Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTenforty Central, LLC DENIS NONCARROW Town Hall, 53095 Main Road F.O. TOWN CLERIC IDF 301j4 Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax REGISTRAR OF VITAL e (631) 765-6145 Telephone(631) 765-1800 STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER www.southoldtownny.gov RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER0,'dII, OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION NO. 2025-773 WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD ON OCTOBER 7, 2025: RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby authorizes and directs Supervisor Albert J. Krupski, Jr. to enter into a Trustee Agreement with Tenforty Central LLC for installation of a beach path at the Town road-end located at the terminus of Sound Beach Drive, Mattituck,New York, at no cost to the Town, and subject to Town Attorney review. Denis Noncarrow Southold Town Clerk RESULT: Adopted MOVER: Councilman Mealy SECONDER: Councilwoman Smith AYES: Councilman Mealy, Councilwoman Smith, Councilwoman Doherty, Justice Evans, Councilman Doroski, Supervisor Krupski, Jr. NAYES: None COASTAL FISH&WILDLIFE HABITAT ASSESSMENT FORM Name of Area: Mattituck Inlet Wetlands and Beaches County: Suffolk Town(s): Southold 7'/i Quadrangle(s): Mattituck Hills,NY Originally Designated: March 15,1987 Modified: October 15,2005 - Score Assessment Criteria Ecosystem Rarity(ER)—the uniqueness of the plant and animal community in the area and the physical,structural,and chemical features supporting this community. ER assessment: Relatively small,undeveloped tidal wetland with strong tidal flushing into 9 Long Island Sound;rare in Suffolk County. Species Vulnerability(SV)—the degree of vulnerability throughout its range in New York State of a species residing in the ecosystem or utilizing the ecosystem for its survival. (E=Endangered,T=Threatened,SC=Special concern) SV assessment: Piping plover(E,T Fed),least tern(T),and osprey(SC)nesting. Roseate tern(E)observed,but nesting not adequately documented. Additive Division: 36+25/2+ 52.5 16/4=52.5 Human Use(HU)—the conduct of significant,demonstrable commercial,recreational, or educational wildlife-related human uses,either consumptive or non-consumptive,in the area or directly dependent upon the area. HU assessment:No significant fish or wildlife related human uses of the area. 0 Population Level(PL)—the concentration of a species in the area during its normal, recurring period of occurrence,regardless of the length of that period of occurrence. PL assessment: No unusual concentrations of any fish or wildlife species occur in the area. 0 Replaceability(R)—ability to replace the area,either on or off site,with an equivalent replacement for the same fish and wildlife and uses of those same fish and wildlife,for the same users of those fish and wildlife. 1.2 R assessment: Irreplaceable. Habitat Index= [ER+SV+HU+PLl =61.5 Significance=HI x R=73.8 Page 1 of 5 NEW YORK STATE SIGNIFICANT COASTAL FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT NARRATIVE MATTITUCK INLET WETLAND AND BEACHES LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF HABITAT: The Mattituck Inlet Wetland and Beaches habitat area is located north of the Village of Mattituck on Long Island Sound,in the Town of Southold,Suffolk County(7.5'Quadrangle: Mattituck Hills, NY). The fish and wildlife habitat consists of approximately 60 acres of tidal wetland and creek, 10 acres of shoals and mudflats,and 80 acres of protected park district land(including beaches)located on either side of the Mattituck Inlet jetties. North of the wetland,Mattituck Inlet,a deepwater inlet with strong tidal flushing, enters Long Island Sound. South of the inlet,Mattituck Creek extends south for one mile with moderate residential and marina development. The wetland is undisturbed, with the majority of the acreage is owned by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. FISH AND WILDLIFE VALUES: Small,undisturbed tidal wetlands with good tidal flushing are unusual in northern Suffolk County. The Mattituck Inlet Wetland exhibits high primary