some very brief comments or Martin on your.behalf. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Just very quickly, I think we've heard a lot of you know here,say'here_ today about Trustees, D.E.C. and I agree that it would be appropriate cause I can't speak for the Trustees either but I find it really hard to believe that they are preferring to.protect-.and an- unidentified low area that's not a wetland before they would want to protect the-bluff. That doesn't seem to be consistent at all with their mission. As to the D.E.C. and this 26 foot thing and whatever that is I'm not aware of any evidence in the record what that means or what,that is so clearly-we have a drainage code that can deal with issues of drainage when there's development and all that would have to happen and occur so those issues can be addressed and if there's a natural swale there then it can accommodate drainage and so I.don't think that that is a reason to(inaudible)the bluff setback but enough said I will just turn the floor over. MIKE KIMACK: I will get you a copy of the D.E.C.approval. CAROLINA ZAPF : I'm Carolina Zapf. We are the owners of 700,900 and 1515 Birdseye Rd.since 2004. My family has owned a home in Orient for thirty five years and has spent about four to five months at our home with my three children. Every treasure quaint and historic . .neighborhood we're a community, we all take care of our neighborhood if it means clearly snow or.-cleaning up the beach we all kind of stick together and very thoughtful to-keep our neighborhood that way. If there's alterations made or even some new constructions they -always fit in to our,little community. The construction of this building is going to change our neighborhood a lot also which is not being addressed'is that we own a property right next to the construction and which is a vacant lot right now. If ever we would chose to build there it would totally be in front of that lot which is something I want to point'out. It's not being developed right now but I just wanted to add that..So that's pretty much I mean you heard all the scientific reasons why this should not be allowed but I just wanted to also point out that it is' a historic neighborhood and this is very out of sorts of what the neighborhood is about. MEMBER DANTES :I have a question for(inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Excuse me Ms.Zapf could you come back to the MEMBER DANTES : So you have a lot directly to the east of the applicants? CAROLINA ZAPF :It's right next to it 1515. Di) C re�� RN � �� E MEMBER DANTES :It's directly to the east? ,; f CAROLINA ZAPF:It's like this odd shaped one yeah. r ii 331 Board cad TI usreeb March 1,2018 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : It's a buildable lot? CAROLINA ZAPF:It has development rights but we(inaudible) LESLIE LAVECHIA: Hi my name is Leslie LaVechia. I live at 908 Birdseye Rd. I've owned the home for about five and half years and I can't emphasize enough how much we absolutely love it and similar to Carolina the reason we bought it was because of how special the area was in terms of a coastal line, in terms of how the house is situated facing north facing the Sound. In terms of the.deer fence we have two black labs and I want to preface it with the fact I'm probably not supposed to say some of this stuff but I feel bad that you have to go through all of this, but we have two black labs and we have no fence and we have no electric fence whatever. When I do some bike riding up to the point it's not unusual for me to see a dead deer hanging over the fences and I don't really know if that's the reason that eight foot fences are not allowed I don't know and also a lot of the documentation refers to eight feet,six feet or four feet. I'm really not sure what the rules are but CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I can clarify if you'd like. LESLIE LAVECHIA : Well I just don't want to see a dead deer and if that's the purpose of the lower limit for the fencing then that should be the end of the story.The other thing 1-wanted to mention in terms of this drainage going south and again I have no expertise. I'm a.CPA and I don't really know a lot of other things but I was here physically for super storm Sandy.and the devastation was quite extreme so I can just imagine a heavy rain storm like we're supposed to get tomorrow and the water is going south and it has no place to go. I mean the drains are going to fill up and there's just going to more of it as the property is going to be filled by a parking lot, a house, a swimming pool and a patio. I know from my own property every year I have to put soil in and I'm quite a bit of feet off the shoreline just because of erosion. So I can't imagine a house and a swimming pool and a parking lot and a patio and that not happening and of course the walkway to the beach.So that's just my extreme concern. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Okay thank you. Can you make this very brief please? MANDY JORDAN : Yes. My name is Mandy Jordan. I'm at 1105 Birdseye Rd. right behind this house and I'm up high. It's not going to ruin my view or anything like that. I'm just concerned if we change the setbacks then the next house is going to have that as.a they're going to be able to set theirs back and I just don't want it to you know just like stick with the rules. I thinkthere's a reason that we have these setbacks and I just want to stick with the way CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you and thank you for being brief. So there are some things that we would like to have entered in to the record. We want to get some more comments from Trustees, from D.E.C. I want to give you an opportunity to look at those to review 341 F t:1 _ f, March 1,2018 Regular Meeting everything-and I think the Board is going need to have a second bite of this apple. We're going- to have to find out whether or not once we've seen that information we should ask Trustees approval go first and adjourn. We won't start over, we can adjourn subject to that approval which_means you won't have to do anymore mailings or things like that except just once (inaudible)send out a notification once the another MIKE KIMACK : Make I just make a suggestion? When we did the original pre-application with the Trustees in September there's a new Board now so we've got two new members and perhaps what I could do basically is do another pre-application and have the Trustees look at it given the-new designs etc.like that because if we want them to respond in writing they're going to be(inaudible).to be able to respond. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well they'll have to have firsthand knowledge.They're going to have to have an application in front of them. MIKE KIMACK:And this was some time ago. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :They don't have this particular application? MIKE KIMACK:They don't have this particular application or this particular design.This was not -_available at the time when I went out there. So we have much more information as what we were doing there now is we went out there without any of this with just a rough sketch of a house of what we proposed within the 50 feet and we looked at the property under that condition. They have not seen this so I perhaps think if we are going to look if you're,going to look to the Trustees for their recommendation they.need more information than they have now or they were able to gather at a time when the Board had a different makeup and they didn't have all of this background information. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :I think that makes sense. MIKE KIMACK:So I could put a pre-application get them out there again so that if they're going to give you a letter they're giving you a letter under informed circumstances. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Absolutely. I wouldn't want it any other way.What do you think May back here in May is that enough time? MIKE KIMACK : Well if I put the letter in I can get an April pre-application out of them. They could get the letter to you for May. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Then why don't we do that. Why don't I make a motion to adjourn this till May which leaves the record open for any additional written or other documentation anyone wants to submit maybe to verify the top of the bluff once again either from your 35 ls_ �l 1 �� 4h, jJ soutnold '�bwrs March 1,2018 Regular Meeting surveyor and or their engineer and we'll just get as much information together as we can so that we really understand the full impacts and what the Trustees thinking is. They're the ones that has to grant approval.Get a copy of the D.E.C.'s MIKE KIMACK:I'll also get you Health Department approval of the septic system. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Health Department yeah the more we have in the record the more; . we'll be able to discern the probable outcome. So I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to May V at 10 o'clock. We'll be back here on May V at 10 o'clock and we'll see what's turned up. Meanwhile just so you're aware, these records may all be seen disclosed by coming in to our office and filling out a F.O.I.L. request and of course courtesy is that any attorneys representing both parties will automatically get this information. MEMBER DANTES:Can we ask the Town Engineer to review this? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I believe he's done some preliminary but we should get-him because they're going to have to comply with the storm water management chapter of the code anyway and they're going to need a drainage plan for the Building Department so MIKE KIMACK:We've already put that together. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good then we'll have a look at that can you submit that to us and Jaime also we'll send it to Jaime Richter? MIKE KIMACK:Storm water management are on the plans basically. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Oh fine alright. MIKE KIMACK :(inaudible speaking away from microphone) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright well we'll have Jaime look at it and comment. Okay there's-a motion to adjourn to May 3rd at 10 o'clock. MEMBER GOEHRINGER :Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :All in favor? I fir,y " Y MEMBER DANTES:Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA:Aye. 11 �� F E B � 8 202� ?� MEMBER GEOHRINGER :Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Aye. 36 Exhibit G: Site Plan, dated April 1, 2019 !_ .¢ 44 N 4 ,1J 't.a9F. fj�,V' . NATURAL SLOPE IPF WOOD MAX, 1.H STEP EDGE ZO.d Q +00' 500 �tJO SECTION '_A\O1r� @BEACH ACCESS �O\ OQ�aS( A' C ACCESS NYMC0.4STAL ERQ" ep. C AREDH k BUILT ' H4INDLIE:MT f8R10T0 S (;, TYE. y1 Y HAND ACCESS FROM ND ./ *741 JAUGA.IN, .r / COMPACTED �� irt.•IA' -.__\ _ IPE J WOOD O SOII tDGf Al IR EL 31.7 0.d •'Alf BROWN SANDY SILT MI. /, \ MCI 110t 1n �-11}' WiH CRAVE[ IN IAYf R;: / EL 3d - 1i.d / NON IUK HUt FFR WITH SECTION DETAIL WA t.R IN PALE GROWN Sit TY MI PCRMISSIBLC VEGETATION AS e+` @IPE WOOD EDGE STEPS z+.a AF'PRUVLU BY IOWN TRUSTEES ) ,. (SEE CHART) Wn FR In FI2OriV\ � C AYI.Y SAND SC _..TOP—BANK._ .._ + _ \ rBRk SF WAIL:IN BROWN -1Nf APPROVED BY TO COAR L .AN.,SP BOARD OF 1 RUSTEES Sad TOWN OF SOUTHOLD via IN I+OW�I KFACI TERF T1 \ F�srmc sroFBLFF - q DATE IFST101f 1)AI,^, 1C �J ¢¢kkEE O fT ugSADEEnerW ER /�, o my MA{ 15 2611M DO NALD -{ IXIEItlPNG THE BIlFf CRESr ,Y 1 .. s, TOUSIERHLOTLP.E NEW 4'FENCE —__... 10/03/12 PHOTOVOLTAIC T._, / 'tY \S r p4/. ROOF.'. .._....-.___ O ! / ? ' `�• \�� 4R� RRACE OR k.' OR Mn.V tNANCEt. ^.rz y(� Pool .� _,--._;- ,),2 sy (D C.t� ., RV ..\ / ,.:POOL I PVC INLfl 8-fHK.PR;.CASr DECK - - PIPF I FROM CONCRI 11 IRAFI C ILAC),.RS RFAtINC%1AL1 \ / SDR INTERMITTENTTEINTERMITTENT ��,''D .SS PVC M1LEIKI FROM 1(TAWA LI A).R:, ' \ POND NON-WOVEN G,:3NXI4L. GVk RI AP SIAMS 12'MIN NEW 4'FENCC .. R DIA,%8'ULEI' PRECAST GONCRf?1 NEW 4'FENCE \ O'/ /SA. - IFAC'I NO RING FENCE WILL BE LAID TO AVOID IARGE TREES - \ AND DISTURBED AREA WILL BE REPLANTED ) (( NON-W(M.V("ATE XYR F. WITH NATIVE VEGETATION. ti ' OW lilnl SEAM' 17"MIN NEW a' 1 c\'� PR01'OSEO FENCE WELL WC- DR(INI),UNDIhTURBFD ...r T GROUN:WAY H I� LOT COVERAGE 1 j TER cv 9UNI_R -- wvlvt sOnti _.._..... - w MAXRES; NEW NOTE USE CDONALD LOT COVERAGE DWARF OF CEMBLEAREA): DW%OF 35.698 SF TCt3969F \ u,1 "LER GRATES _\ p�UL Nye GEOSCIENCEM10 0/12 WA WIR I N 2' O"H I) I)LM.tE ILR MIN. CI.FAN SAVLI& BUILDABLE AREA(LANDWARD OF CEHL LINE): 35,698 SF c CRAVr'1.FILL ( PR 2._G, TOTAL BUILDING COVERAGE: Ia; W LRIRANOE GAIL TYP.SECTION @LEACHING POOL /1 SITE PLAN ._ l (: (GRASS_SWALE DETAIL) WELL AI DESIGNER: ARCHITECT OF RECORD: PRCJECf DRAWING TITLE: JOB NO: 1705 C A R L 0 S SITE PLAN DATE: APR.01.2019 Z A P A T A ORIENT HOUSE SHEETENO.:1/37'4-0 Andrew Pollock Architect,PC S T U D 1 0 1505 BIRDSEYE ROAD ~ / A.100.1 56 SOUPI O%FORD STREET, �„ • ,<D 1111-R ' RROOIUYH.HfWrpi%.,,:„ ORIENT NY11957 ��+_oKK..; Exhibit H: Site Plan, dated November 16, 2017 o _ ,�',[P.� A' ACCESS MYSOEC CEWSTN BLOSUII �V- EARED!I ",rop By uAI NR/R]iNE WE'T!SPWTC A aSS FROM LAND d. NruTe,Atin,sec STRAW BALE DIKE DETAILS 0 ,l , �/�¢ ruReWK •�•�jW 9FIA0lL��a! C{viflis 6ER7WT fie•• ' o"bxr is tea �r ' �,.�.. -�r....a..�:+� t •~, TNIi•r s,� a \ -�� SILT FENCE DETAILS DosrNBaESTaFauF " RAB6AOBB1B1'Nf9! �. ,4, EalecFlcrreslrsaEti � __ N(;fi T,.RF BUFFER WITH / ,% \`1 Y ROOF f ERV.SSIEe,.0 4-GE AI.`N A'; '- ArRrE�D, TUA1 POOL Ov GRAVEL• I C'\' C,- Q (n"'�' ♦ INTERNRTENI 1;�✓�W, L _ FOND " �, � \ ♦ - cz:= •. I— L y, t' S11ai:./ r NEWI- \ FaoN FENCF FENCE DETAILS • g0.% 'ROPOSCD INDEX XL 0 Co EROSION CONTROL SILT FENCE SLIRR01M]WO CONSTRUCTION NEW 4'FFNf,E •_/ PROPOSED C/� DISTURBANCE. lll""/"""r - ' WFI. LL A/J O PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ACTT R AREA NFW ST F i NOSE ~ i H .. OFER CRATES MUTE:DSE YC(%,NAI Ei AREA TO BE CLEARED OF DEBRIS.DEAD AND T OR DVWG TREES. A GS(XNCE 10/03/12 .. TREES REMOVED IN CONSTRUCTION ZONE. •'1„�I NEW REMOVE GREENBRIAR VEGETATION.TRW TREES AT TOP OF BLUFF. T 'NTRANi.'('GATT + BEACH ACCESS DETAILS a'FENCE SITE PLAN ALL AF, DFSC,NER: ARCIBfKT OF RECORD: PROD DRAWING TITLE: JOB No: 1705 C A R L 0 S DATE: NOV.16.2017 Z A P A T A ORIENT HOUSE SITE PLAN SCUF: 1132'=1'-0 Andrew Pollock Architect.PC CLEARANCE DIAGRAM s4mNO. S T U D I O 1505 BIRDSEYE ROAD A. 00,� x,e�e..I.MIae Ner'Tal Nr 1W,T ssau,,,olsoB04iREET. �r ORIENT NY11957 Exhibit I: Curriculum Vitae of Kurt Weiskotten, M.S. coo F.' Resume Kurt Weiskotten, M.S. Senior Environmental Scientist WOSEDPROJECTssional Profile As. - eiskotten has 38+years'experience in the environmental field,with 26+years erience as an Environmental Specialist.His experience includes environmental .� li development, project design review and guidance,-conducting environmental. EDU CATION: finings and analysis for state and federal aid projects, including NEPA, SEQRA, 1991/MS/Environmental Studies/SUNY ESF land federal wetlands and streams,flora and fauna ecology,endangered species, 1989/BS/Environmental Studies/SUNY ESF J ration management, invasive species control and management, ;and cultural 1983/AAS/Natural lirces.He is an experienced field naturalist and natural history.interpreter.He has Resources/Conservation/SUNYATC ;; managed and supervised staff in conducting numerous environmental 1983/Boreal Flora&Field Ornithology/Univ. of nings, project reviews and processing. He has.coordinated all levels of projects Michigan Iiarious agencies including NYSDEC, NYSDOS,ACOE, USFWS,-and SHPO in" ( firing and obtaining all necessary wetland and wildlife permits needed for REGISTRATION/_CERTIFICATION$' ;.portation and environmental projects. He is proficient in developing erosion and Hydric Soils pent control plans, landscape plans, and in using GPS and GIS to screen and Methodology of Wetland Delineation for environmental resource impacts. Beyond transportation planning and Techniques of Wetland Mitigation and onmental processing,he has extensive field experience in wetlands,wildlife,and Construction 'I history. His specialties include bird identification and biology, insect-ecology, Stormwater and Erosion Control Principles '�je issues, plant identification, habitat management, vegetation management, USkOE Nationwide Permits iCape design,wetland and stream ecology and dynamics and restoration,wetland Geographic Information Systems/GIS ration, wetland mitigation design and monitoring, and environmental teaching Global Positioning Systems/GPS 'raining,among others. Fluvial Geomorphology Module/FGM _ I USkOE Stream Restoration Techniques n Environmental Scientist, he is responsible for various project review and lination, permitting, and environmental subject matter. input for highway, viral, land development,architectural,and traffic units:He provides expertise on YEA,RS,WITH:FIRM: 10 .;)y, .fish and wildlife, aquatic and terrestrial habitat management, vegetation TOTAL-YEARS-EXPE9IENCE: 38. Iigement, invasive species control, water quality protection, regulatory )retation,and environmental stewardship guidance.Clients include NYS Thruway .,irity and Canal Corporation, NYS Department of Transportation, County-and PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS.: ] Highway Departments, Private Developers, Environmental -Agencies and New York State Ornithological Society i , . nizations,and Non-Governmental Organizations. New Mi York State Wetlands Forum(Board Member) act Experience New,York State Flora Association Conference Planning Member,ICOET,Lake :.''Transportation Placid,NY 10380A, Route 363 Gateway Project in Binghamton, Broome County, NY. 1 2018. Environmental Scientist. This project consists of the initial project iration and progressing through the scoping phases to develop a scoping report. lonsibilities include preparation of environmental documents,field identification of y Ind boundaries,inventory of endangered species habitat.GPI and their team are. ded all conceptual design services including conceptual drawings, cost �ates,site investigations,regulatory compliance,altemative investigations,public ..nation meeting and outreach, and environmental reviews. Mr. Weiskotten fated each alternative to determine its impact on the flora andfauna as well as- rr�� of the US. As part of the project GPI also prepared a hazardous materials LS �` _ Vining report. This 1,300+ page document discusses the screenings that were Irmed, records that were reviewed and findings for the project corridor. Client: . DOT- Daniel Gates, Consultant Manager, 518.485.0830, F E B - 2023 lilgates@dotny.gov 345,PIN 3EST01 &2 NYSDOT Empire State Trail, Region 3,Syracuse,NY. Old-`4� rr 08/17-12/20. Environmental Scientist. This 100% state funded project has a sole k3oa purpose to extend the Empire State Trail,a shared/multi use Pedestrian and Bicyclist Pathway,across NYSDOT Region 3. The project will extend the Empire State Trail system through the Town of Camillus; City of Syracuse,and Town of Dewitt.This will be one of the last segments,which will complete the 750-mile Empire State Trail,from New York City to Canada and from Albany to Buffalo. Responsibilities include progressing this project through the scoping phase, preliminary and final design.This includes the preparation of scoping and design report, traffic modeling, and public outreach plan generation and cost estimating.The trail will contain a mixture of on-road routes,side paths and separate trails systems including the design and construction of a 300-ft dedicated bicyclist/pedestrian bridge over 1481. Mr.Weiskotten was responsible for overseeing all environmental aspects of the project. He reviewed,reports and findings submitted by the subconsultants and provided technical guidance throughout the design .process.He also proposed tree species that were native to the area and would thrive in their proposed environment. Client:NYSDOT; Contact:Daniel Gates,PE, Consultant Manager,518.485.0830,daniel.gates@dot.ny.gov New York State Canal Corporation, Upland Disposal Site 4.33, Utica, NY. 2017. Environmental Scientist. Project involved the field delineation of wetlands areas within and surrounding the disposal site and documentation of tree species type and distribution within the site.A full wetland documentation report was prepared to be used when coordinating site usage with resource agencies.Attended field Jurisdictional Determination meeting to interpret findings with the US Army Corps of Engineers and NYS Department of Environmental Conservation. All wetlands' boundaries were collected using GPS technology and final boundary exhibits and documentation were provided to the Canal Corporation. Client:NYS Canal Corporation;Contact:Mark Miller, 518.449.6040 New York State Canal Corporation, Upland Disposal Site C-1,Waterford, Saratoga County, NY. 2016. Environmental Scientist. Project involved the field delineation of wetlands from upland areas within the disposal site and analysis for feasibility of site for future disposal of canal'dredge material. All wetlands' boundaries were collected using GPS technology and a final boundary product was created and provided to the Canal Corporation in report form. Client:NYS Canal Corporation,Contact:Mark Miller, 518.449.6040 The New NY Bridge over the Hudson River[PIN 8TZ.100],South Nyack,Tarrytown,NY.2013-2017.Member of the Design Quality Assurance Team, responsible for performing independent reviews of various environmental design packages and reports related to the projects highway and civil-related elements.Responsible for the environmental review of numerous design documents for conformance With project requirements, the Approved Design Quality Management System, and the Design Quality Assurance Plan. Prepare and submit QA Certifications for the Design Quality Assurance Manager. Client: Tappan Zee Constructors, LLC, Contact. Dan Domalik, 914.789.3226 D214295 Term Agreement for.Design Services— NYS Thruway Authority, Primarily in the Albany&Syracuse Divisions, NY. 2614-2017.Environmental Scientist.This three-year term agreement project involves a wide range of highway and bridge design support services. Responsibilities include the full array of environmental duties that may be required for Thruway capital program projects. Projects under this term include: • MP.340.151B574.1 Exit 43 Manchester Interchange—Wetland delineation and reporting services for an interchange bridge replacement project along the Thruway near Rochester NY. GPS was used to gather field data and boundary points. Responsibilities also included preparation of Design Report environmental sections and responding to comments for Thruway Authority. Contact Pete Weisbecker, 518.471.5375 • A351.1 Mahwah Radio Tower — Responsibilities for this project to relocate a communication tower along the Thruway in downstate NY included extensive coordination with the Thruway,Federal Aviation Administration,and NYSDEC.Topics resolved . included work adjacent to a Wild and Scenic River, a Negative Declaration through the NEPA and SEQRA process, and telecommunication permitting with FAA. Contact.,Pete Weisbecker,518.471.5375 D214143 Term Agreement for Design Services—NYS Thruway Authority, Primarily in the New York&Albany Divisions, NY. 2013-2017.Environmental Scientist.This four-year term agreement project involves a wide range of highway and bridge design-support services.Responsibilities include the full array of environmental duties that may be required for Thruway capital.program projects. Example projects under this term: • Syracuse Division Culvert Repairs—06/13-09/13included various maintenance repair and rehabilitation efforts at 24 culverts _sites across the Syracuse Division of the Thruway mainline.Work at each culvert varied, but included replacing headwalls and wingwalls, extending deteriorated end sections, cleaning of accumulated sediments, and slip4ining or cured-in-place liner installations within culverts. Responsible for preparation and coordination of a complete permit package for Thruway Authority submittal to NYSDEC and ACOE for impacts to state and federal wetlands and streams. Contact:Pete Weisbecker,518.471.5375 • MP 154.1631 R Environmental Support—06/14-11-14. Environmental Specialist. Responsibilities for this nine-mile 1 R project with safety improvements included wetland delineations along all slope flattening areas, culvert inventories for water resource impacts,and evaluation forsediment and erosion control.A Joint Application was prepared and submitted on behalf of the Thruway Authority to secure COE and DEC permits for wetland and stream impacts. Contact.Pete Weisbecker, 518.471.5375 cl GPI ¢ , ' Page 2 1 Weiskotten B 20,, `' • MP 253.2621R Environmental Support—04/13-01/14. Environmental Scientist.This project is an 18-mile length of Eastbound and Westbound 1-90 mainline corridor that will receive pavement resurfacing along with culvert rehabs and extensive slope flattening treatments to provide a recoverable foreslope in as many locations as possible.Responsibilities include a formal wetland delineation along the entire project corridor. The delineation will allow for appropriate avoidance and minimization of wetland impacts, and submittal planning for wetland permitting. A full wetland delineation report is part of the delineation process. It is anticipated that complete permitting services will be provided,as well. Contact:Pete Weisbecker, 518.471.5375 • Wetland Mitigation Site Monitoring, Interchanges 23.24— 11/13-09/16. Multi-year responsibility for monitoring conditions.at three separate wetland mitigation sites along the Thruway mainline near Albany. Responsibilities include field documentation of wetland conditions, plant communities, plant survivorship; photographic documentation of sites, and preparation of a yearly monitoring report to satisfy permit conditions for the project for a five-year term. A formal wetland delineation of the sites was completed as part of year three monitoring. • D214589,US Route 9&1.87 Interchange 9 Ramps&Intersection Improvements,Tarrytown,NY.07/19+.As Environmental Scientist,was responsible for preparing all environmental screenings and documentation for preliminary and final design for the reconstruction of Interchange 9 Ramp A and B of Interstate 87 and intersection improvements at Route 9. Extensive coordination with Thruway Authority is on-going.This is a joint project between the New York State Thruway Authority(NYSTA)and the New York State Department of Transportation(NYSDOT). Contact:Ameerudin Audit,PE, 518.471.4254 Local Transportation Gilbert Road Drainage Improvements,Saratoga Springs,NY.03/19-06/19.Environmental Scientist.GPI performed a drainage study to evaluate the existing hydrology of the Spring Run and the tributaries of Lake Lonely to determine potential solutions and alternatives to improve hydraulic efficiency in the area along Gilbert Road.This study evaluated all stream and tributary elements including culverts and adjacent runoff areas in the project area. Based upon the study recommendations, GPI prepared final design plans that included replacement of the existing culvert over the Tributary to Lake Lonely with a 10-ft x 6-ft concrete box culvert, realignment of stream corridors, medium stone fill at both upstream and downstream sides, replace existing pavement within the limits of construction and a temporary access road needed for construction. Responsiblilities included analysis of site environmental constraints, delineation of wetlands and stream corridor boundaries and Ordinary High Water lines,development of permit packages for NYSDEC and USACOE and ultimate issuance of permits,and coordination,design and implementation of stream enhancements and improvements. Client.City of Saratoga Springs,NY,Contact.Michael Veitch,DPW Business Manager, 518.587.3550 x2556 Switzer Hill Road Drainage, Fonda, NY. 01/18-06/18. Environmental Scientist. GPI is investigating the existing drainage along an approximately 1,600-LF section of Switzer Hill Road(CR 31)from NYS Route 5 north including a failing cross culvert and crib retaining wall and other structures that are showing significant signs of deterioration and failure. Several replacement and repair alternatives are being evaluated in this study.A full drainage study of the area will be performed as part of the scope. Mr. Weiskotten was responsible for a-full wetland delineation of the site and evaluation of stream biology and geomorphology.Application for NYSDEC and USACOE permits were provided for all work in the stream and adjacent wetlands. Stream enhancements and wildlife passage features will be provided as part of final design. Client.Montgomery County DPW, Eric Mead, 518.365.1680,emead@co.montgomeryny.us Rehabilitation of Shore Airport Road (CR 43), Essex County, NY.04/17-04/18. Environmental Scientist. This 3.99-mile segment of roadway exhibits pavement deterioration due to extensive heavy vehicle traffic. Phase I consisted of roadway surface preservation,full depth asphalt repair, 10,000-ft of guiderail replacement, and MUTCD signage. Phase II consists of relining(12)culverts varying in size up to a 16-ft x 10-ft multi-plate arch and minor improvements to three others.Mr.Weiskotten was responsible for securing all APA,DEC, and ACOE wetland and water permits via Pre-Construction Notification for Nationwide Permit for work in and around the project culverts. A variety of technologies were employed including profile wall pipe, cured-in place pipe, and shotcrete application; all requiring cooperative coordination of solutions during permitting to address for beaver activity,fish passage,and other biological concerns. Client: Essex'County,NY,Contact.Jim Dougan, 518.873.3739,jdougan@co.essex.ny.us Route 9 Over Indian Creek Bridge Replacement,Town of Chatham, Columbia County, NY. 2014-2017. Environmental Scientist. The project involved complete replacement of CR 9 over Indian Creek. Responsibilities included complex coordination with ACOE and DEC to fulfill aquatic organism passage requirements 'regarding a protected trout spawning stream, wetland and water resource permitting, USFWS coordination for endangered species protection, and SHPO review for historic resource issues. SEQRA and NEPA processing was also completed,as well as erosion and sediment control design and guidance,and invasive species control. Full review of project plans and completion of environmental portions of the Design Report were also undertaken. Client: Columbia County, NY,- Contact,Barbara Otfy, 518.828.7011,barbara.offy@columbiacountyny.com Route 5S Emergency Watershed Protection, Rotterdam, NY. 06/14-11/14. Environmental Scientist. Due to flooding and erosion events,this project included pollution control measures,debris removal,earth fill,rock protection,rock stream vanes,numerous plantings of native materials, and site restoration. GPI prepared preliminary and final design plans, utilized stream Fluvial Geomorphic (FGM) GPI �.�j_ ( , z Rn �.. ` ``� l Page 3 1 Weiskotten design methods,and created cost estimate and construction bid documents of the preferred treatment to stabilize and protect the stream. In addition,the streambed was realigned to create a more direct flow channel as the creek approaches the downstream bridge and rock vanes were installed to direct energy away from the erodible stream bank. To accommodate stream hydraulics and habitat during dry periods, a 5-ft low flow channel was designed and installed in the middle of the stream. GPI coordinated all project activities with the Town, NYSDOT, NYSDEC,NRCS and ACOE.As Environmental Scientist, he was responsible for obtaining all environmental approvals and ,permits and project documentation. Client: Town of Rotterdam, NY, Contact; Peter Comenzo, 518.355.7575, pcomenzo@rotterdamny.org Elk Drive Bridge over the LaChute River(PIN 1757.60),Town of Ticonderoga, Essex County, NY. 2014. Environmental Scientist. This Locally Administered Federal Aid Project involved complete replacement of the bridge, along with drainage and approach improvements.As Environmental Scientist, responsible for all environmental screenings, SEQRA and NEPA process,coordination with the Adirondack Park Agency, and obtaining all permits. Client: Essex County, NY; Contact: Robert Leveille, 518.873.3745, rl a veill e @ c o.ess ex.n y.us Route 9 Corridor Gateway Improvements(PIN 1759.67),Lake George,NY.2014.Environmental Scientist.This Locally Administered Federal Aid Project involves improving pedestrian access and safety,throughout the corridor and pavement preservation of the travel lanes.As the Environmental Scientist, he was responsible for all environmental screenings, SEQRA processing,erosion,and sediment 'control feature design,and obtaining all permits.Mr.Weiskotten also reviewed the extensive plantings to ensure all species were native to the area and would thrive in their proposed location. Client: Town of Lake George, NY, Contact:Dan Barsca, Director of Planning, 518:668.5131 x5 Housatonic Street Improvements,Town of Dalton, MA.2013-2014. Environmental Scientist.This Locally Administered Federal Aid Project included new horizontal and vertical alignment to eliminate sub-standard geometry in several locations and selected full depth reconstruction of the pavement to improve the substandard conditions. The remaining scope of work consisted of asphalt reclamation and shoulder widening;construction of sidewalks on the north side of the road;and improvements to the existing drainage system.Tasks included wetland delineation,environmental review and permitting,and development of a wetland mitigation plan including site selection, hydrologic analysis, planting plans, and construction oversight. The total estimated cost for the project is$5M. Client: Town of Dalton, MA;Contact:Ken Walto,413.684.6111 Trails 1 Shared Bike Facilities PINs 1762.43&1762.58,Zim Smith Trail Northern Extension,Saratoga County,NY. 10/22+. Environmental Scientist. Responsible for conducting environmental field work and coordinating permit applications with NYSDEC and ACOE for regularity review and processing for the extension of this trail. GPI is providing trail design, right-of-way incidental and acquisition, environmental screenings and permitting, and wetland delineation professional services for this project. This project proposes to construct approximately 4-miles of multi-use trail,extending the Zim Smith Trail from the current terminus on Oak Street in the Town of Ballston Spa to the Saratoga Spa State Park at E West Street in the City of Saratoga Springs.The project will involve construction of a new asphalt trail generally following the Saratoga County sewer easement on primarily undeveloped parcels. The project will include a new pedestrian/bicycle bridge over the Kayaderosseras Creek,various culvert installations,construction of 10-ft wide ADA accessible trail, installation of safety items,and trailhead amenities.such as parking lots, benches, etc. Client: Saratoga County, NY, Contact: Jason Kemper, 518.884.4705, JKemper@saratogacountyny.gov Zim Smith Northern Trail Extension, Saratoga County, NY. 02/20-03/20. Environmental Scientist. Responsible for assisting in environmental,field work and coordinating permit applications with NYSDEC for regularity review and processing for the extension and widening,of an existing stone dust trail to 10 ft wide paved trail.Prepared permit packages and currently working on securing final permits for regulated activities in state waters and wetlands. Client: Saratoga County, NY, Contact Jason Kemper, 518.884.4705, jkemper@saratogacounty.gov Mohawk River Trail Phase II &III (PIN 2650.18), City of Rome,Oneida County, NY.09/17+. Environmental Scientist. This Locally Administered Federal Aid Project involved the construction of a multi-use path/trail, beginning at E. Chestnut Street and ending at the Delta Dam. The total length of the path/trail is approximately 3.84 miles. Mr. Weiskotten conducted all field wetland delineations and endangered species surveys. Additionally, he has contributed to the development of environmental sections of the design report and coordination of cultural resource screening and sign off and will secure all wetland permits for the project. Client: City of Rome, NY,- Contact.Matt Andrews,315.339.7628,mandrews@romecitygov.com Albany-Hudson Electric Trail (AHET): Empire State Trail, Rensselaer & Columbia Counties, NY. 09/17-10120. Environmental Scientist. GPI was designated a$3.5M term contract with the Hudson River Valley Greenway(HRVG)for the proposed development of a 35-mile trail through Rensselaer and Columbia Counties, NY.The trail connects the City of Rensselaer, NY to the City of Hudson, NY and follows a trolley line corridor,which was abandoned in 1929 and now operates as an electric transmission corridor. Mr.Weiskotten was heavily involved in all aspects of wetland and water resource`inventory-and`docurnentation,.development of an Individual Permit with GPI m �' Page 4 1 Weiskotten FEI i.-T SOa L)i; ]',b wr;., the NYSDEC,ACOE, and NYSDOS, and design of several acres of tidal wetland mitigation.Avoidance and minimization of impacts to endangered species such as bats,cerulean warblers, and bald eagles was also successfully completed. Other responsibilities included development of a full Environmental Impact Statement, coordination with the DOS for work within the Coastal Zone and'LWRPs, and cultural resource processing. Client: Hudson River Valley Greenway (HRVG); Contact: Andy Beers, Director Empire State Trail, 518.473.3835,Andy.Beers@hudsongreenway.ny.gov Geyser Road Trail I Bicycle&Pedestrian Trail,Saratoga County,NY.2017-2020. Environmental Scientist. Provided environmental services.for the development of a multi-use trail along Geyser Road(County Route 43)located in Saratoga Springs,NY.The project area presently consists of 12-ft travel lanes with varying shoulder widths along with several non-connected sidewalks. In the project area are community resources, such as a school and athletic fields, residential community and the Saratoga Spa State Park. Responsible for project length wetland delineations and suitable bat habitat tree surveys, as well as design of an endangered Kamer Blue Butterfly mitigation site adjacent.to the corridor.Full coordination with NYSDEC to protect the butterfly and lupine habitat along the highway.Client: City of Saratoga Springs,NY, Contact Matthew Veitch, 518.587.2198,mveitch@saratogacountyny.gov Empires State Trail(EST)Canalway Trail on the Champlain Canal,Towns of Kingsbury and Village of Font Ann,NY.09/16-12/18. Environmental Scientist. This project involved the new construction of a shared use trail from Kingsbury to Fort Ann along the former Champlain Canal towpath. Responsibilities include review of sub-consultant wetland delineations, re-delineation of wetland boundaries, field jurisdictional determinations with COE,development of permit applications to NYSDEC and COE,and coordination of off-site wetland mitigation solutions,including in lieu fee options.Client.New York State ThruwayAuthority;Contact:Mr.Robert Schabheft.518.436.3140,- bob.schabheti@thruway.ny.gov Zim Smith Mid-County Trail Southern Extension, from Coons Crossing Road to Mechanicville, Saratoga County, NY. (PIN 1758.62).05/16-12118. Environmental Scientist.This project involved development of Conceptual and final Plans to extend a new 10-ft wide paved trail to the City of Mechanicville. Responsibilities included conducting a project wide delineation of all wetland and water resources throughout the entire 2.5-mile corridor and screening site for suitable bat habitat.Additionally, assisted engineering staff with solutions to trail alignment scenarios involving stream and wetland crossings,endangered and invasive species,and cultural resources. Complex permit packages were prepared and submitted to NYSDC and COE, as well. Client: Saratoga County, NY, Contact Jason .Kemper,518.884.4705,jkemper@saratogacounty.gov Helderberg Hudson Rail Trail(PIN 1757.32),Albany County,NY.2013-2015.Environmental Scientist.This project was programmed through NYSDOT's Locally Administered Federal Aid Projects and involves preliminary and final design of 9-miles of trail system beginning in the Village of Voorheesville with an eastern terminus in the City of Albany.Responsibilities included full review of the entire corridor for wetland and water resources,including streams and tributaries to the Normanskill River,culvert replacement analysis,erosion and sediment control design, tree removal mapping and reporting, landscape planting plan development, and erosion and sediment control design.An emergency failed section of stream bank adjacent to the trail needed immediate environmental review and permitting as construction progressed. Client:Albany County DPW,Bill Anslow, 518.655.7920, wanslow@albanycounty.com Site/.Hydraulics Minerva Lake Dam Rehabilitation, Minerva, NY. 07/18-05/19+. Environmental Scientist. Responsible for environmental field work (wetland delineations, Ordinary High-Water mark determinations,tree surveys)and meetings with Adirondack Park Agency, NYSDEC, and USCOE for regularity review and processing for the rehabilitation of the dam and shoreline of the reservoir.Prepared permit packages and secured final permits for regulated activities in state and federal waters and wetlands. Client: Town of Minerva, NY,Contact:Steve McNally, 518.251.2869,Minerva.supervisor@frontiernet.com Hydrologic&Hydraulic Study,Johnstown,NY.2015-2016. Environmental Scientist.This project involved the preparation of inclusive Hydrologic and Hydraulic studies of four stream reaches to determine possible solutions to rectify flooding issues within the city. Responsibilities included a full wetland and stream delineation throughout the City of Johnstown; of which all resources mapped were surveyed using GPS technology. Client:City of Johnstown,NY,Contact.Chris Vose, 518.736.4014, cvose@cityofjohnstown.ny.gov Scoping&Studies Kindle Mobile Home Park Phase 1,Brunswick,NY.07/20+.Environmental Scientist/Permitting.GPI has been hired to design Phase 1 Engineering project to replace the electrical infrastructure at a mobile home community and to�upgrade their.water and wastewater systems.The work will include new photovoltaic systems sized to power the entire community,new net metering and digital submetering of the tenants. Client:Kindle Associates LP;Contact:Bryan Wolofsky;514.658.9876,bwolofsky@yahoo.com Statewide Tire Remediation,Various Locations,NY.04/20-01/22.Environmental Scientist/Permitting.GPI,under contract with-OGS, .is providing NYS DEC with professional engineering and construction related services for the program to abate waste tires at 21 known waste tire stockpile sites. The known sites are said to contain and estimated 1 M waste tires. GPI performed field investigations of the various sites and developed site assessments for inclusion-into-the`Proje�t=Maniial4 Client NYSOGS, Brandon Stanfield, 518.337-7890, GPI Page 5 1 Weiskotten .. n rr4 (C 4t'45�t(--d(-`''� Brandon.Stanfield@ogs.ny.gov Farmhouse-Country Inn II, Rhinebeck, NY. 02/19-06/24. Environmental Scientist. GPI will be performing Civil engineering and Landscape Architectural Design services for Soho House&Co.for the development of a Farmhouse Concept retreat style resort hotel. The project includes creating a small lake on the property, design of roadways, extension of municipal water service and design of a package wastewater treatment plant. GPI will also assist in coordinating with Central Hudson for 3 phase power to the site. Off-site improvements will include upgrading a Village Water Main to an 8"line running approximately 2/3 of a mile along Mill Road, NYS Rout 9,Asher Road,Huntington Road,and Knollwood Road.An update will be completed for a Generic Environmental Impact Statement that had been completed for a prior master plan for the property.The update will cover the lands added for the lake improvement and for the off-site water line extension work. Client Soho House Design,LLC,Jarrett Sthul,jarrett.stuhl@sohohouse.com Prior Firm Experience New York State Thruway Authority/Canal Corporation, Albany HQ. 2009-2013. Environmental Specialist 2. Responsible for the overall environmental review and processing of the Thruway and Canal capital design program,including NEPA and SEQRA, State and Federal wetlands and waters protection and permitting, GIS analysis, ROW operations and maintenance subjects, highway and canal vegetation management,SHPO topics,and ecology and endangered species issues.He was also responsible for herbicide and pesticide training and annual user certification and record-keeping.Additionally,he provided guidance to designers and consultants to ensure that projects are progressed in a timely manner and are environmentally compliant and protective. He coordinated and met with regulatory and environmental agencies concerning needs and interests of project design and implementation. New York State Thruway Authority/Canal Corporation, Syracuse Division. 2004-2009. Division Environmental Specialist 2. Acted as Division Environmental Contact to all Federal, State, and local regulatory agencies and organizations. Provided environmental assistance and oversight to all Division Thruway and Canal Corporation operations, including capital program, vegetation and wildlife management and protection,stormwater management,water quality protection,wetland delineations and permitting,dredging operations and upland disposal sites, pesticide programs,spills, illicit discharges,and construction compliance. Inspected all Thruway, Canal, and floating plant facilities to identify environmental issues.Coordinated and managed environmental consultants and contractors as required. Participated in project meetings with Thruway and Canal staff,regulatory agencies,and consultants.Reviewed environmental regulations and proposed and implemented Thruway and Canal policies and directives as needed. Example projects in this capacity: • NYS Thruway Authority Pavement Reconstruction,from MP 378.20 to 393.70,D213654,Buffalo Division,NY.2009-2012. Environmental Specialist.This project involved a full-depth reconstruction of a 15-mile thruway segment between Exits 47 and 48. As an Environmental Specialist,worked with consultants and in-house design staff to develop plans that avoided wetland impacts to the greatest extent possible,and then produced Individual Permit packages to be submitted to the DEC and COE. Numerous visits to the project site with resource agency personnel resulted in the project permitting moving forward,despite complex issues of wetland impact analysis and developing off-site mitigation solutions. He developed successful mitigation options at nearby federal lands for several acres of project mitigation.Full overview of project erosion and sediment control plans and frequent visits during construction for compliance review. Contact.Ameerudin Audil,PE, 518,471.4254 • NYS Thruway Authority Pavement Reconstruction, from MP 289.0 to 304.00, Syracuse Division, NY. 2008-2011. Environmental Specialist.This project involved a full-depth reconstruction of a several miles of mainline west of Syracuse.As an Environmental Specialist, he worked closely with in-house and design staff to develop plans that avoided wetland and water impacts to the greatest extent possible.Complex coordination with NYSDEC and USACE resulted in securing an Individual Permit that included 14 acres of wetland mitigation on nearby DEC refuge lands. Extensive coordination with resource agency personnel resulted in the project permitting moving forward, despite complex issues of wetland impact analysis and developing off-site mitigation solutions. Erosion and sediment controls, cultural resources, and endangered species were also analyzed and processed. Contact Theodore Soltesz,PE, 518.471.4430 New York State Department of Transportation,Environmental Analysis Bureau,Albany,NY.1995-2004.Environmental Specialist. Responsible for the preparation and dissemination of environmental compliance guidance material related to statewide capital infrastructure,operations,and maintenance transportation projects.He wrote statewide guidance for USACOE Waters of the US,Coastal Zone Management,Erosion Control,Aquifers,and Endangered Species.He also authored ROW Mowing Practices Guidelines,Wild and Scenic River Statewide Guidance,Wetland Delineation and Mitigation Manuals,and Wildlife Connectivity and Aquatic Organism Passage Guidance. He reviewed and provided comments for numerous Environmental Impact Statements and Design Reports. New York State Department of Transportation, Environmental/Landscape Unit, Poughkeepsie, NY. 1993-1995. Environmental Specialist.Responsible for tracking and reviewof transportation projects from initial project development stages through post-construction monitoring.and assessment. Reviewed projects for a myriad of environmental regulations and policies and provided guidance and interpretation of polices affecting transportation projects to designers and engineers. Performed state and federal wetland boundary delineations. I-- --- — GPI FI) F__ _ -""' Page 6 1 Weiskotten F, tl k F 9 I The Museum of the Hudson Highlands, Cornwall-on-Hudson, NY: 1991-1993. Director of Wetland Restoration, Staff Biologist.. -Organized and'implemented the.Museum's Hudson River Restoration Program. He created working relationships with organizations including USFWS, USACOE,and NYSDEC to further restoration goals of the program. He acquired State and Federal wetland permits as needed and developed goals,objectives,proposals,and reports concerning the Museums research and wetland and-river restoration. He created hydrologic and vegetative management plans for restoration sites,as well as recruited,organized,and directed student and adult volunteers to perform actual field work of restoration of Emergent and Submerged Aquatic Vegetation within Hudson River tidal. wetlands and.tributaries. -Cornell University,.Department of Natural Resources,Watertown,NY.1991.Research Biologist.In association with the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Mr..Weiskotten performed numerous tasks related to field research and practice of-wetland restoration and monitoring. He was responsible for development of research methods, botanical inventory of research plots, and,compilation.of avifauna data from .study sites. He prepared herbarium collections, contour surveying and design of wetland restoration projects, and-was responsible for research site selection and landowner contact and interaction. Professional Publications&Affiliations: • Authored NYSDOT.Environmental Procedures Manual Chapters on Wafer/Ecology, Coastal Zone Management, Endangered Species,and Wild and Scenic Rivers. • . Co-authored'.NYSDOT Conservation Area Mowing Program (CAMPS) Guidance. Program developed an innovative statewide mowing approach to reducing costs and overall impacts of mowing practices and ROW management. • Co-authored NYSDOT Wetland Mitigation and Delineation Guideline Manuals. Manual was made available to all employees statewide for inclusive guidance on mitigation and delineation. • Co-authored NYSTA Right-of-Way Maintenance Guidelines Manual. Environmental representative on 'committee to write comprehensive guidance for Thruway ROW policies. " .4 M. ;i �. EPI P4. GPI Page 7 1 Weiskotten Duu11 0 1 n IQ ,fin/_ 9 0 T%� 7TT _ D�� DP 7 NOVEMBER 30, 2012 (REVISION) JANUARY 2, 2013 (ADDITIONS) A T DRIFT AUGUST 2, 2013 (REVISED BLDG. ENVELOPE) OCTOBER 30, 2014 (CLEARING & BLUFF LOCATION) TO WN OF SO U 'HOLD JANUARY 03, 2018 (PROPOSED HOUSE) JANUARY 24, 2018 (REVISIONS) Q TJ UUn T V 1 r �T�AT77V AT V APRIL 9, 2018 (REVISIONS) APRIL 18, 2018 (SCDHS REVISIONS) � O 1000-17- 01- 04 OCTOBER 29, 2019 (TREE LOCATION) MARCH 11, 2020 (HOUSE & TREES) SCALE. 