productivity, supporting a large variety of fish and wildlife species both in the wetland and around the mouth of the inlet to Long Island Sound. Mattituck beaches both east and west of the inlet have recently provided significant nesting habitat for least terns(T): An annual average of 43 breeding least tern(T)pairs were recorded for the three year period 2000-2002(281 in peakyear). Previous surveys for this species along the beaches during the late 80's and through the 90's yielded no evidence of nesting. An annual average of one pair of piping plover(E,T-Fed)has nested at Mattituck beaches over the 10 yearperiod 1993 through 2002, with a peak of three pairs in 1996. Roseate tern( )loafing ne s edconsistently on platforms in the along Mattituck. s to but nesting has not been documented. Osprey(SC)have owned portion of the wetland since 1984 and feed in Mattituck Creek. Mattituck Creek supports a productive local recreational fishery, including bluefish, striped bass, weakfish,fluke,flounder,and porgies. Theand shellfish. Surf clams,hard clalso serves as an ms, habitat oyst oysters,for and blue a variety of other wildlife as Well as marine finfis mussels have been harvested in or adjacent to the habitat area, but there have been pollution problems due to marina development and non-point source inputs,resulting in consequent shellfish closures. Within the habitat,Mattituck Creek is conditionally certified for shellfish harvesting. IMPACT ASSESSMENT: Any activity that would substantially degrade the water quality in Mattituck Creek and the Mattituck Inlet Wetlands would adversely affect the biological productivity of this area. Degradation of water Page 2 of 5 quality,from chemical contamination(including food chain effects resulting from bioaccumulation), oil spills,excessive turbidity, and waste disposal(including vessel wastes)would adversely affect all fish and wildlife. Efforts should be made tos uxces.eVe water quality, upland buffegzon s should be the control and reduction of discharges from vessels and upland a went from upland sources. protected or established to further reduce water quality imp P Alteration of tidal patterns in Mattituck Creek and the Mattituck Inlet Wetlands could have adverse effects on the fish and wildlife communities present. Dredging to maintain existing boat channels should be scheduled between September 15 and December 15 to minimize potential impacts on aquatic organisms,and to allow for dredged material placement when wildlife populations are least sensitive to disturbance. Dredged material placement in this area would be detrimental,but such activities may be designed to maintain or improve the habitat for certain species of wildlife. Existing and proposed dredging operations in this area should incorporate the use of best management practices to avoid and reduce adverse effects. Construction of shoreline structures, such as docks, piers,bulkheads, or revetments, in areas not previously disturbed by development,may result in the loss of productive areas which support the fish and wildlife resources of Mattituck Creek and the Mattituck Inlet Wetlands. Elimination of salt marsh and intertidal areas,through loss of tidal connection,ditching,excavation,or filling,would result in a direct loss of valuable habitat area. Alternative strategies for the protection of shoreline property should be examined, including innovative, vegetation-based approaches. Control of invasive nuisance plant species,through a variety of means,may improve fish and wildlife species use of the area and enhance overall wetland values. Unrestricted use of motorized vessels including personal watercraft in the protected,shallow waters of Mattituck Creek could have adverse effects on aquatic vegetation and fish and wildlife populations. Use ofmotorized vessels waters controland led (ed-,no wake zones,speed zones,zones of exclusion)in and adjacent to shallow Thermal discharges, depending on time of year,may have variable effects on use of the area by such as sea turtles and overw marine species, intering waterfowl. Installation and operation of water intakes could have a significant impact