1 40 APRIL 18, 2022 (REVISIONS) \� OCTOBER 17, 2072 APRIL 22, 2022 (REVISIONS) O� \� ? �o�`e 4' BEACH ACCESS CLEARED & BUILT 1 BY HAND ACCESS FROM LAND Zone Line J ,�� e � EL 21.9' ��' GATE eEACH accEss PALE BROWN SANDY SILT ML JJ 00� od NO WITH GRAVEL IN LAYERS 2 G� /c� Jsl TOP OF BLUFF LINE AS FLAGGED BY JOHN BREDEVEYER, TOWN TRUSTEE. EL. 3.9' 18' e, 13� G Eta WATER IN PALE BROWN SILTY ML /, �\\ OFF �_ NON TURF BUFFER WITH 21 ofie 7pp4FSL PERMISSIBLE VEGETATION AS 2 APPROVED BY TOWN TRUSTEES WATER IN BROWN CLAYEY SAND SC /. /CCC r UAI)TI T(\TAI Z 9-7GCC EL. — 10' 31 ' REGRADED AND PLANTED WATER IN BROWN FINE TO COARSE SAND SP W/INDIGENOUS GRASSES AREA -off `o- TOTAL: 15,190SF 38' STAKE sET �Z NOTE: WATER ENCOUNTERED 18' BELOW SURFACE EXISTING CREST OF BLUFF TEST HOLE DATA FLAGS ADDED BY INTER SCIENCE ON 09123114, � _ �� a� � McDONALD GEOSCIENCE z TEST HOLE EXTENDING THE BLUFF CREST TO EASTERN LOT LINE. , E y �' ��, 1%3�12 SCALE : N.T.S. �F �" OIL s ` Zc� NEW 4' FENCE TREE TO BE REMOVED \ a - J ,r R 150`-d� i \\ PROPOSED ` TREE TO BE WELL Ej C E I�V REMOVEDd 0 OEM - 2 1A i� O��OD�n I Sovthold row11 - /�C�y� / - q[� j • N .__._._.__....___Board of Trustees ��} — 9 FR.HSE FA'TjC A NG �D LA. � / RAIN RUNOFF CONTAINMENT O�� + 'v 0 \ \ POO CK-W PROPOSED HOUSE ROOF AREA = 6,028 SQ.FT. 'A RETAINING 2 FEET DIA. 6,028 x 0.17 X 1.0 = 1,024.76 CU. FT. ��/r� WALL cuLVERTs, :� NEW 4' FENCE 1,024.76 CU.FT. 42.21 sQ.FT. = 24.28 LIN. FT. O ��O�F, DRIVEWAY SE.'' \/ NEW 4' FENCE PROVIDE (4) DRY WELLS 8'0 x 8' DEEP * FENCE WILL BE LAID TO AVOID LARGE TREES �, \ 5� RETAINING o. 32.00 FT. REQUIRED AND DISTURBED AREA WILL BE REPLANTED RIM ELELV. 19.0' WITH NATIVE VEGETATION. NEW 4' GRAVEL • ate' F EivCE -,Iy- 0 '' 1.9\o \\ 0 � zyy� �� LOT COVERAGE 5� - LOT AREA: 59,067.36 SF (1.356 ACRES) BUILDABLE AREA (LANDWARD OF CEHL LINE): 35,698 SIF ER TEST H LE - MAX. LOT COVERAGE (2riJ°o OF BUILDABLE AREA): 20°o OF 35,698 SF = 7,139.6 S � �pP �—NOTE: I SE MCDONAI D NEW GAF P GEOSCI NCE 10/03/12 0 TOTAL BUILDING COVERAGE: 5,559 SF (15.57%) p� ENTRANCE - GA SITE PLAN SCALE 1/32" = 1'— WELL 150+ FROM PROPOSED SEPTIC , WELL � I DESIGNER: ARCHITECT OF RECORD: PROJE DRAWING TITLE: JOB NO: 1705 C A R L 0 S DATE: APR. 01.2019 SITE PLAN SCALE: 1/32N4 4 Z A P A T AHOUSE SHEET NO.: Andrew Pollock Architect, PC ORIENT S T U D 1 0 1505 BIRDS EYE ROAD 561 broadway,4A/4B New York,NY 10013 56 SOUTH OXFORD STREET, gRpOu20.0,r,G�n,YOQ}r 112„ I ORIENT NY1 195�T 212.966.9292 F 212.966.9242 T:212.620.0044 As 1000 Glean Goldsmith,President Town Hall Annex A.Nicholas Krupski,Vice President 54375 Route 25 Eric Sepenoski P.O. Box 1179 Liz Gillooly ` Southold,NY 11971 Elizabeth Peeples ' Telephone(631).765-1892 Fax(631)765-6641 SouthoIld Town Board of Trustees Field Inspection Report Date/Time:761 TaL7 Completed in field by: Michael A. Kimack on behalf of 1505 BIRDSEYE ROAD LLC requests an Administrative Permit for clearing and grubbing approximately18,365 sq. ft. (3,175 sq. ft. non turf buffer area and 15,190 sq.ft. landward of non turf buffer to 100 foot setback line) from westerly property line following top of bluff to easterly property line and setback 100 feet. Infill approximately 590.5 cu. yds. (301.5 cu. yds. from excavation and 289 cu. yds from off site) of the area from proposed landward side of proposed non turf buffer to 100 foot setback line. Install proposed I/A system seaward of 100 foot setback line from bluff as approved by Suffolk County Wastewater Management Dept. Install 785 SF of walkway consisting of a crushed bluestone base with pavers. Install a 4 foot wide by approximately 155 ft. in length ground level foot path, commencing from landward edge of proposed non -turf buffer to toe of bluff with Ipe O/E wood step edges. Create and perpetually maintain a 15 foot wide non turf buffer (3,175 sq. ft.) commencing at the westerly property line and following the top of bluff to the easterly property line, planted with permissible vegetation. Plant indigenous grass from landward edge of non turf buffer to 100 foot setback line (15,190 sq. ft.). Located: 1505 Birdseye Road, Orient. SCTM#: 1000-17-1-4 Type of area to be impacted: Saltwater Wetland Freshwater Wetland ,/ Sound Bay Part of Town Code proposed work falls under: Chapt.275 Chapt. 111 other Type of Application: Wetland Coastal Erosion Amendment /Administrative Emergency Pre-Submission Violation Notice of Hearing card posted on property: Yes No Not Applicable &Y�4rw'-fKR Info needed/M difications/Conditions/Etc.: 7 0 N Present Were: G. Goldsmith Krupski E. Sepenoski —L. Gillooly . Peeples Cantrell, Elizabeth From: Cantrell, Elizabeth Sent: Tuesday,January 17, 2023 8:56 AM To: mkimack2@verizon.net Cc: DiSalvo, Diane Subject: 1505 Birdseye Road, LLC; SCTM# 1000-17-1-4 Mike, Regarding the above referenced application,the Board discussed the current application during their January Work Session and are scheduling it for a field inspection on Tuesday, February 7, 2023. The Board is requiring that the project be staked out and that access paths be created in order to walk to the top of bluff/bank and other areas if necessary in order to see the staking and top of bluff/bank. Also,the Board is requesting that you meet them at the site to further discuss the project. If you cannot get the project staked out and access paths created, and/or you are notable to attend the February field inspection,then the application will be postponed to the March 7, 2023 field inspection date. Senior Office Assistant Town of Southold Board of Trustees Office: 631-765-1892 Email: elizabethc@southoldtownny.gov i DiSalvo, Diane From: mkimack2@verizon.net Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2022 2:45 PM To: DiSalvo, Diane Subject: RE: 1505 Birdseye Road LLC Hi Diane: I did submit the application. We were holding up going to a hearing because a board member raised the Issue as to whether there was any wetlands on the property. We have engaged Cole Environmental services To address that issue.They have just completed their site plan and report which will be reviewed and submitted as a part of the application which should be in your possession. I will also revise the project description accordingly. bests From: DiSalvo, Diane<diane.disalvo@town.southold.ny.us> Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2022 9:54 AM To: 'm ki mack2 @ve rizo n.net' <mkimack2@verizon.net> Subject: 1505 Birdseye Road LLC Just as an FYI—we are in receipt of the plans you dropped off on December 2, 2022—we still require a Wetland permit application from you. Diane 1 DiSalvo, Diane From: mkimack2@verizon.net Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2022 10:36 PM To: DiSalvo, Diane Subject: RE: 1505 Birdseye Road LLC Hi Diane: This is not a project that requires a full application. The original permit approved the buffer zone and the disturbance area. We are only adding about 2200 SF to the disturbance area bases upon having to stay back 100 ft.from the bank.The 100 feet from the bluff is the only jurisdiction the board has. We developed a landscape plan for the drainage area because a Board member suggested there may be a wetland on the property. I'm sure they meant the drainage area. As such, I had Cole environmental Services conduct a full evaluation which has concluded that area does not qualify as either a vernal pond or a wetland area. Since the analysis finds no "wetland "area, there is no additional jurisdiction under 275 for the property. I don't want to be put in the position of doing a full application as if the Board has additional jurisdiction that would require the full application. We will provide a landscape plan for that area that is in keeping with the intent of the owner to be a steward of the land by providing Proactive Restoration undertaken solely for the benefit of the natural environment and not associated with compensatory mitigation or other regulatory requirements. From: DiSalvo, Diane<diane.disalvo@town.southold.ny.us> Sent:Thursday, December 22, 2022 8:37 AM To: 'mkimack2@verizon.net' <mkimack2@verizon.net> Subject: RE: 1505 Birdseye Road LLC I assume the application you are referring to as being submitted is the Administrative application we received on July 26, 2022? Please confirm. If so we would need an additional check in the amount of$150.00. We await your revised project description and the Cole Environmental site plan and report which you referred to. Thank You Diane From: nnkiniacl¢ Avon�zon.rbet<m1dmac 2 verizon.net> Sent:Wednesday, December 21, 2022 2:45 PM To: DiSalvo, Diane<diane..disalvo@to„ .southoid.ny. ,> Subject: RE: 1505 Birdseye Road LLC Hi Diane: I did submit the application. We were holding up going to a hearing because a board member raised the Issue as to whether there was any wetlands on the property. We have engaged Cole Environmental services To address that issue.They have just completed their site plan and report which will be reviewed and submitted as a part of the application which should be in your possession. I will also revise the project description accordingly. bests ITrom: DiSalvo, Diane<e ian rills �l �tr rr�.w cat ald,:t s> Sent:Wednesday, December 21, 2022 9:54 AM To: 'm kimack2 @verizon.net'<rnkia ac 1 ��Ler?zcu Lnee > Subject: 1505 Birdseye Road LLC Just as an FYI—we are in receipt of the plans you dropped off on December 2, 2022—we still require a Wetland permit application from you. Diane 2 425 Montauk Highway East Quogue, NY 11942 Environmental Consulting (631) 369-9445 Wetland Project Management 1505 Birdseye Road Orient, NY 11957 SCTM No.: 1000-017-0100-004000 Cole Environmental Services (CES) was contacted to review the subject property, evaluate the vegetation present, and research the presence of we?tlands regulated by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (IgYSDEC) and/or the Town of Southold. CES conducted site visits on August 19, 2022, and September 9, 2022, and November 8, 2022. This report is to be used solely as a guide and is not intended to be all encompassing. While the information included in this report is based on scientific evidence, it is sourced from third parties. Please note that Cole Environmental Services makes no guarantees regarding the information detailed in this report. LOT'DESCRIPTION The subject property, known as 1.505 Birdseye Road, Orient, NY, is located along the Long Island Sound, north of Gardiners Bay, The lot is approximately 137 acres which is approximately 59,067 square feet, The property is currently vacant. PRELIMINARY RESEARCH WETLANDS Prior to inspecting the site, CES reviewed the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory Wetlands Mapper as w€!II as the NYSDEC Environmental Resource Mapper. No wetlands were identified on the FWS National Wetlands Inventory maps, nor were any freshwater wetlands identified on the NYSDEC Freshwater Wetlands Inventory maps. No inland wetlands were identified on the NYSDEC Tidal Wetlands Maps, however, wetland areas identified as Littoral Zone (LZ) and Costal Shoals and Mudflats (SM) were identified on TW Map No 724- 558 along the coastal areas fronting Long Island Sound. Please see the map below. �_.. 1JrV'- --- ,JAN 3 2022 Board al Trustr I 425 Montauk Highway g ^�. x,,,,r .4 m,•� w::.; East Quogue, NY 11942 Environmental Consulting (631) 3613-9445 Wetland Project Management 0 g Legend : a:«...»,W ...... �.. w G, f b v R J f I�P��I�� i,� _ '��'�`' hl �"'/l ✓/ n�rr�,� �✓nll orito(C � e n rkl �.�do nlr:n I.I Pik..S o jr O !v' AM i.P del' 'T IY I t 6.l 16N RRwr„ i � � Pi, Ur�ataC.l CiE(GS) C) f army,Ip Ganiv xtev9 irc"t '7('74 I Ltw,a11, i0l r v ilk a„ lI <IYI .PmM1 of m ado 64 i r a 1 1 P" a e pn¢[t Try v .l(u ktfm t "' p an 1Cr i C. d "w wig` , .�» ., ��, ��'; .. ;J'. ♦ 1 17,. ,. r, SO LS CES also reviewed United States DE�partment of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey, Soils CpE Carver and Plymouth soils 15 to 31:'% slopes- non- hydric MkC Montauk Loam 8 to 15%slopes- non-hydrlc Bs Beaches and sand along Long Island Sound These soils on this site are generally well drained and associated with glacial moraine coarse-loamy soils that generally do not flood. During a winter freeze, some ponding may occur in this vicinity. TOPOGRAPHY The subject property and surrounding area slope toward the southeastern portion of the subject property. This area of the property has a bermed section, which allows the neighboring property to gain access to the shore. This berm/dirt road is manmade, as evidenced by the presence of a clogged culvert that was observed on site. Aerial photographs from 2001 show a clearly defined dirt roadway,that appears to come from a property just south, and terminates at the beach (Long Island Sound). This road is at a higher point along the eastern property line. It is likely that, while well drained, this low area is confined by the presence of the existing berm along the southeast property line, This confined bermed area may allow for temporary ponding of stormwater before the coarse soils allow for percolation. No water was observed at the site during the site visits, There is anecdotal evidence of ponding, however, the cause and length of time have not been documented. _.. _... .�_......_ .. .�— _ __....._ _...... ........_.... www.ColeEnvironment l ervices coni 425 Montauk Highway East Quogue, NY 11942 Environmental Consulting (631) 369-9445 Wetland Project Management e 'J " �1 ppp > r v � nWJ" i ��- i 444 E1BRlled Fats a J "g a " �+ �� Lpw mrlrraI area 41 austerr�1lkentlyflooded Al f /� fi¢4j� �� ✓1. �� '�tYwk,„ a fl �pp Go� �-„ (� � �'�� p ^�,ry�"J�,u+w/�I 00 15051�IRCJ!;E�"��kr;�AC4 CREATED BY ORENT,NY 11957 I L—C COLE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES SCTMNO,:1000-®'1.700-0100-004000 10 13-22 2001 TOPOGRAPHIC AERIAL wrrw.CaleC;vA�Vlr .� w ... 01nentalSerweic�es.corn 425 Montauk Highway ". �--:..-.-°�..-�--�� East Quogue, NY 11942 Environmental Consulting (631) 369-9445 Wetland Project Management ON-SITE FINDINGS When identifying vernal pools, there are key characteristics to consider. As the New York Natural Heritage Program (NYNHP)vernal pool guide notes, "vernal pools are intermittently to ephemerally ponded, small, shallow depressions" and "typically occupy a confined basin (i.e,, a standing waterbody without a flowing outlet)". While dry during the summer,they are typically flooded during the fall. CES visited the subject property on August 19 (summer), September 9 (late summer), and November 8, (fall), While the slopes of the area direct storm water to the low-lying area in the southeastern section of the subject property, pooling water was not observed during any visit. Stormwater does not appear to be present for prolonged periods of time due to the permeability of the existing sanely and coarse substrate. This is supported by the lack of substantial tannin staining on the existing trees, Furthermore, a culvert, although currently blocked, was observed along the eastern property line. When functioning,the culvert would act as a flowing outlet. Vernal pools are also characteristically "surrounded by upland forest with trees that overhang the pool, providing a continuous leaf litter substrate," which covers hydric soils. CES observed a lack of buildup of organic matter in the area in question, As previously mentioned,the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey documented non-hydric soils in the area. Additionally,A test hole done in 2012 shows at the lowest point groundwater is 4' below the surface,therefore, the low-lying area does not have hydrologic connection to groundwater. The coarse, non-hydric Carver Plymouth soils, and the high permeability of existing soils all allow for the water to percolate into the ground relatively quickly. Using these identifying characteristics,the low- lying area in the southeastern section of the property cannot be classified as a vernal pool. EXISTING PLANT SPECIES ON SITE Silver Maple-Acersaccharinum Red Maple (Ater rubrum) Black Cherry (Prunus serotina) Multi-flora rose (Rosa multiflora*) Privet—(Ligustrum spp.*) Black Raspberry (Rubus occidentalis) Oriental Bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus*) Black Locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) Poison Ivy(Toxicodendron radicans) Virginia Creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia) Goldenrod (Solidago spp.) Pokeweed (Phytolacca americans) Mile-A-Minute (Persicaria perfoliate*) ..._ ..... www.Col eE nvrrr nmentalSery ice s,com 425 Montauk Highway East Quogue, NY 11942 Environmental Consulting (631) 369-9445 Wetland Project Management RECOMMENDATIONS Cole Environmental Services reviewed the initial site plan with the property owner and agent. CES's recommendation are reflected in the updated site plan. Native, non-fertilizer depended vegetation should be used on site to the maximum extent possible. Deep-rooted native vegetation should be planted specifically for areas fronting the bluff. The low-lying area should be preserved and protected by enhancing the surrounding buffer with native vegetation. Additionally, a significant number of invasive species were observed on-site. CES recommends the removal of the existing invasive species along with revegetation with native vegetation, .. ........�.. www COIe ;nvlronmentalServaces corn 425 Montauk Highway `' '' w —' `•— ---•= East Quogue, NY 11942 Environmental Consulting (631) 369-9445 Wetland Project Management 00 SGUHS HEF„d R—.10-13-0002 ^' ,YC.AIR` J 40' , a•, ,nl'7 J✓ 1 �„ a. °a�"uu.ue M ell Y au'%'v [OC✓N wnw'',"+w kNdi Y J ry e� &Uff G A ✓a �e Af ft�!: C e'K jtlP dbYN d!" 9j !,aL t t)M F}k 5{LN..E f:N .t/7^ "r puryp+ II rP.F� 7m J '1.cN'b cY.EM12�-,. wt n�fd��C!�5 ACM fa5'R:xN(;•r i'°t ✓ � � N� u' ..,4d tl p � � . t, �� y � „ ,,'..'�... �e d,V.�iP tl Wb"&„rt? f �mdmt.�.�1✓�.�,,...______. ..ii�r % ��. LL`f� Y�r't5 v.r G.J I.� ,«e f k f 'pd{y{ylff' 2Ji atr S V�A,➢dl :"tl.T �" sx rr ark,r rr.{"��1 r� �� d$F � .�' '�L�. � �. `S-W o wt tl h^o-R .501 Es a Co e —•Pn v rGa.M1 Prcry E 40 t YId.�'P�9'Pf'L'.� � FE"{tl mRl[S IN Crf*4CT4V 4 a w WIXMIAAWAI V il'tl',4 CM «a.ylYu l;y`f ",s c,. ✓` MW 9 eo 77 ,r d t t ',n'. ph,7 _ r CES REVEGETATION/RESTORATI ON PLAN 1 a Cola Lay rrpnrnentalSLrvsce�Lconn 4� 425 Montauk Highway m. East Quogue, NY 11942 Environmental Consulting (631) 369-9445 Wetland Project Management n n � 5` r i i v 0 I w Ali aN� ryry 4 a 1505 Birdseye i f ! i I 0 rr, �b I i M 9 I i I Y I �f A Y 2022 DRONE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY OF SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA www,ColeEnvir+ nmentalServices.com � I Martha F.Reichert Twomey Associate VALatham631.727.2180 x305 S H E A, K E L L E Y, DUBIN & Q U A R T A R A R O, LLP mreichert@suffolklaw.com 33 West Second St P,O,Box 9398 Riverhead,NY 11901 www suffolklaw com Thomas A Twomey,Jr (1945-2014) September21, 2022 John F Shea,III N Christopher D Kelley David M Dubin JayP Quartararo t Peter L Snead Via Email and Federal P � �p l�II�"" �+ .1' a°'�Mrt..2 a Kathryn Dalli Jeffrey W Pagano a Board of Trustees Karen A,Hoeg Town of Southold Town Bernadette E.Tuthill " lhld Craig H Handler Town Hall Annex Board of Trustem Bryan J Drago 54375 Route 25 Daniel R Bernard t♦ Southold,NY 11971 SENIOR COUNSEL Stephen B Latham Re: Wetlands Application of 1505 Birdseye Road LLC ASSOCIATES 1505 Birdseye Road,Orient,New York(SCTM# 1000-17-1-14) Lorraine Paceleo Terrence Russell Christina M Noon Dear President Goldsmith and Members of the Board of Trustees: A Chadwick Briedis Martha F Reichert MaryKate L.Brigham This firm represents John Josephson and Carolina Zapf,the owners of 151 Jacqueline M Morley Birdseye Road and 900 Birdseye Road, Orient; Pamela Valentine and Willian David L Hamill Matassoni,the owners of 1525 Birdseye Road and 1675 Birdseye Road, Orient; OF COUNSEL and Interwellen Property Partners,LLC,the owner of 700 Birdseye Road, Orient. Lisa Clare Kombrink Kevin M Fox We are writing to you today to express our strong opposition to the above- Patricia J Russell referenced Application of 1505 Birdseye Road LLC (the"Applicant")for an Jennifer P Nigro Craig Gibson Administrative Permit from the Town of Southold Board of Trustees to develop Joan Morgan McGivern 1505 Birdseye Road, Orient(the "Premises") by, among other things, clearing Scott Handwerker Allison Singh 18,365 sq. ft. of native vegetation and infilling of 590 cubic yards. Kevin Handwerker <. NY s LA BARS We applaud the Trustees' action at its August 15, 2022 meeting to table } LLt,&INTAXATION♦ NY 8 NJ BARS the Applicant's Application until it submits a full Wetlands Permit Application A NY NJ&°`BARS♦ NY NJ c FL BARS and supplies the additional information requested by the Trustees. We submit, however,that given the Applicant's prior history before the Trustees and the 33 in WesstSeccoond St, Southold Zoning Board of Appeals(the"ZBA"),the ensuing litigation that P,O,Box 9398 resulted in the annulment of the Applicant's permit, and our review of the current Riverhead,NY 11901 Application materials,the Trustees must require additional information, as 631.727.2180 discussed herein, from the Applicant so that the Trustees can make an informed suffolklaw.com and well-reasoned decision about the proposed development on this environmentally sensitive and significant property. I. Historical Back round On April 4, 2022, Hon. Carmen Victoria St. George, J.S.C. annulled and vacated the May 15, 2019 resolution of the Board of Trustees granting the September 21, 2022 Town of Southold Board of Trustees Page 2 of 6 Applicant a Wetlands Permit on the grounds that the Trustees' determination was arbitrary and capricious and without a rational basis. Specifically, the Court found that the Trustees conducted no analysis of the statutory factors set forth in Southold Town Code §275-12, and proffered no reason for not adhering to their own prior determination regarding the bluff line that was flagged by former-Trustee Bredemeyer and acknowledged by the Trustees during the ZBA proceeding. A copy of this Decision is attached as Exhibit A. Previously, in November 2017, the Applicant had applied to the ZBA for relief from Town Code §280-116,which requires a 100-foot setback from the top of the bluff. During his review,the Town Engineer noted that the top of the buff had shifted further landward than what the Applicant had i• mented. At the ZBA's request, Trustee Bredemeyer then reflagged the top of the bluff, and the Applicant revised its survey, dated April 9, 2018. On June 25, 2018,the ZBA issued a unanimous decision denying the Applicant's application for bluff setback relief, finding that the granting of the variances would produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood and a detriment to nearby properties, as well as adversely impacting the physical and environmental condition in the neighborhood. The Applicant did not appeal the ZBA Decision. A copy of the ZBA Decision#7140 is attached as Exhibit B. The Applicant then hired a new surveyor,who re-designated the easterly part of the bluff line that had been previously flagged by Trustee Bredemeyer as "top of bank"because there are no setback requirements in the Town Code from a"bank."This change was reflected in the survey, dated August 12, 2018,that the Applicant submitted with its wetlands permit application to the Trustees. After the Trustees' approved the Applicant's application, our clients commenced the Article 78 proceeding.At the crux of the litigation was the Trustees' lack of explanation as to why they failed to adhere to their own prior determination regarding the flagging of the bluff line that was clearly established and adopted by all parties during the ZBA proceeding. The Court in annulling and vacating the Wetlands Permit found that, "[n]otably missing...is any specific reference in the record as to how the bluff line flagged by Trustee Bredemeyer and adopted by the Trustees in the ZBA proceeding suddenly became a bank in Birdseye's wetlands application." This current Application before the Trustees must be reviewed in context of this historical and legal background. II. Current Alaplicatiou. In the instant Application, the Applicant continues to employ the same disingenuous tactics used its prior application to the Board of Trustees that was eventually annulled and vacated by the Court in the Article 78 proceeding. The current Application is rife with inconsistencies and misrepresentations designed to impermissibly segment and obfuscate the adverse environmental impacts of outsized and inappropriate development on an environmentally sensitive parcel containing unique, protected natural resources. C Q V E Southold To lrci of Trots September 21, 2022 Town of Southold Board of Trustees Page 3 of 6 a. Site Plan Issues One of the most serious inconsistencies we have discovered thus far is the discrepancy between the location of the top of the bluff in relation to the Coastal Erosion Hazard Line ("CEHL"). See Figure 1, below. The 2019 Site Plan, "Sheet A.100.1,"which was prepared by Andrew Pollack Architect, PC, dated April 1, 2019, and stamped received by the Trustees April 19, 2019, and stamped approved by the Trustees on May 15, 2019, shows a bluff crest line partially flagged by Interscience back on September 23, 2014 on the westerly portion of the bluff and a"top of bank" line flagged by Trustee Bredemeyer sometime in 2018 (without a specific date). A copy of the 2019 Site Plan is attached as Exhibit C. The CEHL is a fixed line designated by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. On the 2019 Site Plan, the CEHL is depicted far closer to the bluff crest than on the 2022 Site Plan, "Sheet A.100.1,"which was also prepared by Andrew Pollack Architect, PC, dated April 1, 2019 [sic], and stamped received by the Trustees on August 5, 2022. A copy of the 2022 Site Plan is attached as Exhibit D. In other words, if either Site Plan is to be believed,then the bluff has actually accreted rather than eroded since 2019, and it is now significantly seaward of the CEHL line. This is a geological impossibility. Simply put, the 2022 Site Plan is not accurate. zaia sue aia 5" 2022 Site Plan 41 Ic ^ * Mp .mxra w 7*.- r rvry er. a f " tl"a�klr,i, tl OEr1� F,+r \ l 'fin f \ YCA r r" 1, y - a m a »a n» klll3— ., ' 336 S „ a. Aa SF tl Figure I-Side bi side comparison 012019 Site Plun and 2022 Site Plan shoiring inconsistent CEHL lines. hLV 022 Soll�ll'told T:owCW I Board of Trustees D [ a � September 21, 2022 Town of Southold Board of Trustees 9 E F' m - 2022 Page e4of6 b. Impermissible Segmentation under SEQRA Southold Town Board of Trustees Notably, Assistant Planning Director Mark Terry found that the Applicant's project is generally inconsistent with the Town's Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan("LWRP") in his August 15, 2022 LWRP Coastal Consistency Memorandum to the Trustees. Additionally, Mr. Terry found that the Applicant's request to clear native vegetation on an undeveloped parcel is "the segmentation of the process and does not acknowledge the resource management decisions alreadv made to accommodate develo meat on this sensitive arcel. (See ZBA Files)."(Emphasis added). Under SEQRA("State Environmental Quality Review Act"), it is illegal to take a project that may have significant environmental impacts and break it in to smaller parts (segments)for environmental review purposes, in order to evade comprehensive environmental review. That is exactly what the Applicant is attempting to do here. The Applicant's project description to clear 18,365 sq. ft. of native vegetation and infill nearly 600 cubic yards is disingenuous at best because it is patently obvious that these activities are but the first phase of an intensive development scheme for the entire parcel. To wit,the project description includes the installation of an I/A septic system, but no principal residence or accessory strnctnres a re shown on the site plan or listed in the pr9ject descri tion. The same is true for a proposed entrance gate that is shown on the site plan but without a driveway. There is a notation on the site plan for an 8' diameter, 5' deep pool back-wash drywell, but no pool is depicted. c. Im acts ter Intermittent Pond The 2022 Site Plan further fails to depict the intermittent pond on the property(also commonly called a vernal pool), even though intermittent pools are highly valuable wetlands regulated pursuant to Southold Town Code Chapter 275 and squarely under the Trustees' jurisdiction. The New York Natural Heritage Program has ranked intermittent ponds as "vulnerable to disappearing from New York due to rarity or other factors." See Exhibit E. Intermittent ponds provide critical breeding habitat for countless species of invertebrates, amphibians, and reptiles, many of which are species of special concern or even endangered.t Because of their relatively small size and seasonal period of holding water, known as the "hydroperiod," intermittent ponds run the risk of going undetected as regulated wetlands. That is not the case here, where the Applicant intentionally omitted the intermittent pond from the 2022 Site Plan, despite depicting it on the 2019 Site Plan. We further note that no proposed limits of clearing are shown on the 2022 Site Plan, making it impossible for the Trustees to evaluate the extent of the adverse impacts that the Applicant's development scheme will have on the intermittent pond. Due to their small size and temporary, isolated nature, these wetlands have been disproportionately impacted by 'Attached as Exhibit F is an excerpt from Calhoun,A. J.K. and M. W. Klemens.2002.Best development practices: Conserving pool-breeding amphibians in residential and commercial developments in the northeastern United States.MCA Technical Paper No. 5,Metropolitan Conservation Alliance,Wildlife Conservation Society,Bronx,New York(http:,//www.vernalpools.nie/`wi:)-co,nten.t`/tiploads/'202 1/01/'BBest- Develo agent-Practices. d ,listing the conservation status of obligate and facultative vernal pool species. September 21, 2022 Town of Southold Board of Trustees Page 5 of 6 development over the past two centuries. Direct filling and hydrological alterations have resulted in the loss of countless intermittent pools. The Trustees must evaluate the potential impacts that the Applicant's proposed clearing, infill, and changes to the existing topography will have on the flow of seasonal surface water that fills the intermittent pond during its hydroperiod. Moreover, because the intermittent pond and all proposed structures were intentionally left off the 2022 Site Plan,there is no way to measure the minimum setbacks required by Town Code §278-3(D)from the wetlands boundary of the intermittent pond and its regulated adjacent areas. It is critical for biodiversity and terrestrial ecosystems that the Town's remaining intermittent ponds and their adjacent upland habitat be conserved and protected to the maximum extent permitted under the Town Code. d. Recommendations The Applicant's consistently shoddy and misleading submissions are an abuse to its neighbors, who have diligently sought to hold and borne the considerable expense of holding the Applicant and the Trustees accountable. For the foregoing reasons, we make the following recommendations before any further review of this Application is undertaken: i. Require the Applicant to hire a reputable and gualified environmental consultant to: 1. Flag the top of the bluff, 2. Flag the wetlands boundary of the intermittent pond during the hydroperiod; and 3. Conduct a flora and fauna inventory of the intermittent pond and its adjacent areas during the pond's hydroperiod. ii. Require the Applicant to hire a licensed land surye or to accurately depict the CEHL line and the newly flagged location of the top of the bluff as well as all proposed structures; iii. Have the Town Engineer or Planning Department verify the survey provided by the Applicant; iv. Require the Applicant to submit a landscape plan depicting proposed plantings and existing and proposed grading and elevation changes. v. Require the submission of a complete Wetlands Permit Application,which includes all structures and construction activities proposed at the site. We thank the Trustees for their time and consideration of our comments. Kindly file this letter and exhibits in the record of this Application. Sincerely, Martha Reichert Cc: Hon. Lori Hulse, Counsel to Board of Trustees ly L5 V P 2 3 202 Southold Town Board of Tru t a � r September 21, 2022 Town of Southold Board of Trustees Page 6 of 6 Exhibit List: Exhibit A: Decision Josephson v Town of Southold (Index No. 004826/19) Exhibit B: ZBA Decision#7140 Exhibit C: 2019 Site Plan Exhibit D: 2022 Site Plan Exhibit E:New York Natural Heritage Program- Vernal Pool Guide Exhibit F: Table of Conservation Status of Vernal Pool Species E C E WE SEP 2 3 20222 SoutholdTo rt Board of Trustees mr Exhibit A: Decision Josephson v Town of Southold (Index No.004826/19) E C E Vy F Soil Tory Board of'Trustees N P ED-, SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 04 02 0 : 7 P INDEX NO. 004826/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 38 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2022 SUPREME COURT—STATE OF NEW YORK TRIAL TERM,PART 56 SUFFOLK COUNTY PRESENT: Hon. Carmen Victoria St. George Justice of the Supreme Court x In the Matter of the Application of Index No. JOHN JOSEPHSON,CAROLINA ZAPF,PAMELA 004826/19 VALENTINE,WILLIAM MATASSONI,and INTERWELLEN PROPERTY PARTNERS,LLC, Petitioners, For a Judgment pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, -against- Motion Seq: 001 MG Decision/Order TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BOARD OF TRUSTEES,and 1505 BIRDSEYE ROAD,LLC, Respondents. x The following papers numbered 1 - 157 having been read on this proceeding pursuant to Article 78: Papers Numbered Notice of Petition,Petition,with Exhibits 1 -24 Petitioners' Memo of Law in Support 25 -42 Respondent Birdseye's Affirmation 43 - 58 in Opposition Respondent Birdseye's Answer 59- 64 Respondent Board of Trustees' Affirmation 65 - 77 in Opposition Respondent Board of Trustee's Answer 78 - 83 Administrative Return 84 - 137 Petitioners' Reply 138 - 157 2 C E Southold`town Board of Trustees 1 of 7 ED: SUF FOLK COUNTY CLERK 04 022 04:07 PR INDEX NO. 004826/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 38 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2022 Petitioners John Josephson, Carolina Zapf, Pamela Valentine, William Matassoni, and Interwellen Property Partners, LLC (collectively"petitioners")commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR Article 78 seeking a judgment annulling, rescinding and setting aside the May 15, 2019 resolution adopted by the respondent Town of Southold Board of Trustees (the "Trustees")which granted respondent 1505 Birdseye Road, LLC (`Birdseye")a wetlands permit for construction of a two-level house on property located at 1505 Birdseye Road, Orient, Town of Southold, Suffolk County,New York(the"property"). Each of the petitioners owns property next to, or in close proximity to,Birdseye's property, which is an undeveloped parcel that borders the Long Island Sound. Petitioners contend that the May 5, 2019 resolution violates Town Code Sections 280- 116 and 273-3 which prohibit construction within 100 feet from the top of a bluff. Petitioners' claim that in granting the wetlands permit,the Trustees relied on Birdseye's improper and unsubstantiated re-designation of the bluff,which runs parallel to the northern property line bordering the Long Island Sound. Specifically, petitioners maintain that the"top of bluff"had had been previously established during review of Birdseye's 2018 application to the Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals ("ZBA"),which voted unanimously to deny Birdseye's application to construct a house within 100 feet from the top of the bluff. Petitioners now contend that Birdseye returned within months of the ZBA denial,this time with an application to the Trustees for a wetlands permit to construct a house on the same parcel, and that in its review of the wetlands application the Trustees failed to give deference to the ZBA, and failed to adhere to its own determination regarding the location of the bluff line. According to petitioners,the Trustees instead relied upon Birdseye's re-designation of one half of the"top of bluff'as a"top of bank," and that this change in designation from "bluff'to to "bank" made it unnecessary for Birdseye to comply with the bluff setbacks set forth in the Town Code, thereby resulting in the Trustees granting Birdseye a wetlands permit to construct a house in excess of 6,000 square feet within 100 feet from the "top of bluff," in violation of Town Code. According to the verified petition, Birdseye applied to the ZBA in November 2017 for relief from Town Code §280-116 requiring that buildings on lots where there exists a bluff be set back 100 feet from the top of the bluff. During the course of its review, the ZBA held two public hearings and heard extensive testimony regarding the precise location of the top of the bluff, including testimony from petitioner's expert Robert Grover, Vice-President and Director of Environmental Coastal Sciences at Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. Mr. Grover conducted a site inspection and testified that the top of the bluff on the property runs parallel to the Coastal Erosion Hazard Line ("CEHL")for the entire width of the property. Then, during the first hearing, and at the request of the ZBA,Mr. Grover drew the top of the bluff line on Birdseye's survey. The petitioners further contend that, during its review,the ZBA received comments from the Town Engineer which revealed that the top of the bluff had actually shifted further landward, toward the eastern portion of the property, rather than what was noted by Birdseye on its ZBA application. Then, at the request of the ZBA, Trustee John Bredemeyer,went to the property and reflagged the top of the bluff, and the bluff line determined by Trustee Bredemeyer matched the location that Mr. Grover had noted during the ZBA public hearing, which runs parallel to the Coastal Erosion Hazard Line, and extends the entire width of the property. As a result,Birdseye z E CC ,. 2 of 7 �...P a 2022. Southold Town Board of Trustees F 'L'ED: "w'I1'FF0LK COUNTY CLERK 04 ' 2Q22 0 :'07 INDEX NO. 004826/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 38 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2022 revised its survey, and submitted the revised survey to the ZBA, dated April 9, 2018,which delineated the top of the bluff line flagged by Trustee Bredemeyer, i.e., further landward than where it was depicted in the original survey. Birdseye's revised survey also indicated that the bluff line extended the entire width of the property. On June 25,2018, after two public hearings and evaluation of all the evidence before it, the ZBA issued its unanimous decision denying Birdseye's application for relief from the bluff setback, finding that the granting of the variances would produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties, as well as adversely impacting the physical and environmental condition in the neighborhood. The ZBA noted that Birdseye's updated survey, and the site inspection by members of the ZBA and Trustees, showed that the proposed structure would actually be located only 36.5 feet from the top of the bluff,not 50 feet as set forth in the original application, and would be plainly in contravention of the code that requires a minimum setback of 100 feet from the top of a bluff. Petitioners then assert that in an attempt to avoid the 100-foot bluff setback, Birdseye re- designated the eastern half of the bluff as a bank, since a bank is not subject to setback requirements set forth in the code. Petitioners' maintain Birdseye hired a new surveyor who designated a part of the bluff line, previously flagged by Trustee Bredemeyer and adopted by Birdseye in the 2018 ZBA proceeding, so that the eastern half of the"top of bluff'became a"top of bank," as reflected in the survey dated August 12, 2018 that Birdseye submitted with its wetlands permit application. Petitioners contend there is no testimony or proof to support the re- designation of the bluff to a bank, or to rebut the designation of the top of bluff, which was universally acknowledged by all parties to be a bluff during the course of the ZBA proceeding. As part of Birdseye's wetlands application,the Trustees held a public hearing on May 15, 2019. Petitioners, appearing by counsel, submitted written comments in opposition to the application, including the evidence presented to the ZBA showing that the"top of bluff' extended across the entire width of the property, as well as the written and oral expert testimony of its expert, Mr. Grover. Birdseye, appearing by counsel, did not offer any expert testimony in support of the application. Despite requests by petitioner's counsel to leave the record open for additional comment, including submissions by those neighbors unable to attend the hearing, and to allow Mr. Grover an opportunity to revisit the property to rebut the renaming of the eastern part of the bluff,the record was closed. Then, immediately after closing the hearing the Trustees took an immediate vote and granted the application. On that same day the two-page resolution approving the application was signed by the Trustees, and Birdseye was issued a wetlands permit. The Trustees' two-page resolution dated May 15, 2019 includes a recitation of the Birdseye project and two minor references to the"top of bluff/bank"and"top of bluff as flagged by Inter Science, converging with the top of bank as flagged by John Bredemeyer, Town Trustee."Although the bluff line was briefly mentioned during the May 15, 2019 hearing, no explanation was given on the record as to how the bluff line that had been reflagged by Trustee Bredemeyer and adopted by all parties in the ZBA proceeding, now became a"bluff/bank." Further, while the resolution refers to the "top of bank as flagged by John Bredemeyer"there was no discussion at the hearing, or proof in the Administrative Return,that Trustee Bredemeyer 3 3 of 7 EP 202J21 Southold Town �e and of Trustees FI tl„r « ;UF'FOLK COUNTY CLERK 0 2022 04:' 7 P INDEX NO. 004826/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 38 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2022 actually re-visited the property and reflagged the"top of bank." Instead the only testimony at the public hearing to explain the re-designation was offered by the applicant's counsel,who spoke in conclusory terms about the involvement of the Trustees,the Town Attorney, and Town Engineer, and a purported"agreement"between counsel for Birdseye and the Trustees regarding the "convergence point"where the bluff and the bank meet.Notably missing from the opposition is any specific reference in the record as to how the bluff line flagged by Trustee Bredemeyer and adopted by the Trustees in the ZBA proceeding suddenly became a bank in Birdseye's wetlands application. Where, as here, the administrative determination at issue was made after informational public hearings, as opposed to a quasi-judicial evidentiary hearing,the"arbitrary and capricious" standard of CPLR 7803(3)applies (see Matter ofMoy v. Board of Trustees of Town of Southold, 61 AD3d 763, 764 [2d Dept 2009];Matter ofZupa v Board of Trustees of Town of Southold, 54 AD3d 957, 957 [2d Dept 2008]). Thus,the sole question before this Court is whether the Trustees' determination was made in violation of lawful procedure,was affected by an error of law, or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion(see CPLR 7803[31; Matter of GernaltAsphalt Products v Town of Sardinia, 87 NY2d 668, 688 [1996];Perry v Brennan, 153 AD3d 522, 524-525 [2d Dept 2017];Matter ofMoy, supra;Matter of Halperin v City of New Rochelle, 24 AD3d 768 [2d Dept 2005]). In the context of an Article 78 proceeding brought to review an administrative determination of a quasi- legislative, quasi-administrative body like a zoning board or the board of trustees of a village, a court may annul the determination only if it was arbitrary and capricious, affected by an error of law, or irrational (see Matter of Scherbyn v Wayne-Finger Lakes Bel. of Coop. Educ. Servs., 77 NY2d 753 [19911;Matter of Cowan v Kern, 41 NY2d 591 [1977];Matter of Pell v Board of Education, 34 NY2d 222 [1974];Matter of Baker v Village of Elmsford, 70 AD3d 181 [2d Dept 2009];Matter ofMoy,supra;Matter of Halperin v City of New Rochelle,supra). "Arbitrary action is without sound basis in reason and is generally taken without regard to the facts" (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ.,supra at 231). "A decision of an administrative agency which neither adheres to its own prior precedent nor indicates its reason for reaching a different result on essentially the same facts is arbitrary and capricious"(Matter of Charles A. Field Delivery Service Inc. v Roberts, 66 NY2d 516, 516-17 [1985]). In opposition,the Trustees submit the affirmation of counsel who argues that the Trustees' grant of Birdseye's application for a wetlands permit was not arbitrary and capricious, that the Trustees considered the application and analyzed the statutory factors set forth in Town Code §275-12 and, based on evidentiary proof,the