on juvenile(and adult,in some cases)fish concentrations, through impingement or entrainment. HABITAT IlVIPAIIZMENT TEST: A habitat impairment test must be applied to any activity that is subject to consistency review under federal and State laws, or under applicable local laws contained in an approved local waterfront revitalization program. If the proposed action is subject to consistency review,then the habitat protection policy applies, whether the proposed action is to occur within or outside the designated area. The specific habitat impairment test is as follows. In order to protect and preserve a significant habitat, land and water uses or Page 3 of 5 dF ry Waters of the United States, Tidelands, Wet Lands, boundaries not affected by unnatural forces Tidelands and submerged lands are those lands abutting the ocean or sea and subject to the ebb and flow of the tide in its normal or average condition. These tidelands are located between the lines of ordinary low tide and ordinary high tide. The term "mean high-tide line" is the mean or average if available of all the high tides over a period of 18.6 years. All lands below the mean high-tide line are subject to ownership by the sovereign, usually the state. Land that is considered tidelands and subject to a claim of interest or ownership by the state depends on a determination of the location of the mean high-tide line in its last natural state or condition. The term "last natural state" means the true line as established by natural Or nature forces before any artificial conditions have been created and excludes steam shoveled or other Artificially filled accreted lands. The land below the mean high-tide line is classified as submerged, and the land above the mean high-tide line as upland. The distance between the two lines can be great or quite limited, depending upon the type or character of the land. A long sloping beach area would have a substantial tideland area when contrasted with the generally narrow beach below a steep cliff. *328.5 Changes in limits of waters of the United States. Permanent changes of the shoreline configuration result in similar alterations of the boundaries of waters of the United States. Gradual changes which are due to natural causes and are perceptible only over some period of time constitute changes in the bed of a waterway which also change the boundaries of the waters of the United States. For example, changing sea levels or subsidence of land may cause some areas to become waters of the United States while siltation or a change in drainage may remove an area from waters of the United States. Man-made changes may affect the limits of waters of the United States; however, permanent changes should not be presumed until the particular circumstances have been examined and verified by the district engineer. _Verification of changes to the lateral limits of jurisdiction may be obtained from the district engineer §329.13 Geographic Limits: Shifting boundaries. Permanent changes of the shoreline configuration result in similar alterations of the boundaries of the navigable waters of the United States.Thus,gradual changes which are due to natural causes and are perceptible only over some period of time constitute changes in the bed of a waterbody which also change the shoreline boundaries of the navigable waters of the United States. However,an area will remain "navigable in law," even though no longer covered with water,whenever the change has occurred suddenly,or was caused by artificial forces intended to produce that change_For example, shifting sand bars within a river or estuary remain part of the navigable water of the United States, regardless that they may be dry at a particular point in time. 