Trustees determined that the balance weighed in favor of the issuance of the wetlands permit. The Trustees' counsel further maintains that the Trustees' determination regarding the bluff/bank line is rationally based and in conformance with Town Code §275;the Trustees classified the bank and bluff in accordance with the definitions in the code, and the finding of the ZBA is not binding upon the Trustees. The Wetlands Law of the Town of Southold is set forth in §275 of the Town Code. The standards for issuance of a wetlands permit are set forth in §275-12, which states in pertinent part that the Trustees may adopt a resolution directing the issuance of a wetlands permit only if it determines that the operations applied for will not substantially: 4 IDEE0 Y E E P 2 3 202 4 of 7 �Outhold Town B 9rd of Trustees FILED-0 SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 04 2622 0 7 P@ INDEX NO. 004826/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 38 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2022 A. Adversely affect the wetlands of the Town. B. Cause damage from erosion,turbidity or siltation. C. Cause saltwater intrusion into the fresh water resources of the Town. D. Adversely affect fish, shellfish or other beneficial marine organisms, aquatic wildlife and vegetation or the natural habitat thereof. E. Increase the danger of flood and storm-tide damage. F. Adversely affect navigation on tidal waters or the tidal flow of the tidal waters of the Town. G. Change the course of any channel or the natural movement or flow of any waters. H. Weaken or undermine the lateral support of other lands in the vicinity. I. Otherwise adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the Town. J. Adversely affect the aesthetic value of the wetland and adjacent areas. Contrary to the Trustees' counsel's assertion,there is nothing in the record to establish that the Trustees analyzed the statutory factors set forth in Town Code §275-12. There is no factual recitation or findings of fact set forth in the May 15, 2019 resolution, and neither the resolution,nor the transcript of the May 15, 2019 hearing, set forth any analysis of these factors by the Trustees. Town Code §275-12 clearly states that the Trustees "may"grant a wetlands permit"only if'the Trustees determine that the application will not substantially affect any of the ten statutory facts set forth in §275-12 A-J. While the May 15,2019 resolution includes a cursory finding by the Trustees that the application would not affect the health safety and general welfare of the people of the town,the record is devoid of any analysis, or consideration of the nine remaining statutory factors. Clearly there exists a distinction between a wetlands permit application brought before the Trustees, and an application for variance relief brought before the ZBA. The Trustees' argument that it is not bound by the findings of the ZBA completely overlooks petitioners' argument that in this instance the Trustees failed to adhere to their own determination regarding the bluff line reached during the course of the ZBA proceeding. The ZBA decision, which petitioners submitted to the Trustees at the wetlands hearing on May 15, 2019 specifically notes: On March 2, 2018,the top of the bluff was reflagged by the Trustees and their flags were consistent with the Suffolk County LIDAR map provided by the Southold Town Engineer, and the"corrected top of bluff line"hand drawn on [Birdseye's] survey . . . [R. 11] The Trustees' designation of the bluff line was also acknowledged by Michael Domino, President of the Board of Trustees, in his April 13,2018 memo to the ZBA: This is a follow-up to the Board of Trustees field inspection of April 11, 2018 of 1501 Birdseye LLC wherein we discussed: the survey received April 9, 2018 showing the top of bluff line as determined by area Trustee John Bredemeyer.. . ." [R. 44] KSoaorud 0 5 3 2022 5 of 7 Southold ld Town of T-ils t 1"ILED: SUla FOLK COUNTY CLERIK 0 2 2 04: 7 P INDEX NO. 004826/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 38 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2022 No explanation is offered as to why the Trustees failed to adhere to their own prior determination regarding the flagging of the bluff line that was clearly established and adopted by all parties during the ZBA proceeding. Birdseye's contention that it was not necessary to distinguish between the bluff and the bank in its ZBA application is without merit. The submitted record makes those distinctions apparent. It is clear from references in the ZBA proceeding that the bank line was depicted on the January 2, 2013 survey that accompanied Birdseye's application to the ZBA, and that the accuracy of the bank line was, in fact, referenced by the ZBA in its June 25, 2018 decision ("there was testimony ... relating to the accuracy of the top of the bank/bluff as depicted on [Birdseye's] survey of January 2, 2013"') [R. 11, p.21, and in letters submitted by petitioners in opposition to the ZBA application [R. 9,p. 1, 3]. It was also referenced in the August 7, 2017 letter from Birdseye's counsel, in what appears to be his first correspondence with the Trustees requesting a pre-application site visit, in which he refers to the"top of bank" [R. 24]. Birdseye's counsel's characterization that the March 1, 2018 ZBA hearing was adjourned to have the trustee "reflag the easterly portion of the property," is somewhat disingenuous. Although the ZBA did adjourn the meeting, it was not simply to reflag the easterly portion, but rather to reflag the top of the bluff. While Birdseye's counsel appears to question the accuracy of Trustee Bredemeyer's reflagging of the bluff line, he concedes that Birdseye's own surveyor revisited the location and revised their survey on April 9, 2018 showing the top of bluff line, and Trustee Bredemeyer's bluff line, running together across entire property line from west to east. [R. 45] Birdseye's argument that their surveyor used in the ZBA proceeding merely followed Trustee Bredemeyer's flags and did not make a distinction between the bluff and the bank is conclusory and is not supported by any proof in the record. Birdseye offers this unsupported claim in an attempt to explain its later survey submitted to the Trustees with its wetlands application, conducted by a different surveyor, re-designating the bluff line to a bluff/bank line. Birdseye's argument that the Trustees provided guidance as to what constitutes a bluff and a bank is also conclusory and unsupported by the record. Birdseye refers to a letter from its counsel to the Trustees dated August 14, 2018, and the response from Trustee Domino dated September 21, 2018. Counsel's assertion that the survey submitted with its wetlands application "was reviewed by the Trustees, in collaboration with the Town Engineer,Michael Collins, and Assistant Town Attorney, [and] based on that review trustees determined that the new survey was an accurate depiction of the convergence point of the bluff/bank and the setback was in keeping with the description in their September 21, 2018 letter to Birdseye" is entirely without support in the record. Of note is the undated email sent by Birdseye's counsel to a Trustee Assistant, purportedly outlining what the Building Department requires in order to complete their review of the wetlands application(see Ex. L annexed to Birdseye Affirmation in Opposition). Although the email contains references to Mike Verity [Southold Chief Building Inspector] and the fact that the building inspector wants "verification from the Board in writing that what is being presented on the site plan conforms to the Trustees determination,"as well as"verification from the trustees"that the setback on Birdseye's site plan is accurate, neither the email, nor any 'Despite references to the January 2,2013 survey submitted by Birdseye to the ZBA,the Court was unable to locate it in the Administrative Return. R D C E [� V R 6 L 'f? u 6 of 7 BoUt ld Town --__Board of Trustees p FILED« SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 0 2022 04 07 ' INDEX NO. 004826/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 38 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2022 written verification from the Trustees, is included in the Administrative Return submitted by the Trustees. As noted,the Court's review of the record indicates there is no analysis by the Trustees of the statutory factors set forth in Town Code §275-12, nor any reason given by the Trustees for not adhering to their own prior determination regarding the bluff line flagged by Trustee Bredemeyer and acknowledged by the Trustees during the ZBA proceeding. Accordingly,the May 15, 2019 resolution by the Town of Southold Board of Trustees granting 1505 Birdseye Road, LLC's application for a wetlands permit for construction of a two-level house on property located at 1505 Birdseye Road, Orient is arbitrary and capricious and without a rational basis. Thus, it is hereby if i ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the petition pursuant to CPLR Article78 is granted and U the May 15, 2019 resolution adopted by the Town of Southold Board of Trustees granting respondent 1505 Birdseye Road,LLC's application for a wetlands permit is annulled and vacated.t Dated: April 4,2022 Riverhead,New York AR VIC ORIA ST IA' R , J.S.C„ FINAL DISPOSITION[X] NON-FINAL DISPOSITION [ ] V „ t Petitioners'request for costs of this proceeding is denied. 0 22 oath ld urn Board of Trustees 7 of 7 Exhibit B: ZBA Decision F- S �P 2 3 2022 out hold Town . Board of Trustees , OFFICE LOCATION: MAILING ADDRESS: Town Hall Annex �� P.O.Box 1179 64375 State Road Route 25 Southold,NY 11971 (cor.Main Rd.&Youngs Ave.) L ALSouthold,NY Telephone: 631 765-1809 E C http://southoldtownny.gov i S P 9, 32022 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Town of Southold Southold Town RECEIVED Board of Trustees !113 Wit. FINDINGS,DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION 2 7 2018 MEETING OF DUNE 21,2018 nVA ZBA FILE: 7140 NAME OF APPLICANT: 1505 Birdseye Road,LLC So iotd Town Clerk PROPERTY LOCATION: 1505 Birdseye Road,Orient SCTM#1000-17-1-4 SE RA DETERMIN TON: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under consideration in this application and determines that this review falls under the Type II category of the State's List of Actions,without further steps under SEQRA. S1.IFFOLK C01.INTY AD' INIS TRAT11/E CO This application was referred as required under the Suffolk County Administrative Code Sections A 14-14 to 25, and the Suffolk County Department of Planning issued its reply dated December 1, 2017 stating that this application is considered a matter for local determination as there appears to be no significant county-wide or inter-community impact. LWRP DETERMINATION: This application was referred for review under Chapter 268, Waterfront Consistency review of the Town of Southold Town Code and the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) Policy Standards. The LWRP Coordinator issued a recommendation dated February 16, 2018. Based upon the information provided on the LWRP Consistency Assessment Form, as well as the records available, it is the coordinator's recommendation that the proposed action is INCONSISTENT with LWRP policy standards and therefore is INCONSISTENT with the LWRP.The agency made the following findings: a) The proposed residential structure is not located within the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area (CEHA). However,the property contains large area of slopes equal to or greater than 15 percent. It is recommended that the Southold Board of Trustees verify the top of bluff on the parcel. b) To protect life and property during storm events and erosion over time, it is recommended to locate structures as far from the Long Island Sound bluff to the greatest extent practicable. However due to parcel topography and the amount of slopes on the property, it is recognized that relocating the structure further from the top of the bluff is difficult. c) If action is approved, it is recommended that a non-disturbance buffer is established from the Coastal Erosion Hazard Line (CEHL), seaward to prevent erosion on slopes, preserve the integrity of the bluff, limit turf areas and preserve groundwater and surface water quality. d) The proposal to construct a deer fence more than the code required maximum four(4)feet in height located in the front yard is recommended as CONSISTENT. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TOWN ENCrIIMIEER: This application was referred to the Town Engineer for review. Comments were received on March 7,2018,after the public hearing of March 1,2018,recommending that the applicant re-survey the site to re-assess the location of the top of the bluff. Included with the Town Engineer's U 1►l Page 2,June 7,2018 � p #7140, 1505 Birdseye SCTM No. 1000-17-1-4 Southold Town La rd of rustees comments was a copy of Suffolk County LIDAR Contours which indicated that the top of the bluff had shifted further landward towards the eastern portion of the property than what was noted on the applicant's survey. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BOARD OF TRUSTEES: In a memo dated March 7,2018,the Chairperson of the ZBA informed the.Board of Trustees that during the recent hearing,there were discussions and testimony from opposing environmental and coastal sciences consultants, one representing the applicant, the other representing the neighbors, relating to the accuracy of the top of the bank/bluff as depicted on the applicant's survey of January 2, 2013. On March 8, 2018,the top of the bluff was reflagged by the Trustees and their flags were consistent with the Suffolk County LIDAR map provided by the Southold Town Engineer, and the "corrected top of bluff line"hand drawn on the applicant's survey that was submitted at the hearing by the neighbor's environmental consultant.The ZBA asked the applicant's representative to retain a licensed surveyor to plot the flags on a survey. A revised survey was submitted, dated April 9, 2018 showing the proposed dwelling at 36.7 feet from the top of the bluff at its closest point. On April 13, 2018 the President of the Trustees inspected the subject property in response to a request for comments from the ZBA Chairperson. In a memorandum dated April 13, 2018, the President of the Board of Trustees expressed the need to preserve the vegetation that stabilizes the bluff as well as preserving the low lying area in the southeast corner of the property. The memo stated that the NW orientation of the bluff provides protection from storm events and should be considered a mitigating factor for the revised 36.7 foot bluff setback. SUFFQLK COUNTY SOIL AND WATER CQNSERVATION DISTRICT: This application was referred to the Suffolk County Soil and Water Conservation District for an evaluation and recommendation. The agency informed the ZBA in a letter received December 8,2017,that a site inspection was performed on December 6,2017 to evaluate the potential environmental impacts that would be caused by the construction of a new dwelling on the currently vacant property.The agency observed that the bluff is very well vegetated with no signs of erosion,and noted a large depression at the southern end of the parcel. In addition,the agency described the following potential concerns: the installation of a septic system because of proximity to surface water which would impact water quality;the proposed installation of deer fence on the bluff face which would pose an unacceptable erosion hazard to the bluff;significant land clearing and excavation proposed on the site as a potential for soil erosion;and the use of large and heavy construction equipment which can cause bluff instability. PROPERTY FACTSIDESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 1505 Birdseye Road, Orient,NY. It is a conforming 1.356 acre parcel (to tie line) located in the R-40 Zoning District. The parcel measures 218.10 feet fronting the Long Island Sound along the northerly property line, 389.57 along the easterly property line, 84.15 along the southerly property line, and 322.25 along the westerly property line. The parcel is an undeveloped residential property with steep slopes and a low laying swale area in the southeast corner. The parcel is accessed by a 50 foot private right of way to the southwest corner of the property, as shown on a survey prepared by John T. Metzger,Land Surveyor,dated January 2,2013. BASIS OF APPLICATION: Request for Variances from Article IV, Section 280-18; Article XXII, Section 280- 105; Article XXII, Section 280-116; and the Building Inspector's November 17 2017, Amended November 22, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to construct a new single family dwelling and to erect deer fence at a height of 8 feet at; 1) proposed single family dwelling located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 50 feet; 2)proposed dwelling located less than the code required 100 feet from the top of the bluff; 3) proposed deer fence more than the code required maximum four (4) feet in height when located in the front yard, located at: 1505 Birdseye Road, (Adj. to the Long Island Sound) Orient, NY. SCTM#1000 17-1-4. RELIEF REQUESTED: The applicant requests variances to construct a 6,028 sq. ft. single family dwelling with terrace, pool and pool deck, having a distance of 50 feet from the top of bluff at its closest point, instead of the minimum required setback of 100 feet and having a distance of 41.7 feet from the front yard property line where a 6'1 Page 3,June 7,2018 #7140, 1505 Birdseye 5 1� 2 3 K22 SCTM No. 1000-17-1-4 Southold Townp minimum of 50 feet is required. In addition,the applicant requests permission to constru _4� deer fence in the front yard,which is not permitted. All is depicted on a survey prepared by John T.Metzger,Land Surveyor; last revised April 9,2018.1 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: On February 28, 2018 the Board of Appeals received written correspondence from the attorney representing several neighboring property owners opposing the variances requested. The communication includes a letter and report from an environmental scientist specializing in coastal issues. Subsequent to a site inspection, the specialist describes the subject property as containing extreme geological constraints to development and cites potential adverse and unrecoverable impacts to the bluff. During the public hearing of March 1,2018,testimony in opposition by legal and environmental representatives of several of the applicant's neighbors,and the neighbors themselves,continued.The concerns expressed included the possible inaccuracy of the top of the bluff location on the original survey submitted with the application, the need to protect the bluff from erosion which would be caused by the removal of large areas of existing vegetation close to and on top of the bluff during clearing for construction, and the fact that deer fencing does not exist in and is therefore not characteristic of their neighborhood. The Board received from the applicant's agent a report dated April 2,2018,written by a specialist from New York Sea Grant, a SUNY University based program, outlining and discussing science based coastal processes that are occurring on and around the subject property. In the report, causes of bluff erosion are identified, and it acknowledges that the current well vegetated condition of the bluff helps in preventing further erosion. The low lying, swale, located on the southern portion of the property is not identified as a wetland or as an area needing protection. AMENDED APPLICATION: The applicant submitted a revised survey to the Building Department,dated April 9, 2018 which depicts the top of the bluff on the property per the findings of the Town Trustees and Town Engineer. An amended Notice of Disapproval was issued on April 18, 2018 identifying the top of the bluff setback to the proposed new dwelling at 36.7 feet where the code requires a minimum of 100 feet. The variance relief for the proposed non-conforming front yard setback of 47.1 feet and deer fencing in the front yard remain the same. FINDINGS OF FACT/REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on March 1,2018 and May 3,2018 at which time written and oral evidence were presented. Based upon all testimony, documentation,personal inspection of the property and surrounding neighborhood,and other evidence,the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be true and relevant and makes the following findings: 1. Town Lave 267-bL&b)(1). Grant of the variances will produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The neighborhood is accessed via a private right of way that leads to several inland and waterfront properties developed with large single family dwellings.The subject property is one of the few undeveloped parcels in the area, especially along Long Island Sound. Many of the lots are irregularly shaped and dwellings are placed on the properties at different angles to each other. While some waterfront homes have non-conforming bluff setbacks, the average is almost double the distance being requested by the applicant.None of the homes in the immediate area have deer fencing of any kind. The bridge that extends into the front yard over the low lying area, leading to the applicant's proposed dwelling, is not typical in the neighborhood. 1 Although the application as applied for was for relief for a structure of 50 feet from the top of the bluff,an updated survey and site inspection by members of the Board and Town Trustees showed the proposed structure would actually be 36.5 feet from the top of the bluff(see Amended Application below.) � V Page 4,June 7,2018 #7140, 1505 Birdseye SCTM No. 1000-17-1-4 2. Irown Law 267-b 2 . ;The benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The applicant can shift the house further to the south in order to increase the top of bluff setback to a conforming distance. The low lying swale area to the south portion of the parcel has not been flagged as a protected wetland, nor does it have any elements of a protected wetland area. Additionally, as noted above,a site plan by a registered architect was submitted to the Board of Appeals that shows a 12,954 square foot buildable area on the subject property in conformance with all town code setbacks that would permit the applicant to construct up to a 6,028 square foot dwelling with a terrace,pool and pool deck 3. Town Law §267-b(3)dbl( ). The variances granted herein are mathematically substantial, representing 63.3% relief from the code for the top of bluff setback, 16% relief from the code for the front yard setback, and 100% relief from the code for an eight foot deer fence erected in the front yard. 4. Town Law 267-b b 4 Evidence has been submitted to suggest that a variance in this residential community will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. Differing perspectives were presented by experts on behalf of the applicant and those in opposition to the application regarding the impacts that the proposed dwelling could have on bluff erosion and instability in the proposed location on the subject property. The Board finds that the testimony that there exists potential adverse and unrecoverable impacts to the bluff if the relief is granted, as more credible. The Board further finds that relocating the proposed dwelling to conform to town setback requirements will preserve the existing vegetation that stabilizes the bluff.Moreover, the Board has established a precedent to preserve bluffs in its decision in the Matter of Aliano v. Oliva case in which the Board denied a 50 foot bluff setback for a proposed 1,600 square foot house because it would "introduce impermeable surfaces and alter soil structure causing accelerated recession which could result in damage to the neighboring properties and to the proposed dwelling"(ZBA file no.: 5846,August 31, 2006). Additionally, although the Board of Town Trustees indicated the need to preserve the low lying area in the southeast corner (front yard) of the property, they offer no explanation as to why, since the area has not been flagged as protected wetlands. 5. Town Law 267-b 5). The difficulty has been self-created. The applicant purchased the parcel after the Zoning Code was in effect and it is presumed that the applicant had actual or constructive knowledge of the limitations on the use of the parcel under the Zoning Code in effect prior to or at the time of purchase. 6. Town Law 4267-b. Grant of the requested relief is not the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable the applicant to enjoy the benefit of a new home while preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood and the health,safety and welfare of the community. RESOL—U—UQN OF THE BOARD: In considering all of the above factors and applying the balancing test under New York Town Law 267-13, motion was offered by Member Acampora, seconded by Member Planamento, and duly carried,to DENY the variance relief as applied for Vote of the Board: Ayes:Members Weisman(Chairperson),Dantes,Acampora,and Planamento(Member Lehnert abstained): This Resolution was duly adopted(4-1). j5w E C E W E lie bane Weisman,Chairperson - Approved for filing 6 a S/2018 1 E P 2 3g0 " A, Southold Town Board of Trustees Exhibit C: 2019 Site Plan rEuumum .....w,ai...Mw.�.w�'......w.� Southold Town Board of Trustees NAT SLOURAL I W IPE WOOD MAkPE I H Q '= STEP EOCE �"` 10.0' 10.0' CL 50J �O SECTION C o G @BEACH ACCESS 0� N A' � ACCESS NYSOECCQISTAIBiOGYki \ ..y. \� €"¢`k'^'.(3 de BUI T N17ARUILE SNEkTIa R10ro Trl YOb9181AW 18,198E / :ONI'i�rll U (p �€HANG ACCESS FROM 3,ah3 � CD VAX = 5„ EL21-Or lov d x = M L BROWN`�ANUY',•I I Will CIVN� IN \ k APERMPPROVILD Y IOWN TRUSTEE_s ) SECTION DETAIL wn 111 n I AI r L YN .I Ir An PE WOOD EDGE STEPS t? NON RINI-HIIEIFR WITH '• (SEE CHART / Nn I It I\I f:CNN ,:/l Y SAND SL APPROVED I BY i1, , LncoM1u liu N V ' BOARD OF'IP.USTEES I WA I k NfOI1N TFNl i z TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 1 IS 1111 W•.NI A,I s° - + �� - DATE TEST HOLE E TOEISTMLOTUIE _' } NEW A'FENCE r • ; R p 'fFA - It:)V III II 1 INII II V.- ..I IIf'I I Nt:IA fr;N,kl II INHI •AR E'I PVC NLI I # 4mati E - I'll+E IROM fO - INTERMITTENT 'a POND A � - IA PCNU €" NCN AOVI`I•:OII%III I 4l 71AP vnMS I1•MIN NEW A'FLNCC II h NIA A r 'N" 3 L" I1fl "s.f 0)N,I.I NEW 4'FENCE i J' >H. I A N(,PING ` FENCE WILL BE LAID TO AVOID IARGF.TREES _ T AND 0 STURBCD AREA WILL BE REPLANTED Cl .I NOVI`I i IP,•T W,TH NATIVE VEGETATION '+ - O\ JI•'AI. I%'MIN NEW 4' PROPOSED i FENCE i� WEI 1- NI I;k/JNI I1NIll:IUROI N "• ��- �-= NAIIIA 1l IIS LOT COVERAGE NEW T-ST IIOLC -LOT AREA: ��"'•'- ( .. -'-=1 DEER GRATES NCTE:'JSE MCUDNALO I .�_,)q,y ;IIAN`.A\)n BUILDABLE AREA(LANDWARD OF CEHL LINE): 35.698 SF '-_ GEOSCIENCE 10/03/12 / X k / i IN•.I I IIIMAX.LOT COVERAGE(20%OF BUILDABLE AREA) /,20 OF 35,690 SF=,ie�.E E � � - NCIV YVIN 2' 0' MIN- 0' O TOTAL BUILDING COVERAGE: r=-_ -.r � � N LNIRANCL GAIL TYP SECTION @LEACHING POOL SITE PLAN r�l l /e� (GRA .SWALE DETAIL) . \ \I \ WELL WELL DESIGNER: ARCHRECTOFRECORD: PROJEC'{: - DRAWINGTTILE: JOB No: 1705 C A R L 0 S SITE PLAN DATE: APR.01.2019 Z A P A T A ORIENT HOUSE 4 SEETNO 1,92='-0, Andrew Pollock Architect,PC S T U D 1 0 1505 BIRDSEYE ROAD Sfi,dotlxry.,AT,B NeNYeN.NY,00,J ll-K IEW-K112 - A.100.1 BROONLVN.NEW VORK t121i ORIENT NY11957 P k41 V i+3 T:11Y.BTB.W W �-r �tl tl Exhibit D: 2022 Site Plan C C . w a a rd of Ta to I\ 0,* SC'UIIS Lel:l,1f R-_70- 13-0062 St/IeIYI..I,'Y OF' JJ1eOl)rif?71y NAVEMBER230. S012(REVISION) AT OldEPVT AUGUST 2,2013(RFV SED BLDG LNVTLOPC) F OCTOBER 30 201A(CLEARN^Al BLUFF LCCAT,ON) .� ,0IW',TAI I)1#� Ay/)71 7�1..!/1/,Il JANUARY 03 2018 (PROPOSED HOUSE) O ll�. / O / ,4a�nRY 24 2,s 8 itFk+4 �;1 C/7'I'OI lC CO UN7'.); N. Y AP-AL'96,220,01P fq a r ee s x s) _ 1000 17-01-04C `€ER 29,z T w[ x=DN) I MARCH 11,2020(10115 &TREES) 11 SCALA` 1"— 40' APRIL 16,2022(RrmsIONS) A-RIL 22,2022(RCVI5IONS) LrU �' f .`ce g C) _ `, �' R,O� 4 BEACH ACCFSS - ® — �� lY" 2 CLEARED&BUII T 5 V C BY WIND ACCESS FROM IANDCL r' s L 3' '- - an= r E _ ' PALE BROWN SANDY 51,T .YIL Q - 1 C —I I ® FOP HN BLUFF LILAC TO FI AGGLU � 6113� �`, �, BY JOIIN Rlrl I7TMCYER TOWN TRUSTEEf. NON tLW Par",TQ Mifft (D - LDAe ! A '# AER 6 CLE OF ;:ET 0 JStE ;.(n 3f 5"` ,fit, q N 1 H IN FROWN CLAY Er.SAND S'[: �E kT6-`0 1 SY N7"eR •V ILl IN BROWN O.NT,0:IIIN.r :WNiJ sl: 14%1 L's.FS _tea AREA F 1 - 4 norr Wrulr Ivcc,IrcncD :6' ,r;,ux- ,ur;Ac: EXISTING CREST OF BLUFF--- FLAGS AI1rJ`IJ HY INTER SCIENCE ON 09/23/14, v'AGH`fiq L€.5 ; 4_ f,S7 'IOi L i)A!/, 4 y, c < Mc:iONA ,\ EXTENDING BIC IlIIRt CREST TO EASTERN LOT LINE U Cr JSC:LPo'[I / TEST HOLE ( 1 sIL� „�s- WITH PIVC /(..4 �4k � $ � 4. T`A NCW 4'FENC4 / # PROPOSED WELL ` y FR-HSE 1i r� 3 PROPOSED HOUSE ROOF AREA-6,02E SOFT. S. 3 6,026'0.17 X 10= I.02476 CU.FT '1 .- z - A NEW 9'tENCE 1.024.76 CU.FT./42.21 sO FI =242B LIN FT. NEW 4'FENCE PROV DF(4)DRY WELLS B'B x B'DEEP FENCE WILL BE LAID TO AVOID IARGE TREES ,t - -•1 32.00 FT REOUINLD AND DISTURBED AREA WILL BE REPIANTFO - [ HIM ELELV 19.0' WITH NATIVE VEGETATION. _ NEW 4' ..^` f FLNCL ' NL LOT COVERAGE 9 NEW IM -LOT AREAL* =__ DEER E =BUILDABLE AREA(LANDWARD OF CEHL LINE): 35,69E SF TEST HOLE=MAX LOT COVERAGE(20%OF BUILDABLE AREA): 20%OF 35,696 SF SF -"` NOTE:1)SF MCOUNALD AUG -s X�TOTAL BUILDING COVERAGE: _-}�-- ¥� � NEW C CEOSCIENCE 10/03/17�. TTte T3 LAN WELL Vat I50+FROM PROPOSED 5U - SEPTIC ($ - DESIGNER: ARCHITECT OF RECORD: i DRAWING TITLE: JOB No: 1705 C A R L 0 S DATE: APR.01.2019 SITE PLAN SCALE: 1/37'=IT' Z A P A T A ORIENT HOUSE T SSHEEF NO: Andrew Pollock Architect,PC �" S T U D I O 965o HaXFMoSTR�6T. 1505 BIRDSEYE ROAD A a 11- ORIENT NY11957 A.100.1 fi61boe6woy,4A,IB R,.Yv.NY,00,� .�„L°R,N�.,YpgI1, d ` L T 2—Y69 F Y13.9tl.9R42 T:3126]e 6014 ¢ w Exhibit E: New York Natural Heritage Program - Vernal Pool Guide C r-, � W Ez rrj �f rat Vernal Pool Guide-New York Natural Heritage Program 9/1/22,5:07 PM Vernal Pool System Palustrine Contents Subsystem a Forested Mineral Soil Wetlands 1. Summary State Protection 2. Conservation and Management sb, ` Not Listed 8 3. Range 4. Identification Comments Not listed or protected by New York State. 5. Classification 6. Additional Resources mi 7. About This Guide Federal Protection Not Listed (/media/i2422.jpg) Vernal pool at Saratoga National Historical Park State Conservation Status Rank Gregory J.Edinger S3 8 Vulnerable in New York-Vulnerable to disappearing from New York due to rarity or other factors(but not currently imperiled);typically 21 to 80 populations or locations in New York,few individuals,restricted range,few remaining acres (or miles of stream),and/or recent and widespread declines. Global Conservation Status Rank G4 9 Apparently Secure globally-Uncommon in the world but not rare;usually widespread,but may be rare in some parts of its range;possibly some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors. Summary Did you know? Many animals depend on vernal pools,especially for breeding.Most of these animals such as frogs,toads,turtles,and salamanders spend a majority of their life in nearby wetlands but migrate to breed or feed in productive vernal pools„Fingernail clams and air-breathing snails live their entire life in vernal pools and must burrow beneath leaves and mud when the pool dries until the water returns.Fairy shrimp produce eggs that remain in the dry pool after the adult's death and hatch after the pool refills. State Ranking Justification There are probably a few thousand occurrences statewide.Vernal pools are typically small(i.e.,generally under one acre)and may be overlooked as wetlands after the water draws down.A few documented occurrences have good viability and are protected on public land or private conservation land.This community has statewide distribution,and likely includes several high quality examples.The current trend of this community is probably stable for occurrences on public land,or declining slightly elsewhere due to moderate threats related to development pressure,alteration to the natural hydrology, and reduced protection regulations for isolated wetlands.This community has probably declined moderately from historical numbers likely correlated with logging and —C__ development of the surrounding landscape. Short-term Trends E P https://guides.nynhp.org/vernal-pool/ � �� Page 1 of 8 SoW1101d Town Board of Trustees N W Vernal Pool Guide-New York Natural Heritage Program 9/1/22, 5:07 PM The number and acreage of vernal pools in New York have probably declined in recent decades as a result of reduced protection regulations for isolated wetlands.Their relatively small size and seasonal hydroperiod may have contributed to the decline with many occurrences going undetected as regulated wetlands. Long-term Trends The number and acreage of vernal pools in New York have declined moderately from historical numbers likely correlated to the alteration to the natural hydrology and direct destruction,in both forested and urban areas. Conservation and Management Threats In 2001,the federal Supreme Court ruled that the US Congress did not give authority to the US Army Corps of Engineers(US ACE)under section 404 of the Clean Water Act to regulate the filling of isolated wetlands.This decision led US EPA and US ACE officials to issue guidance in January 2003 that made it more difficult for regulators to protect isolated wetlands,such as vernal pools(Brooks and Paton 2005).Vernal pools are threatened by development(e.g.,agriculture,residential,roads)and its associated run- off(e.g.,septic,silt,nutrients),habitat alteration(e.g.,excessive logging,pollution,trash dumping),and recreational overuse(e.g.,ATVs).Alteration to the natural hydrological regime is also a threat to this community(e.g.,ditching,impoundments). Conservation Strategies and Management Practices Where practical,establish and maintain a natural wetland buffer to reduce storm-water, pollution,and nutrient run-off,while simultaneously capturing sediments before they reach the vernal pool.Buffer width should take into account the erodibility of the surrounding soils,slope steepness,and use of the surrounding upland by vernal pool fauna„Wetlands protected under Article 24 are known as New York State"regulated" wetlands.The regulated area includes the wetlands themselves,as well as a protective buffer or"adjacent area"extending 100 feet landward of the wetland boundary(NYS DEC 1995).Vernal pools seldom meet the size criteria for state regulated wetland.If possible,minimize the number and size of impervious surfaces in the surrounding landscape.Avoid habitat alteration within the wetland and surrounding landscape.For example,roads and trails should be routed around vernal pools,and ideally should not pass through the buffer area.Restore vernal pools that have been unnaturally disturbed (e.g.,remove obsolete impoundments and ditches in order to restore the natural hydrology).Prevent the spread of invasive exotic species into the wetland through appropriate direct management,and by minimizing potential dispersal corridors,such as roads. Specific management recommendations for vernal pools can be found in the following: 1)Best Development Practices:Conserving Pool-Breeding Amphibians in Residential and Commercial Developments in the Northeastern United States(Calhoun and Klemens 2002),and 2)Forestry Habitat Management Guidelines for Vernal Pool Wildlife(Calhoun and deMaynadier 2004). Development and Mitigation Considerations - w When considering road construction and other development activities minimize actions E that will change what water carries and how water travels to this community,both on the surface and underground.Water traveling over-the-ground as run-off usually carries an abundance of silt,clay,and other articulates during and often after a construction project.While still suspended in the water,these particulates make it difficult for aquatic m „ Lj� t')i Y P 9( ) animals to find food;after settling to the bottom of the wetland,these particulates bury small plants and animals and alter the natural functions of the community in many other ways.Thus,road construction and development activities near this community type should strive to minimize particulate-laden run-off into this community.Water traveling Southold own on the ground or seeping through the ground also carries dissolved minerals and Trustees - Board ®f Tr. ..._ �... chemicals.Road salt,for example,is becoming an increasing problem both to natural communities and as a contaminant in household wells.Fertilizers,detergents,and other chemicals that increase the nutrient levels in wetlands cause algae blooms and eventually an oxygen-depleted environment where few animals can live.Herbicides and https://guides.nynhp.org/vernal-pool/ Page 2 of 8 W Wi Vernal Pool Guide-New York Natural Heritage Program 9/1/22,5:07 PM pesticides often travel far from where they are applied and have lasting effects on the quality of the natural community.So,road construction and other development activities should strive to consider:1.how water moves through the ground,2.the types of dissolved substances these development activities may release,and 3.how to minimize the potential for these dissolved substances to reach this natural community. Inventory Needs Survey for occurrences statewide to advance documentation and classification of vernal pools.Finding occurrences with several pools forming a complex should be a priority.A statewide review of vernal pools is desirable. Research Needs Research is needed to fill information gaps about vernal pools,especially to advance our understanding of their classification,hydrology,floristic variation,and characteristic fauna.Research is needed to see if vernal pool species assemblages are related to the underlying bedrock(e.g.,acidic vs.alkaline)and/or the surrounding forest type(e.g., needle-leaf evergreen vs.broad-leaf deciduous). Rare Species • Ambystoma tigrinum(Tiger Salamander)(guide(/tiger-salamanders) • Aplexa elongata(Lance Aplexa)(guide(/lance-aplexm) • Carex buxbaumii(Brown Bog Sedge)(guide(/brown-bog-sedges) • Carex lupuliformis(False Hop Sedge)(guide(/false-hop-sedges) • Carex typhina(Cat-tail Sedge)(guide(/cat-tail-sedges) • Hottonia inflata(American Featherfoil)(guide(/featherfoils) Lestes unguiculatus(Lyre-tipped Spreadwing)(guide(/lyre-tipped-spreadwings) • Myotis lucifugus(Little Brown Bat)(guide(/little-brown-bats) Range New York State Distribution This community is widespread throughout New York State.It is probably represented by different regional variants. Global Distribution This physically broadly-defined community may be worldwide.Examples with the greatest biotic affinities to New York occurrences are suspected to span north to southern Canada,west to Minnesota,southwest to Indiana and Tennessee,southeast to Georgia,and northeast to Nova Scotia. Best Places to See • Quinn Oak Openings Unique Area(Monroe County) • Mohonk Preserve(Ulster County) • Peebles Island State Park(Saratoga County) • Minnewaska State Park(Ulster County) • Roosevelt-Vanderbilt National Historic Site • Muttontown Preserve(Nassau County) LW,,. „ • Saratoga National Historic Park(Saratoga County) L , C • Adirondack Park(Warren County) � Identification Commentsn, P µ 2 022�- General Description I Southold Town Vernal pools are intermittently to ephemerally ponded,small,shallow depressions Board of Trustees— usually located within an upland forest.They are typically flooded in spring or after a — heavy rainfall,but are usually dry during summer.Many vernal pools are filled again in autumn.The substrate is dense leaf litter over hydric soils.Vernal pools typically occupy a confined basin(i.e.,a standing waterbody without a flowing outlet),but may have an intermittent stream flowing out of it during high water.Since vernal pools cannot support fish populations,there is no threat of fish predation on amphibian eggs or invertebrate https://guides.nynhp.org/vernal-pool/ Page 3 of 8 Vernal Pool Guide-New York Natural Heritage Program 9/1/22,5:07 PM larvae.Characteristic animals of vernal pools include species of amphibians,reptiles, crustaceans,mollusks,annelids,and insects.Vernal pool amphibians include spotted salamander(Ambystoma maculatum),blue-spotted salamander(A.laterale),Jefferson's salamander(A.jeffersonianum),marbled salamander(A.opacum),and wood frog(Rana sylvatica).Fairy shrimp(Anostraca)are obligate vernal pool crustaceans,with Eubranchipus spp.being the most common. Characters Most Useful for Identification Individual vernal pools are typically small(<0.5 acre),are surrounded by upland forest with trees that overhang the pool,providing a continuous leaf litter substrate,and are generally sparsely vegetated and fishless.The presence of animals categorized as obligate vernal pool species(species that depend upon vernal pool habitat for their survival)helps confirm the identification. Elevation Range Known examples of this community have been found at elevations between 50 feet and 1,879 feet. Best Time to See Vernal pools are best observed after spring thaw when they are filled with melt water and breeding wood frogs start calling.April is generally a good month to visit vernal pools in New York(earlier to the south and later to the north).Repeat visits to the same vernal pool as the water draws down increases the chances of seeing the full array of characteristic vernal pool species at different stages of their life cycle. Vernal Pool Images NO �9l y„ rti (/media/i2422.jPg) Classification International Vegetation Classification Associations This New York natural community encompasses all or part of the concept of the 5 E 2 2022 following International Vegetation Classification(IVC)natural community associations. These are often described at finer resolution than New York's natural communities.The _ IVC is developed and maintained by NatureServe. Sou'thol T(14rj • Eastern Woodland Vernal Pool(CEGL006453 Gr Board of Trustees_ (http://explorer.natureserve.org/servlet/NatureServe? sea rchCom mu nftyU id=ELEM ENT_G LOBAL.2.791626)) Characteristic Species https:/Iguides.nynhp.org/vernal-pool/ Page 4 of 8 n � Vernal Pool Guide-New York Natural Heritage Program 9/1/22,5:07 PM Trees>5m Acer rubrum Betula alleghaniensis(yellow birch) Fraxinus americana(white ash) Fraxinus pennsylvanica(green ash) Quercus alba(white oak) Quercus bicolor(swamp white oak) Quercus palustris(pin oak) Tsuga canadensis(eastern hemlock) Ulmus rubra(slippery elm) Shrubs 2-5m Lindera benzoin(spicebush) Pinus rigida(pitch pine) Vaccinium corymbosum(highbush blueberry) Shrubs<2m Cephalanthus occidentalis(buttonbush) Kalmia angustifolia Nemopanthus mucronatus Herbs Boehmeria cylindrica(false nettle) Carex canescens Carex stricta(tussock sedge) Eleocharis acicularis(needle spike-rush) Lemna minor(common duckweed) Onoclea sensibilis(sensitive fern) Pilea pumila Thelypteris palustris Nonvascular plants Leucobryum glaucum Sphagnum spp. Similar Ecological Communities • Coastal plain pond(guide(/coastal-plain-pond)6 In New York,coastal plain ponds are restricted to Long Island and are most common in the Central Pine Barrens.The ponds are generally larger than vernal pools and reveal a distinct zonation of vegetation on the pond shore as the water draws down.Coastal plain ponds may hold water throughout the year and larger examples may support fish.Vernal pools are typically small(<0.5 acre),are surrounded by upland forest with trees that overhang the pool,and are generally sparsely vegetated and fishless. • Eutrophic pond(guide(/eutrophic-pond)O Eutrophic ponds are permanently flooded and usually never completely draw down.Eutrophic ponds usually have an inlet and outlet,and support fish. I� • Intermittent stream(guide(/intermittent-stream)O Vernal pools form in depressions with no inlet or outlet.Intermittent streams 4 da flow down hill in a linear streambed.Both are ephemeral aquatic communities that usually dry u as the season progresses and theyshare many species that depend onntermittent flooding. m� �q � � ry f ^�,a • Marl pond shore(guide(/marl-pond-shore)8 S rio ("... These communities are similar in that they are associated with relatively Sfrar Tres ^._..^...,I small waterbodies that usually draw down in most years.However,marl pond shores have marl deposits on gravel substrate and vegetation,often with a mat of stranded stoneworts(Chara sp.),and lacking a continuous leaf litter substrate.Whereas,vernal pools lack marl deposits and stoneworts, and have overhanging trees that usually produce a continuous leaf litter https://guides.nynhp.org/vernal-pool/ Page 5 of 8 Vernal Pool Guide-New York Natural Heritage Program 9/1/22, 5:07 PM substrate. Pine barrens vernal pond(guide(/pine-barrens-vernal-pond)O Individual vernal pools are typically small(<0.5 acre),are surrounded by upland forest with trees that overhang the pool,and are generally sparsely vegetated.Pine barrens vernal ponds are larger(>1 acre),surrounded by fire- adapted pine barren communities,and the vegetation is usually well- developed and distinct from vernal pool vegetation.The two communities are similar in that they provide habitat for many of the same animals that depend on seasonally flooded depressions to breed. Vegetation Trees>5m NEEMN Shrubs 2-5m Shrubs<2m Vines Herbs INonvascular plants I% Percent cover This figure helps visualize the structure and"look"or"feel"of a typical Vernal Pool.Each bar represents the amount of"coverage"for all the species growing at that height.Because layers overlap(shrubs may grow under trees,for example),the shaded regions can add up to more than 100%. Additional Resources References Barbour,S.1999.Northern Shawangunks Vernal Pools Inventory.Final Report to the Shawangunk Biodiversity Partnership.Unpublished report.Eastern New York Chapter of The Nature Conservency,Troy,New York. Brooks,R.P.,T.J.O'Connell,D.H.Wardrop.L.E.Jackson.1998.Towards a regional index of biological integrity:The example of forested riparian ecosystems. Environmental Monitoring and Assesments 51:131-143. �•• —� �— ^ ]D Brooks,R.T.and P.W.C.Paton.2005.Introduction to the symposium:woodland vernal pools in northern temperate forests.Wetland Ecology and Management 13:211-212. .n V�ryry II p 0221 Brooks,R.T.,J.Stone,and P.Lyons.1998.An inventory of seasonal forest ponds on the Quabbin Reservoir Watershed,Massachusetts.Northeastern Naturalist 5(3):219- 230. _, " Southold Town Burne,M.R.and C.R.Griffin.2005.Habitat associations of pool-breeding amphibians in Board of Trustees eastern Massachusetts,USA.Wetlands Ecology and Management 13:247-259. Burne,M.R.and C.R.Griffin.2005.Protecting vernal pools:a model from Massachusetts,USA„Wetlands Ecology and Management 13:367-375. https://guides.nynhp.org/vernal-pool/ Page 6 of 8 t t Y Vernal Pool Guide-New York Natural Heritage Program 9/1/22, 5:07 PM Calhoun,A.J.K.and M.W.Klemens.2002.Best development practices:Conserving pool-breeding amphibians in residential and commercial developments in the northeastern United States.MCA Technical Paper No.5,Metropolitan Conservation Alliance,Wildlife Conservation Society,Bronx,New York. Calhoun,A.J.K.and P.DeMaynadier.2004.Forestry habitat management guidelines for vernal pool wildlife.MCA Technical Paper No.6,Metropolitan Conservation Alliance, Wildlife Conservation Society,Bronx,New York. Calhoun,A.J.K.and P.G.deMaynadier.2008.Science and Conservation of Vernal Pools in Northeastern North America.CRC Press,Taylor and Francis Group,Boca Raton, FL. Colburn,E.A.(editor).1997.A Citizen's Step-by-Step Guide to Protecting Vernal Pools. Seventh edition,Winter 1997.Massachusetts Audubon Society,Lincoln,MA. Colburn,E.A.2004.Vernal Pools:Natural History and Conservation.The McDonald and Woodward Publishing Company,Blacksburg,VA.426 pp. Comer,P.K.Goodin,G.Hammerson,S.Menard,M.Pyne,M.Reid,M.Robles,M. Russo,L.Sneddon,K.Sno,A.Tomaino,and M.Tuffy.2005.Biodiversity Values of Geographically Isolated Wetlands:An Analysis of 20 U.S.States.NatureServe, Arlington,VA. Cowardin,L.M.,V.Carter,F.C.Golet,and E.T.La Roe.1979.Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States.U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington,D.C.131 pp. Edinger,G.J.,D.J.Evans,S.Gebauer,T.G.Howard,D.M.Hunt,and A.M.Olivero (editors).2014.Ecological Communities of New York State.Second Edition.A revised and expanded edition of Carol Reschke's Ecological Communities of New York State.New York Natural Heritage Program,New York State Department of Environmental Conservation,Albany,NY.https://www.nynhp.org/ecological-commu nfties/(hftps://www.nynhp.org/ecological-communfties� Edinger,Gregory J.,D.J.Evans,Shane Gebauer,Timothy G.Howard,David M.Hunt, and Adele M.Olivero(editors).2002.Ecological Communities of New York State. Second Edition.A revised and expanded edition of Carol Reschke's Ecological Communities of New York State.(Draft for review).New York Natural Heritage Program,New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.Albany,NY. 136 pp. Flatebo,G.,C.R.Foss,and S.K.Pelletier.1999.Biodiversity in the Forests of Maine: Guidlelines for Land Management.University of Maine Cooperative Extension, Orono,ME. Huth,P,and D.Smiley.1981.Shawangunk Vernal Pool Report.Daniel Smiley Research Center.Mohonk Preserve,Inc.New Paltz,New York. Kenney,L.P.and M.R.Burne.2000.A Field Guide to the Animals of Vernal Pools. Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife,Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program and Vernal Pool Association,Westborough,MA. New York Natural Heritage Program.2022.New York Natural Heritage Program Databases.Albany,NY. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.1995.Freshwater Wetlands: Delineation Manual.July 1995.New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.Division of Fish,Wildlife,and Marine Resources.Bureau of Habitat. Albany,NY. �"� dry Paton,P.W.C.and W.B.Crouch III.2002.Using the phenology of pond-breeding p µ amphibians to develop conservation strategies.Conservation Biology 16(1):194- J 204. Reschke,Carol.1990.Ecological communities of New York State.New York Natural ur ! Heritage Program,New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Latham,NY.96 pp.plus xi. Links ter f Trustees • Vernal Pool Association(http://www.vernalpool.org/vernal_l.htm) L_Bmm' • Vernal Pools(EPA)(https://www.epa.gov/wetlands/vernal-pools) • Woodland Pool Conservation(NYS DEC) (http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/52325.htmi) https://guides.nynhp.org/vernal-pool/ Page 7 of 8 Vernal Pool Guide-New York Natural Heritage Program 9/1/22, 5:07 PM About This Guide This guide was authored by:D.J.Evans Information for this guide was last updated on:April 17,2019 Please cite this page as: New York Natural Heritage Program.2022.Online Conservation Guide for Vernal pool. Available from:https:Hguides.nynhp.org/vernal-pool/.Accessed September 1,2022. ©2004-2022 New York Natural Heritage Progmm(http://www.nynhp.org),a program of the State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry(httpsJ/www.esf.edu/) in partnership with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation(http://vvww.dec.ny.gov/index.htmi) E P 13 '210u�.l:.. Litho18dTown Board f Trustees https://guides.nynhp.org/vernal-pool/ Page 8 of 8 Exhibit F: Table of Conservation Status of Vernal Pool Species a W E SE P 3 2022 Board .. *. ., Table 1. Vernal pool indicator species and state conservation status (E=endangered,T=threatened,SC=special concern,P=present,A=absent). INDICATOR SPECIES RI CT MA NH VT ME NY Blue-spotted salamander A T/SC SC P Sc P Sc Jefferson salamander A Sc SC Sc Sc A SC Spotted salamander P P P P P P P Marbled salamander P P T Sc A 3 A SC Tiger salamander A A A A A A E Wood frog P P P P P P P S adefoot toad T E T A A A SC Fairy shrimp P P SC P P P P Featherfoil Sc SC LP P A T T 'The blue-spotted salamander is extirpated in Rhode Island. 2Blue-spotted pure diploid populations are listed as Threatened;the blue-spotted hybrid complex is listed as Special Concern. 'Unsubstantiated historic records;no populations have been located(Andrews 2001). 4Fairy shrimp comprise a group of several related crustaceans throughout the region;"P"indicates presence of one or more species. 5In Massachusetts,the Intricate Fairy Shrimp is listed as Special Concern. Table 2. Vernal pool facultative species and state conservation statusl (E=endangered,T=threatened,SC=special concern,P=present,H=historical record only,A=absent). FACULTATIVE SPECIES RI 1 CT MA NH VT ME NY Northern cricket fro A A A A A A E Western chorus frog A A A A E A P Four-toed salamander P P Sc P Sc SC P S otted turtle P P SC SC E T SC Wood turtle Sc I Sc Sc P Sc Sc Sc Blandin 's turtle A A T SC A E T Eastern box turtle P SC SC A A E SC Eastern ribbon snake Sc Sc P P Sc Sc P Eastern ho nose snake SC SC P P A H SC Ringed bo haunter dra onfl SC E E E A E H 'For the purposes of this table,we have combined RI's categories of SI(State Interest)and C(Concern)to equal Special Concern(SQ. In-depth natural history accounts of pool-breeding amphibians and other species can be found in Amphibians and Reptiles of Connecticut and Adjacent Regions(Klemens 1993), Amphibians and Reptiles in Connecticut:A Checklist with Notes on Conservation Status and Distribution(Klemens 2000),Maine Amphibians and Reptiles(Hunter et al. 1999),A Field Guide to the Animals of Vernal Pools(Kenney and Burne 2000),A Guide to Amphibians and Reptiles(Tyning 1990), and Salamanders of the United States and Canada (Petranka 1998). See Figure 7 for examples of various stages within a mole salamander(Ambystoma) life cycle. 0C . Southold Town" Rnnrd of Tri mtpac �,jg FF 01 Glenn'Goldsmith,President ? �?' Gd Town Hall Annex A.Nicholas Krupski,Vice President ] <� 54375 Route 25 Eric Sepenoski ,? P.O.Box 1179 Liz Gillooly �y • o� Qy Southold,NY 11971 Elizabeth Peeples �� % Telephone(631)765-1892 Fax(631)765-6641 Southold Town Board of Trustees Field Inspection Report Date/Time: 202;1, Completed in field by: mil ' Michael A. Kimack on behalf of 1505 BIRDSEYE ROAD LLC requests an Administrative Permit for clearing and grubbing approximately18,365 sq. ft. (3,175 sq. ft. non turf buffer area and 15,190 sq.ft. landward of non turf buffer to 100 foot setback line) from westerly property line following top of bluff to easterly property line and setback 100 feet. Infill approximately 590.5 cu. yds. (301.5 cu. yds. from excavation and 289 cu. yds from off site) of the area from proposed landward side of proposed non turf buffer to 100 foot setback line. Install proposed I/A system seaward of 100 foot setback line from bluff as approved by Suffolk County Wastewater Management Dept. Install 785 SF of walkway consisting of a crushed bluestone base with pavers. Install a 4 foot wide by approximately 155 ft. in length ground level foot path, commencing from landward edge of proposed non -turf buffer to toe of bluff with Ipe O/E wood step edges. Create and perpetually maintain a 15 foot wide non turf buffer (3,175 sq. ft.) commencing at the westerly property line and following the top of bluff to the easterly property line, planted with permissible vegetation. Plant indigenous grass from landward edge of non turf buffer to 100 foot setback line (15,190 sq. ft.). Located: 1505 Birdseye Road, Orient. SCTM#: 1000-17-1-4 Type of area to be impacted: A_Saltwater Wetland *- Freshwater Wetland y Sound Bay Part of Town Code proposed work falls under: x Chapt.275 Chapt. 111 other Type of Application: Wetland Coastal Erosion Amendment Administrative Emergency Pre-Submission Violation Notice of Hearing card posted on property: Yes No Not Applicable Info needed/Modifications/Conditions/Etc.: Present Were: G. Goldsmith N. Krupski E. Sepenoski L. Gillooly E. Peeples N N�� SCDHS R�,'i �'r,� R 1 Q 13 0062 SURVEY OF PROPERTY NOVEMBER 30, 2012 (REVISION) JANUARY 2, 2013 (ADDITIONS) A T ORIENT AUGUST 2, 2013 (REVISED BLDG. ENVELOPE) OCTOBER 30, 2014 (CLEARING & BLUFF LOCATION) TO IV OF SO �J THOU JANUARY 03, 2018 (PROPOSED HOUSE) JANUARY 24, 2018 (REVISIONS) S U FOLK CQ UNT Y 1\1 Y APRIL 9, 2018 (REVISIONS) �O l/ APRIL 18, 2018 (SCDHS REVISIONS) 1b / 1000-17- 01- 04 OCTOBER 29, 2019 (TREE LOCATION) SCALE. 1 40 ' MARCH 11, 2020 (HOUSE & TREES) APRIL 18, 2022 (REVISIONS) TOCOBEI? 7 7, 2012 APRI L 22, 2022 (REVISIONS) aCPa C�� 4' BEACH ACCESS ; CLEARED & BUILT BY HAND ACCESS FROM LAND r 1 Zone LineGA f - Q / 'e BE AccEss �, PALE BROWN SANDY SIL T ML -100 WITH GRAVEL IN LAYERS TOP OF BLUFF LINE A S FLAGGED 18' BY JOHN BREDEME YER, TOWN TR US TEE. EL. 3.9' WATER IN PALE BROWN SILTY ML Vie, / \ OF 8L F OF j j �- ON TURF BUFFER WITH N 1 op / - �Q. „- . � 'y SOP _.- �._._ PERMISSIBLE VEGETATION AS BY TOWN TRUSTEES WATER IN BROWN CLAYEY SAND SC (SEE CHART) TOTAL: 3,175SF �:�f✓ ��\� - REGRADED AND PLANTED WATER IN BROWN FINE TO COARSE SAND SP J �� o° - W/INDIGENOUS GRASSES AREA TOTAL: 15,190SF �3- r C) yam/ 38 STAKE SET Zj v0 NOTE: WATER ENCOUNTERED 18' BELOW SURFACE EXIS TING CRES T OF BLUFF Q , FLAGS ADDED BY INTER SCIENCE ON 09125114, .��. WALKWAY: �85 SF � � �� TEST HOLE DATA , EXTENDING THE BLUFF CREST TO EASTERN LOT LINE. W& CRUSHED BLA STONE- \ ;' y0' McDONALD GEOSCIENCE 2 TEST HOLE _ -- W,l `1i PAVERS BLUFF c,. 7010,3112 SCALE N.T.S. G��, yryoF,o I& _ ' _ _ 1�'k �� - 4 FENCE 2 W-NE ' R150''-0°� — PROPOSED WELL P A 1 6/ o %i Q h L , �y FR.HSE SFAT �' � �fii io RA/^\ \ ^1\ T L^\ T C 1 IN l�� VO, C` IV A1NMFN 5'DEEP b-^ / J e- __ I♦S - POOL BACK- Zu1S --- -. '{011, \ CO PROPOSED HOUSE ROOF AREA = 6,028 SQ.FT. 6,028 x 0.17 X 1.0 = 1,024.76 CU. FT. — NEW 4 FENCE 1,024.76 CU.FT. / 42.21 sQ.FT. = 24.28 LIN. FT. s +� O 1,�O� � \ RO iA9 NEW 4' FENCE P * FENCE WILL BE LAID TO AVOID LARGE TREES % �`� �`�" 2 '0- AND (4) DRY WELLS 8'0 x 8' DEEP �-'�� 32.00 FT. REQUIRED AND DISTURBED AREA WILL BE REPLANTED WITH NATIVE VEGETATION. RIM ELELV. 19.0' NEW 4' ~' �/- � / FENCE o , EL21.9' o« �4 LOT COVERAGE �25 NEW h - LOT AREA: 59,067.36 SF (1.356 ACRES) DEER — GRATES - BUILDABLE AREA (LANDWARD OF CEHL LINE): 35,698 SF R '' TEST HOLE - MAX. LOT COVERAGE (20% OF BUILDABLE AREA): 20% OF 35,698 SF = 7,139.6 S OPT —NOTE: USE MCDONALD AUG 5 20 0 2 NEW �F Q GEOSCI�NCE 10/03/12 TOTAL BUILDING COVERAGE: D,559 SF (15.57%) ENTRAN F �P AJ� SITE,!PLAN Thintswm ) / SCALE 1/32" = V-0" WELL i 150+ FROM PROPOSED SEPTIC ^.%''`- I DESIGNER: ARCHITECT OF RECORD: PROJEC( DRAWING TITLE: JOB No: 1705 C A R L 0 S I DATE: APR. 01.2019 ,sz ® SITE PLAN SCALE: 1/32"=1'-T Z A P A T A ORIENT HOUSE Andrew Pollock Architect, PC SHEET NO.: S T U D 1 0 1505 BIRDS EYE ROAD " n 561 Broadway,4A/4B New York,NY 10013 56 SOUTH OXFORD STREET, i ,<°, BROOKLYN,NEW YORK, 11217 ORIENT NY11957 T 212.966.9292 F 212.966.9242 T:212.620.0044 , � ti .titi 4' BEACH ACCESS CLEARED & BUILT BY HAND ACCESS FROM LAND I e�1 Zone Line TOP OF BLUFF LINE AS FLAGGEL BY JOHN BREDEMEYER, TOWN TRUSTEE. 4�- ', L�jFk �_ NON TURF BUFFER WITH PERMISSIBLE VEGETATION AS -APPROVED BY TOWN TRUSTEES (SEE CHART) TOTAL: 3,175SF \ REGRADED AND PLANTED -W INDIGENOUS GRASSES AREA p TOTAL: 15,190SF S n ESET EXISTING CREST OF BLUFF % \ FLAGS ADDED BY INTER SCIENCE ON 09/23/14, EXTENDING THE BLUFF CREST TO EASTERN LOT LINE: O 4' FENCE LOWER /! C t \ �� l' ��.• .'t % "s �_'_ - PROPOSED ` PHOTOVOLTAIsi' WELL ROOF D ° / ^! Zz-F TER13AGE . Fy FR.HSE RAA RUNOFF CONiAiNVI�17 i' / % PROPOSED HOUSE ROOF AREA - 6,028 SOFT, 6.028 x 0.17 X 1.0 = 1,024,76 CU. FT. ��'� , "' /� X 2 �P`��=- " ---NEW 4' FENCE 1,024.76 CU.FT. 42.21 sQ.FT. = 24.28 LIN. FT. ~ / i , 0�. Off, -9 / 'kRy'�-F,t�i •:,b ,. NEW 4' FENCE PROVIDE (a) DRY WELLS 8'0 x 8' DEEP FENCE WI ti LL BE LID TO AVOID LARGE TREES / ye ' ?'�-' - -""o--- AND DISTURBED AREA WILL BE REPLANTED I - '�, '-- - -•-- %v�.- RIM ELELV. 19.0' WITH NATIVE VEGETATION. NEW 4 N 1 FENCE LOT COVERAGE I NEW 2 DEER -LOTAREA: 59,067.36 SF;1.356 ACRES) I GRATES -BUILDABLE AREA(LANDWARD OF CEHL LINE): 35,698 SF TEST HAQLE -MAX.LOT COVERAGE(20%OF BUILDABLE AREA): 20%OF 35,698 SF=7,139.6 5 \-NOTE: USE MCDONALD v NEW` GEOSCIENCE 10/03/12 TOTAL BUILDING COVERAGE: 5,559 SF?15.57%) ! C '( ENTRAN - G �FP SITE PLAN WELL / 150+ FROM ?\ PROPOSED - j i' • .,. Z•® i •tip d��,>y. � `�•• �,�� i r�Jy+kit, s ` Ilk M� 1 a a l �`� , ! t ' •i of "L'+ t ,�! #k 'fie UN ' . y � y fit" �. ...:.:. .`�Y"P�.+p:. "� `�, .• 1 r *® 7'� N y. ,�q S��7 ,�A rsx ".a pMiry �• � `. k, B �°Ay, ap- � Y p.f �� y�l R +`v. •y a- , Ape a l44(""A p lF ,5 p '� .• �� . t td. y fy °' 4rv� � {p ,¢p, ^•t. t i y - /'p � ,f ¥,y�1 p�' 1 .F i Y+r �".,,A'31 T. 6 �. k„ AL � 1 �:r tt '♦ } 'e d' ty. wry, +iw;. � � y x ♦ � .,,"� t� a ,. .�� 4 , t-';i lr4,pg� • � � � -;xr f33t g °4.... rf a��.� � .f. 1•�. i �r g, Ili y sda el, ww•" r ek IV t 6 $ < nil Olaf y r 1r a '_ (15)1505 Birdseye Rd. LLC Taken Nov.15,2017 Looking ESE R, w �^ P x a�c. `t i,,pr 8,� q -fit•)�,t i k � 3y p� '� 3 p "ri€ 00)1505 Birdseye Rd.LLC i; % J . Taken Nov.15,2017 y �. � Looking ENE ,may, �y! y t t_, �1at"y"�TP2 e`wit+M ',�1,'w , .• J akr Mf w __ a " . `r K s ;z tu(17)1505 Birdseye Rd. L L C ( • '�" }}`` Takers Nov.15,2017 Looking ENE 1i I ii F��' Y �• q Lt c nS«rS�> y� s '� c (1&)1505 Birdseye Rd. LLC Taken Nov. 15,2011 Looking SE u.uar atwsw tat•ot gnat tans: � oz-xsts a+sts ta-z•n /SURD „•}t' �. i J fiL. /p60 �\ 22 j� ,��i / • R � t9s 2]A 1 •a t O • \]• ��_ L]A 12. V s 41 n x r r• z t.tA i W 1 ty �3 / 3 y �.. Jam. . BBaw M 6t ;� -..fir" I L4 e _zz_ �• tzil = — -- .�� __�^__ "_ NOnCE cam COUNTY OF SUFFOLK © x is aB 6 $OUTHOLD MCraN NO QReal Property Tax Service Agency r N trrtw : a.W --t-- ewr--�-- .�. aw�tYCwM RIrut�q NYt1Mt M 017 i ® tm wtnct^B 1M0 PIIOPENTY MAP RtAp, to Cantrell, Elizabeth From: Cantrell, Elizabeth Sent: Tuesday,August 16, 2022 9:26 AM To: mkimack2@verizon.net Subject: 1505 Birdseye Road LLC application Good Morning, Last night during the Board of Trustees work session,the Board determined that the above mentioned project is to be tabled from tomorrow night's public hearing agenda and will require a Wetland Permit application as well as more information. Along with the Wetland Permit application,the Board is requesting that the project plans are updated to depict the existing swale/intermittent pond that exists on the property as well as flagging the landward edge of wetland vegetation for a site inspection. The Board is requesting a.full landscaping plan for all proposed work on the property including existing and proposed elevations of the property to show the grade change due to the fill being brought in and graded out. Due to the intermittent pond,this proposed project may be within Trustee jurisdiction. If it is, please add to the project description all details of the proposed dwelling, driveway, sanitary system, patios, etc. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to ask. Sincerely, Senior Office Assistant Town of Southold Board of Trustees Office: 631-765-1892 Email: elizabethc@southoldtownny.gov 1 OFFICE LOCATION: �O��of SU(/jyOl MAILING ADDRESS: Town Hall Annex P.O. Box 1179 54375 State Route 25 Southold, NY 11971 (cor.Main Rd. &Youngs Ave.) N �r Southold, NY 11971 �pQ Telephone: 631 765-1938 olyCOU ,� LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MEMORANDUM To: Glenn Goldsmith, President Town of Southold Board of Trustees From: Mark Terry, AICP LWRP Coordinator Date: August 15, 2022 Re: LWRP Coastal Consistency-Review for 1505 BIRDSEYE ROAD LLC SCTM# 1000-17-1-4 Michael A. Kimack on behalf of 1505 BIRDSEYE ROAD LLC requests an Administrative Permit for clearing and grubbing approximately18,365 sq. ft. (3,175 sq. ft. non turf buffer area and 15,190 sq.ft. landward of non turf buffer to 100 foot setback line) from westerly property line following top of bluff to easterly property line and setback 100 feet. Infill approximately 590.5 cu. yds. (301.5 cu. yds. from excavation and 289 cu. yds from off site) of the area from proposed landward side of proposed non turf buffer to 100 foot setback line. Install proposed I/A system seaward of 100 foot setback line from bluff as approved by Suffolk County Wastewater Management Dept. Install 785 SF of walkway consisting of a crushed bluestone base with pavers. Install a 4 foot wide by approximately 155 ft. in length ground level foot path, commencing from landward edge of proposed non -turf buffer to toe of bluff with Ipe O/E wood step edges. Create and perpetually maintain a 15 foot wide non turf buffer (3,175 sq. ft.) commencing at the westerly property line and following the top of bluff to the easterly property line, planted with permissible vegetation. Plant indigenous grass from landward edge of non turf buffer to 100 foot setback line (15,190 sq. ft.). Located: 1505 Birdseye Road, Orient. SCTM#: 1000-17-1-4 The proposed action has been reviewed to Chapter 268, Waterfront Consistency Review of the Town of Southold Town Code and the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) Policy Standards. Based upon the information provided on the LWRP Consistency Assessment Form submitted to this department, as well as the records available to me, it is my recommendation that the action for clearing and grubbing approximately18,365 sq. ft. (3,175 sq ft non turf buffer area and 15190 sq.ft. landward of non turf buffer to 100 foot setback line) from westerly property line following top of bluff to easterly property line and setback 100 feet. Infill approximately 590 5 cu yds (301.5 cu. vds. from excavation and 289 cu. yds from off site) of the area from proposed landward side of proposed non turf buffer to 100 foot setback line is INCONSISTENT with the below listed Policy Standards and therefore is INCONSISTENT with the LWRP. Policy 4.1. Minimize losses of human life and structures from flooding and erosion hazards. The following management measures to minimize losses of human life and structures from flooding and erosion hazards are recommended: specifically A. Minimize potential loss and damage by locating development and structures away from flooding and erosion hazards. The property contains large areas of slopes equal to or greater than 15 percent (Figures 1 and 2). avv y v y �o A�.. vti��v y E vro. A , Figure 1. Subject parcel showing 15 percent or more slopes as solid polygons (ArcMap) pre development. h. VE r & = nY k ' dW Figure 2. Subject property showing FEMA flood zones and LIDAR topography. Note that the parcel contains a hill (Suffolk County GIS). Existing vegetation should be retained to stabilize soils on the slopes. The file record shows the importance of preserving the existing vegetation. The request to clear is the segmentation of the process and does not acknowledge the resource management decisions already made to accommodate development on this sensitive parcel. (See ZBA Files) Policy 6.3. Protect and restore tidal and freshwater wetlands. E. Maintain buffers to ensure that adverse effects of adjacent or nearby development are avoided: 1. Maintain buffers to achieve a high filtration efficiency of surface runoff. 2. Avoid permanent or unnecessary disturbance within buffer areas. 3. Maintain existing indigenous vegetation within buffer areas. In the event the action is approved, it is recommended that a non- disturbance buffer is established from the CEHL, seaward to prevent erosion on slopes, preserve the integrity of the bluff, limit turf areas and preserve groundwater and surface water quality. a. Recommended activities in the non-disturbance buffer include: i. Prohibiting the cutting, removal or disturbance of vegetation, including trees, shrubs, and groundcover unless vegetation has been determined to be hazardous to life and property. ii. Trimming tree limbs up to a height of 15 feet to maintain view sheds. iii. Supplemental planting with native vegetation to achieve soil stabilization. iv. Prohibiting structures. v. Prohibiting excavation, grading and removal of materials other than to repair erosion hazards. vi. Prohibiting dumping of unsightly or offensive materials. vii. The establishment of a four-foot-wide access path constructed of pervious material for access to the water-body. viii. Installation of deer fencing. The installation of the UA OWTS and the foot path are recommended as Consistent. Pursuant to Chapter 268, the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals shall consider this recommendation in preparing its written determination regarding the consistency of the proposed action. Cc: Honorable Lori Hulse, Attorney U Town Hall Annex 1�v SOP/,"Glenn Goldsmith, President 64375 Route 25 A. Nicholas Krupski,Vice President Y' P.O. Box 1179 Erie Sepenoski Southold, New York 11971 Liz Gillooly Telephone(631) 765-1892 Elizabeth Peeples F. Fax (631.) 765-6641 '41 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD This Section For Office Use Only _________Coastal Erosion Permit Application Wetland Permit Application l( Administrative Permit —Amendment/Transfer/Extension Received Application: Received Fee:,,$. Completed Applicatio n: .............--Incomplete: SEQRA Classification: Typel_ Type II Unlisted Negative Dec. Positive Dec. Lead Agency Determination Date: c,,Coordination:(date sent): .........V--.LWRP Consistency Assessment Form Sent: E C V E CAC Referral Sent: Date of Inspection: I R Receipt of CAC Report: JUL 2 6 2022 Technical Review: Public Hearing Held: Southold Town Resolution: Board Of TnWees Owner(s) Legal Name of Property (as shown on Deed): Mailing Address: 5_6 Z 0API&AX d,4,1,dR T A1.Y_ M-Y. 0 013 Phone Number: Suffolk County Tax Map Number: 1000 - Property Location: ............../512r A31kQS;_4_M RQ&D /7 9MM4 (If necessary, provide LILCO Pole#, distance to cross streets, and location) AGENT(If applicable): HICAMEZ .4. ke-WCle Mailing Address: 164% 10117/64o0p Z2 Phone Number: �-A. 6�97- 6 947 Email:/-I/</ ACIC910, ECE1 Board of Trustees Application GENERAL DATA 1,and Area(in square feet): /Q' 6 7 Area Zoning: — Previous use of property: VA C A-AV r Z Or Intended use of property: E—f//. 4,N2% 0665 FAA JI- Covenants and Restrictions on property? Yes _ No If"Yes", please provide a copy. Will this project require a Building Permit as per Town Code? _Yes No If'`Yes", be advised this application will be reviewed by the Building Dept. prior to a Board of Trustee review and Elevation Plans will be required. Does this project require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals? Yes X No If"Yes",please provide copy of decision. Will this project require any demolition as per Town Code or as determined by the Building Dept.? YesNo Does the structure(s) on property have a valid Certificate of Occupancy? Yes No JV//Q Prior permits/approvals for site improvements: Agency�UlT�� Date, ��=��Dd No prior permits/approvals for site improvements. Has any permit/approval ever been revoked or suspended by a governmental agency?_ ^No Yes If yes, provide explanation: 0®1/IAAZ/,t122�D Q,y Project Description (use attachments if necessary): 1505 BIRDSEYE ROAD LLC: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Clearing and grubbing approximately 18,365 sq. ft. ( 3,175 sq. ft. non turf buffer area and 15,190 sq.ft. landward of non turf buffer to 100 foot setback line ) from westerly property line following top of bluff to easterly property line and setback 100 feet. Infill approximately 590.5 cu. yds. ( 301.5 cu. yds. from excavation and 289 cu. yds from off site ) of the area from proposed landward side of proposed non turf buffer to 100 foot setback line. Install proposed I/A system seaward of 100 foot setback line from bluff as approved by Suffolk County Wastewater Management Dept: Install 785 SF of walkway consisting of a crushed bluestone base with pavers. Install a 4 foot wide by approximately 155 ft. in length ground level foot path, commencing from landward edge of proposed non -turf buffer to toe of bluff with Ipe O/E wood step edges. Create and perpetually maintain a 15 foot wide non turf buffer ( 3,175 sq. ft.) commencing at the westerly property line and following the top of bluff to the easterly property line, planted with permissible vegetation. Plant indigenous grass from landward edge of non turf buffer to 100 foot setback line ( 15,190 sq. ft. ) Board of Trustees Application WETLAND/TRUSTEE LANDS APPLICATION DATA Purpose of the proposed operations: rQ ,ALL 0'U1 A C C&'.S" 2y"CN AYA T 0 a 156 jcT s reA-W VV25 Lv/triS�IN Area of wetlands on lot: Q square feet Percent coverage of lot: % Closest distance between nearest existing structure and upland edge of wetlands: feet JV1A Closest distance between nearest proposed structure and upland edge of wetlands: . feet W,14 Does the project involve excavation or filling? No Yes If yes,how much material will be excavated? cubic yards 7-/_ How much material will be filled9 cubic yards Depth of which material will be removed or(a osite -�_feet 41, Proposed slope throughout the area of operations: Manner in which material will be removed or deposited: VMUZ ZAA& -d2UMP MZCI4 S AZAA17- Statement of the effect, if any, on the wetlands and tidal waters of the town that may result by reason of such proposed operations (use attachments if appropriate): d o ✓�—ol d -� 67, FZ l-57 ZAA0"W oZE: r-AIA SDP 69 &Le 40AY 61 Z20 Appencli, .B Short Environmental Assessment form lnstruet'tons for Completing Part 1 -Project Information. The applicant or project sponsor is responsible for the completion of Part 1. Responses become part of the application for approval or funding,are subject to public review,and may be subject to further verification. Complete Part I based on information currently available. If additional research or investigation would be needed to fully respond to any item,please answer as thoroughly as possible based on current information. Complete all items in Part 1. You may also provide any additional information which you believe will be needed by or useful to the lead agency;attach additional pages as necessary to supplement any item. Part.l -Project and Sponsor Information Name of Action or Project: Project Location( escribe,and attach a location map): Brief Description of Proposed Action: Name of Applicant or Sponsor: Telepho _7 _ C/ 0 �C E` a . l— Address: 12 City/PO: State: Zip Code: 1.Does the proposed action only involve the legislative adoption of a plan,local law,ordinance, NO YES administrative rule,or regulation? If Yes,attach a narrative description of the intent of the proposed action and the environmental resources that may be affected in the municipality and proceed to Part 2. If no,continue to question 2. 2. Does the proposed action require a permit,approval or funding from any other governmental Agency? NO YES If Yes,list agency(s)name and permit or approval: G 3.a.Total acreage of the site of the proposed action? acres b.Total acreage to be physically disturbed? ___0 acres c.Total acreage(project site and any contiguous properties)owned or controlled by the applicant or project sponsor? 4. Check all land uses that occur on,adjoining and near the proposed action. _ ❑Urban ❑Rural(non-agriculture) ❑industrial ❑Commercial '91Residential(suburban) ❑Forest ❑Agriculture ❑Aquatic ❑Other(specify): ❑Parkland Page l of 4 1505 BIRDSEYE ROAD LLC: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Clearing and grubbing approximately 18,365 sq. ft. ( 3,115 sq. ft. non turf buffer area and 15,190 sq.ft. landward of non turf buffer to 100 foot setback line )from westerly property line following top of bluff to easterly property line and setback 100 feet. Infill approximately 590.5 cu.yds. ( 301.5 cu.yds. from excavation and 289 cu. yds from off site ) of the area from .proposed landward side of proposed non turf buffer to 100 foot setback line. Install proposed I/A system seaward of 100 foot setback line from bluff as approved by Suffolk County Wastewater Management Dept. Install 785 SF of walkway consisting of a crushed bluestone base with pavers. Install a 4 foot wide by approximately 155 ft. in length ground level foot path, commencing from landward edge of proposed non -turf buffer to toe of bluff with Ipe O/E wood step edges. Create and perpetually maintain a 15 foot wide non turf buffer ( 3,175 sq. ft.) commencing at the westerly property line and following the top of bluff to the easterly property line, planted with permissible vegetation. Plant indigenous grass from landward edge of non turf buffer to 100 foot setback line ( 15,190 sq. ft. ) 5. Is the proposed action, NO YES N/A a. A permitted use under the zoning regulations? a ❑ b.Consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan? El ❑ 6. is the proposed action consistent with the predominant character of the existing built or natural NO YES landscape? ❑ 7. Is the site of the proposed action located in,or does it adjoin,a state listed Critical Environmental Area? NO YES If Yes,identify: 8. a.Will the proposed action result in a substantial increase in traffic above present levels? NO YES b.Are public transportation service(s)available at or near the site of the proposed action? EL c.Are any pedestrian accommodations or bicycle routes available on or near site of the proposed action? ❑ 9.Does the proposed action meet or exceed the state energy code requirements? NO YES If the proposed action will exceed requirements,describe design features and techhologq: ❑ 10. Will the proposed action connect to an existing public/private water supply? NO YES If No,describe method for providing potable water: _ Oj - _ ❑ 11.Will the proposed action connect to existing wastewater utilities? NO YES If No,describe method for providing wastewater treatment: 'e ❑ 12. a.Does the site contain a structure that is listed on either the State or National Register of Ifistoric NO YES Places? ❑ b.Is the proposed action located in an archeological sensitive area? - 13.a.Does any portion of the site of the proposed action,or lands adjoining the proposed action,contain NO YES wetlands or other waterbodies regulated by a federal,state or local agency? ❑ l K b.Would the proposed action physically alter,or encroach into,any existing wetland or waterbody? ❑ If Yes,identify the wetland or waterbody and extent of alterations in square feet or acres: 14. Identify the typical habitat types that occur on,or are likely to be found on the project site. Check all that apply: Shoreline El Forest ❑Agricultural/grasslands ❑Early mid-Successional Wetland El Urban KSuburban 15.Does the site of the proposed action contain any species of animal,or associated habitats,listed NO YES by the State or Federal government as threatened or endangered? ❑ 16.Is the project site located in the 100 year flood plain? NO YES 17.Will the proposed action create storm water discharge,either from point or non-point sources? O YES If Yes, ❑ ❑ a. Will storm water discharges flow to adjacent properties? ❑ YES NO b.Will storm water discharges be directed to established conveyance systems(runoff and storm drains)? If Yes,briefly describe: F-1NO ❑YES Page 2 of 4 18.Does the proposed action include construction or other activities that result in the impoundment of NO YES water or other liquids(e.g.retention pond,waste lagoon,dam)? If Yes,explain purpose and size: ❑ 19.Has the site of the proposed action or an adjoining property been the location of an active or closed NO YES solid waste management facility? If Yes,describe: 20.Has the site of the proposed action or an adjoining property been the subject of remediation(ongoing or NO YES completed)for hazardous waste? If Yes,describe: (+ ❑ I AFFIRM THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Applicant/sponsor name: . KM C c Date: _ 2 Signature: Part 2-Impact Assessment. The Lead Agency is responsible for the completion of Part 2. Answer all of the following questions in Part 2 using the information contained in Part 1 and other materials submitted by the project sponsor or otherwise available to the reviewer. When answering the questions the reviewer should be guided by the concept"Have my responses been reasonable considering the scale and context of the proposed action?" No,or Moderate small to large impact impact may may occur occur 1. Will the proposed action create a material conflict with an adopted land use plan or zoning Elregulations? 2. Will the proposed action result in a change in the use or intensity of use of land? R ❑ 3. Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of the existing community? �JJ 4_ Will the proposed action have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the ❑ El of a Critical Environmental Area(CEA)? 5. Will the proposed action result in an adverse change in the existing level of traffic or Elaffect existing infrastructure for mass transit,biking or walkway? 6. Will the proposed action cause an increase in the use of energy and it fails to incorporate El ❑^ reasonably available energy conservation or renewable energy opportunities? 7. Will the proposed action impact existing: (`�j ❑ a.public/private water supplies? lll_11 wb.public/private wastewater treatment utilities? 8. Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of important historic,archaeological, ❑ architectural or aesthetic resources? 0 9. Will the proposed action result in an adverse change to natural resources(e.g.,wetlands, El ❑ waterbodies,groundwater,air quality, flora and fauna)? Page 3 of 4 i I No,or Moderate small to large impact impact may may occur occur 10. Will the proposed action result in an increase in the potential for erosion,flooding or drainage ❑ _ ❑ problems? 11. Will the proposed action create a hazard to environmental resources or human health? ❑ Part 3-Determination of significance. The Lead Agency is responsible for the completion of Part 3. For every question in Part 2 that was answered"moderate to large impact may occur",or if there is a need to explain why a particular element of the proposed action may or will not result in a significant adverse environmental impact,please complete Part 3. Part 3 should,in sufficient detail,identify the impact,including any measures or design elements that have been included by the project sponsor to avoid or reduce impacts. Part 3 should also explain how the lead agency determined that the impact may or will not be significant.Each potential impact should be assessed considering its setting,probability of occurring, duration,irreversibility,geographic scope and magnitude. Also consider the potential for short-term,long-term and cumulative impacts. Check this box if you have determined,based on the information and analysis above,and any supporting documentation, that the proposed action may result in one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts and an environmental impact statement is required. Check this box if you have determined,based on the information and analysis above,and any supporting documentation, that the proposed action will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts. Townof Southold-Board of Trustees Name of Lead Agency Date President 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) PRINT Page 4 of 4 Board of Trustees Application T MFI DAVIT CURL_�z4Lo4_1�9-_— BEING DULY SWORN DEPOSES AND AFFIRMS THAT HE/SHE IS THE APPLICANT FOR THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PERMIT(S)AND THAT ALL STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE'TRUE TO THE BEST OF HISJEIER KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF,AND THAT ALL WORK WILL BE DONE IN THE MANNER SET FORTH IN THIS APPLICATION AND AS MAY BE APPROVED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF TRUSTEES. THE. APPLICANT AGREES TO HOLD THE:TOWN OF SOUTHOLD AND THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES IIARMLESS AND FREE FROM ANY AND ALL DAMAGES AND CLAIMS ARISING UNDER OR 13Y VIRTUE OF SAID PER-MIT(S),IF GRANTED. IN COMPLETING THIS APPLICATION,I HEREBY AUTHORIZE THE TRUS TEES,THEIR AGENT(S)OR REPRESENTATIVES, INCLUDING THE CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL,TO ENTER ONTO MY PROPERTY TO INSPECT THE PREMISES IN CONJUNCTION WITH'PHIS APPLICATION, INCLUDING A FINAL INSPECTION. I FURTHER AUTHORIZE THE BOARD OF TRUS"1TEES TO ENTER ONTO MY PROPERTY AND AS REQUIRED TO INSURE COMPLIANCE WITH ANY CONDITION OF ANY WE, OR COASTAL EROSION PERMIT ISSUED BY THE 130ARD OF TRUSTEES DURING THE TER IM OF THE:PERMIT. Signature ot'Property )wrier Signature of Property Owiier SN'ORsd TO BEFORE ACE'PHIS ----DAY OF—._fly.- 20 ZZ MICHAELA.KIMACK Notary Public,State of New York No.02KI5056823 Qualified In Nassau County Commission Expires March 11.2026 Board of Trustees Application AUTHORIZATION (Where the applicant is not the-owner) owners of the property identified as SCT119# 1000-_ , _in the town of ----- �L __-_- NeI.A'York:,hereby authorizes to act as my agent and handle all necessary work involved with the application process for permit(s) from the Southold Town Board of Trustees for this property. PropertyOwner's S lat re Property Owner's Signature 60V SVIORN TO BEFORE ME THIS--- _---DAY OF r 20 2 z Notary Public MICHAELA.KIMACK Notary Public.State of New York No.02KIS056823 �Ouajlfied In Nassau County y�, ommislort ExpUs March 11,2026 I • APPLICANT/A.GENT/REPRESENI'ATNE TRANSACTIONAL,DISCLOSURE FORM =hc Tu•.tin of Snuthuld•s Code nFGthirs prohibits conlli•as manterest on the cart of tow i o cers and cmpky ,s.'fhepernosc of this for_rn;s to_ rovide inform Ili on which can nlert the tcnvr o(possihle con Mos of interest and allow•it to lake wlLltevcr acli?n i,: pecessar,to avoid YOUR NAME: -- �,�•�Zf� �L�t'L�L�!�--- ----- (Last name,first name,iriddle initial:unless you are applying in the name of someoue else or other entity,suck as a company.Irso,indicate the other person's or company's name.) NAME;OF APPLICATION: (Check all that apply.) Tax grievance — Building Varianc.. Trustee Change of Zone —^— Coastal Erosion Approv.il of plat Mooring Exempt on from plat or otticial map -- - Planning - Other (If"Otha'.name the activity.) DO you 11-_r::onalk .w through your company,cpousc sibling,parent,or child:have a re.lation•ship:vith any•+liicer c r ert:l+lu:ce "Rclata>nship"include;by biooe,mairiave,or bu;:i less imete t."I3usinrss interc:;i'ateans a hu•inc:. , ctcludine a p:.rtnrr.<hip.in svh�ch the tu:r�oliircr or employee hs cve•n a port tl o+cncrsltip of tut cnrpioymcnt hyJ a c„r,:�,ruiort i'r which the ir:vn oll leer ur ernpinyer owns more thn t i°„of Ihe,shams. YE:S Ifyou n-+ttvered"Y ES",complete the balance of this*omt and dale an.1 sign +here indic.tted. Name or'person employed by the Town of Southold Title or.xosition of that person De;cr%tw the relationship M%%een yourself(thc ipplicar.t/agent representative)and the iowil officer or employee.Either check the dppr)priatc line A)through D)and/or describe in the sp.,ce provided. The fawn officer or employee or his or her spouse,stblmg,parent,or child is tc heck all that apply): the mvne.r of greater than 5%of the share;of the=orla>ratc stock of the applievnl (when the appFewit is a corporation); —__IS)the legal or beneficial ownerof any interest ill a nun-corporate entity(when the applicant is not a corporation); - .--- C)an officer,director,partner,or erployee of tE e applicant;or _D'.the actual applicant. DESCRIPTION OI'RELATIONSIIIP Submitted this —�Cf —_.�G 11201YZZ Sign,nur. Form'I'5 1 Print Name__ems _-- " APPLICANT/AGENT/REPRESENTAATIVE TRANSACTI0NAL DISCLOSURE FORM The Ta w►of 8outhold's Code of Ethics pmhiblts conflicts ofinterest on the part oftown officers.and employees.The purpose of this f rmrmis to provide information which can alert.the-town of possible conflicts of interest-and'a h w it to take wliateFeyaction is necessary tc�ay�id same. YOUR NAME: KI/�Ji A&CA?W l (Last name,first name,Viddle initial, unless you are applying In.the name of someone else or other entity,such as a company.If so,indicate the other person's or company's name.) NAME OF APPLICATION: (Check all that apply.) Tax grievance — Building _ Variance Trustee Change of Zone _ — Coastal Erosion Approval of plat Mooring Exemption from plat or o fficial map Planning Other (If,"Other•,name the activity.) Do you personally(or through your company,spouse,sibling,parent,or child)have a relationship Nviih any officer or employee of the Town of Southold? "Relationship"inchides by blood,marriage,or business interest."Business interest"means a tnisincs�, including a partnership. in which the town officer or employee h«s even a partial ownership of(or employment by)a corporation in which the town officer or employee awns more than 5%of the shares. YES _. NO _•_.�C If you answered"YES",complete the balance of this form and date and sign where indicated. Name of person employed by the Town of Southold�, ,••-� ,, __ __.. Title br position of that person ..__, Describe the relationship between yourself(the applicant/agent/representative)and the town officer or employee.Either check the appropriate line A)through D)and/or describe in the space provided. The town officer or employee or his or her spouse,sibling,parent,cr child is(check all that apply): A)the owner of greater than 5%of the shares of the corporate stock of the applicant (when the applicant is a corporation); B)the legal or'beneficial owner of any interest in a non-corporate entity(when the applicant is not a corporation); C)an officer,director,partner,or employee of the applicant;or D)the actual applicant. DESCRIPTION OF RELATIONSHIP Submitted this _day of jTjOly 20/,72 Signature � �h2P.� Print Name Form TS l Town of Southold LWRP CONSISTENCY ASSESSMENT FORM A. INSTRUCTIONS 1. All applicants for permits* including Town of Southold agencies, shall complete this CCAF for proposed actions that are subject to the Town of Southold Waterfront Consistency Review Law. This assessment is intended to supplement other information used by a Town of Southold agency in making a determination of consistency. *Except minor exempt actions including Building Permits and other ministerial permits not located within the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area. 2. Before answering the questions in Section C, the preparer of this form should review the exempt minor action list, policies and explanations of each policy contained in the Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. A 'Proposed action will be evaluated as to its signifilcant beneficial and adverse effects upon the coastal area(which includes all of Southold`Town). 3. If any question in Section C on this form is answered "yes" or "no", then the proposed action will affect the achievement of the LWRP policy standards and conditions contained in the consistency review law. Thus, each answer must be explained in detail, listing both supporting and non- supporting facts. If an action cannot be certified as consistent with the LWRP policy standards and conditions,it shall not be undertaken. A copy of the LWRP is available in the following places: online at the Town of Southold's website (southoldtown.northfork.net), the Board of Trustees Office, the Planning Department, all local libraries and the Town Clerk's office. B. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSED ACTION SCTM# �Z_-_� 4� PROJECT NAME /,"G_5 &. EDor V-S A?.4 _ C L C The Application has been,submitted to (check appropriate response): Town Board ❑ Planning Board❑ Building Dept. ❑ Board of Trustees 1. Category of Town of Southold agency action(check appropriate response): (a) Action undertaken directly by Town agency(e.g. capital ❑ construction,planning activity,agency regulation,land transaction) ❑ (b) Financial assistance(e.g. grant,loan, subsidy) (c) Permit, approval, license,certification: Nature and extent of action: rieko M QZI A sCVPVaAI 0�iV�- I 1 1505 BIRDSEYE ROAD LLC: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Clearing and grubbing approximately 18,365 sq. ft. ( 3,175 sq. ft. non turf buffer area and 15,190 sq.ft. landward of non turf buffer to 100 foot setback line ) from westerly property line following top of bluff to easterly property line and setback 100 feet. Infill approximately 590.5 cu. yds. ( 301.5 cu. yds. from excavation and 289 cu. yds from off site ) of the area from proposed landward side of proposed non turf buffer to 100 foot setback line. Install proposed I/A system seaward of 100 foot setback line from bluff as approved by Suffolk County Wastewater Management Dept. Install 785 SF of walkway consisting of a crushed bluestone base with pavers. Install a 4 foot wide by approximately 155 ft. in length ground level foot path, commencing from landward edge of proposed non -turf buffer to toe of bluff with Ipe O/E wood step edges. Create and perpetually maintain a 15 foot wide non turf buffer ( 3,175 sq. ft.) commencing at the westerly property line and following the top of bluff to the easterly property line, planted with permissible vegetation. Plant indigenous grass from landward edge of non turf buffer to 100 foot setback line ( 15,190 sq.ft. ) Location of action: Site acreage: Present land use: Z 07 Present zoning classification: P- 4 Q 2. If an application for the proposed action has been filed with the Town of Southold agency, the following information shall be provided: (a) Name of applicant: Al A (b) Mailing address: 9 D 9 6X `d 4 7 Q69 /1_A1_ 9 (c) Telephone number: Area Code (d) Application number,if any: Will the action be directly undertaken, require funding, or approval by a state or federal agency? Yes ❑ No,0 If yes,which state or federal agency? C. Evaluate the project to the following policies by analyzing how the project will further support or not support the policies. Provide all proposed Best Management Practices that will further each policy. Incomplete answers will require that the form be returned for completion. DEVELOPED COAST POLICY Policy 1. Foster a pattern of development in the Town of Southold that enhances community character, preserves open space, makes efficient use of infrastructure, makes beneficial use of a coastal location, and minimizes adverse effects of development. See LWRP Section III--Policies; Page 2 for evaluation criteria. ,®Yes ❑ No ❑ Not Applicable Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 2. Protect and preserve historic and archaeological resources of the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section III—Policies Pages 3 through 6 for evaluation criteria ❑ Yes ❑ No Not Applicable Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 3. Enhance visual quality and protect scenic resources throughout the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section III—Policies Pages 6 through 7 for evaluation criteria ❑ Yes ❑ No El Not Applicable Attach additional sheets if necessary NATURAL COAST POLICIES Policy 4. Minimize loss of life, structures, and natural resources from flooding and erosion. See LWRP Section III—Policies Pages 8 through 16 for evaluation criteria ❑ Yes ❑ No R1 Not Applicable P 1W 4 A) ,4 " �ls AAP-LZ c.¢7WAZ Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 5. Protect and improve water quality and supply in the Town of Southold. See LWRP.Section III —Policies Pages 16 through 21 for evaluation criteria El Yes Q No Xl Not Applica le Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 6. Protect and restore the quality and function of the Town of Southold ecosystems including Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats and wetlands. See LWRP Section III—Policies; Pages 22 through 32 for evaluation criteria. Il D Yes No .Not Applicable Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 7. Protect and improve air quality in the Town of Southold. See LNV tP Section III — Policies Pages 32 through 34 for evaluation criteria. Yes ❑ No F'17' Not Applicable OL C4MICA117041 Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy S. Minimize environmental degradation in Town of Southold from solid waste and hazardous substances and wastes. See LV*IZP Section III—Policies; Pages 34 through 38 for evaluation criteria. ❑ Yes ❑ No VRI Not Applicable 7W/1 AMU q ,/-& PUBLIC COAST PCL,ICIES Policy 9. Provide for public access to, and recreational use of, coastal waters, public lands, and public resources of the Town of Southold. See L,WRP Section III—Policies; Pages 38 through.46 for evaluation criteria. ❑ 'e�] No 5d Not Applicable Attach additional sheets if necessary 1 WORKING COAST POLICIES Policy 10. Protect Southold's water-dependent uses and promote siting of new water-dependent uses in suitable locations. See LWRP Section III Policies; Pages 47 through 56 for evaluation criteria. ❑ Yes ❑ No Not Applicable pot-icy I Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 11. Promote sustainable use of living marine resources in Long Island Sound, the Peconie Estuary and Town waters. See LWRP Section III—Policies; Pages 57 through 62 for evaluation criteria. ❑ Yes ❑ No J� Not Applicable ............ D o ,4 Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 12. Protect agricultural lands in the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section III — Policies; Pages 62 through 65 for evaluation criteria. ❑ Yes ❑ No 0 Not Applicable 06 Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 13. Promote appropriate use and development of energy and mineral resources. See LWRP Section III—Policies; Pages 65 through 68 for evaluation criteria. ❑ Yes ❑ No >' Not Applicab e d S PREPARED BY JU/•, oy,4 C4 TITLE_ Z j5AL;?_' DATE;ef Q/ OZZ