'J i i 1 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY NEW YORK DISTRICT,CORPS OF ENGINEERS JACOB K.JAVITS FEDERAL BUILDING • � NEW PORK, N.Y.10278-0090 REPLY TO ATTENTION OF Office of Counsel SUBJECT: Freedom of Information Act Request No.FA-15-0091 John Cleary 1350 Central Drive Mattituck,NY 11952 Dear Mr,Cleary: This is in response to your Freedom of Information Act request regarding a legally established property line and a legally established mean high tide mark on the Mattituck beach consisting entirely of impounded land west of the Mattituck Jetty. Please be advised that we conducted a thorough search of our District files and we did not locate any information matching your request. A "no records"response is an "adverse determination"under 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(6)(A)(i)since the requester did not receive the documents it requested. Oglesh v.Department of the Army, 920 F2d 57, 67 (D.C. Cir. 1990). As a result,a requester wishing to challenge the adequacy of the search must have the opportunity to appeal a"no records"response to the head of the agency. In the present situation,the undersigned is the Initial Denial Authority for"no records" denial. You have the right to appeal this determination through our office to the Secretary of the Army. An appeal must be received within 60 days of the date of this letter. The envelope containing the appeal should bear the notation"Freedom of Information Act Appeal"and should be sent to: U.S.Army Engineer District,New York, Office of Counsel, Room 1837 26 Federal Plaza. New York,NY 10278 According to applicable regulations,there are no assessable fees. Sincerely, Digitally signed by LEE.L4RRAIN LEELORRAINE.C.1228825367 a � _ E 12288253 DN=DoD, o=U.S.Government, ou=DoD,ou4Kl,ou=USA, cn=LEELORRAINEC.1228825367 67 Date:2015.04.01 14:20.33-04'00' P 7 Lorraine Lee ' District Counsel Initial Denial Authority __"- Freedom of Information Act Officer t 1,d : �- •s ,-��r`.i:� rr i ._ .•i e , MA•I-'I.1•I UC K INUT W ILA DS AND B .:1C HFS Mrattitatck �•. ; a \` Intel ' - i ♦�? ��'°6; Ss Mattltur:k. �♦ =r era �-- a5 Via;° \ �a✓�� ';car %. Light N Jetty. ire"" atcr meat.,, ♦� f' p'?sr ��� +-:� a',\t ` [)cStttG;Park ✓'♦� ,y •ti f�./; y,:, '� ytit ,.. t ` ' :l. C$pf$tA Kid(` �+.'S�S$ES ��� ♦ � `t,.`;,,� � 1 � b � �i t t� $4Xtr� � �,+• \\P•, � _ 5 N., r Trd3rh, •;., �' ,rr `A�': 5 . �' ♦1 fi .1,Jt r; ... vrC' S •"_ `"=�; 63 _ .q li' ee C> )� h 1,°°rl=-' 1• �Ot1e ++ .. :3,,• rV���s rtt `� ( + � j rr .\t �3 s•"�_ I tt d=:. CS :c-rrffi ��l ..>� -� Y �a r 8V,%� r •"�,i, i �• y� - )t r. a� i yr !� - _ rtTLt / O�f Pi♦:3 ti��w•=:l 6 � y t ✓ /-� M:°•. ==; 'iA=s C9\�y { "'s" ; i K- •\• -b S," 3 r �tYY •i =. f'- rJ t__ �. r'\. '� pit i ' tl• a °e l .l ` •ice'a>°�" i ,w ` �� � \\ r �' \ . l..• � !? y, \ a d�r-•:�.".+.r' �.�t � lit 1•;.'• t'� t � r� n _� r= -1`i - `.. a '� ii r_ -9,•-•• •.o�, ae. '• s.\ V�. �♦ • - :'. J ii-��. . •:�°'•��,E.�_ t � t�::ii.�h�t'�� °r 4.d�{ :iq�r �.;1� f ,i;;f�P'?,+i,'"� j�,✓••.-�t� '.� .� .'��. \, - - � F- ,r�u`♦ ���ov pry � d .e�kC�B t t.r� -�'` '� �•.+/� :� �;• Jj����` \\s���TtSTClitt�k aC t�,.�4�+- _ � \. ` .,,•t �'_ u w°�._f,,,.��J t0'.,,..`-`-� �A\ ,, i .-•ts`�,-�s •Y ltsSCB'��. ••..r y "t Y3iti��® � :.° r ram' !. :;?�G�i M+� ,. KtiaE ' o �t :`t see ?tlut � 1��0~ It 1. oIle ,. .of ♦ / t` nm ♦`` ♦\ Y" y� Pt Y VI �\ �c-� `' sionificant Coastal Fish and Wildlife I-lab itats \�tt Mattituck 1111ct 1\cOands and Beaches F-7 \'t„i Ot,nc 1)epal!milt ui"wic aI)I%mon of L t+:t.Gti tta:�t tlllil+ Subject: Map: Date: 5/23/2019 12:27:42 PM Eastern Standard Time From: thewritersbusiness@gmaii-com To: soundvue3@aol.com WOW, � .trttMANOR s'� a ,4(a +LV?I%}'at�a 11, � e' NINg V [ m ,; rfy. CL w 4 $i- i s 1 1 g4e till `.o. ^ "'�,4 1S ti .� l `a 6 ag #� $ 9 T ..a-,:.. ON +C+%1 �8�' k+# � ���7� & t+ it $ ti i `. - kf ..t[+ fi � <; �r � � 1,9; m'�+. ;,rp, �'. "� -,.�i t i+fit �.da>s'dYfB �r �}� i•g+1 fl+r Q ',�.�!d°Jrd f ! � � � � s a r+z�,� ti+d e f� �} rrt ij.�• , � +�t / l 1 " ,I � ,�`++ g � } �� 3 3 ' !VTj f _ '� ti*l�jJr` �: r gg &`te�B)89ed/dl ( ''rrr f.'./Yd3'Idf � i T N 9 `S ' n � 7 ., l Ilrrrafa l° j.r1 •'r. P� 's'Fax st, ��� ' �aa elf wb :f � ep � � ."Al I J + 9 s g? �r,•�� �y�Vill j t r t'drdti "pta° � + r vr�� a Hs ° B k e r � ,� � t t a s $ aka �bt h °s r ° l: a� r{{rk s� 4r as s �, �� tt� k, }��IN > + g +s + a f x r:` f 9 3' i p �,t .45 tat,}+ d ri y k �d 4* LI�j R 4." °�� `"�� �� � }v 4 li-. it � { f r'f' a}" r i t r4 1 � Rota +t ' f / fry€tfsPlrt �� �� i t}} 't �r7 a 1} 3, er A' '{ P r= }1 t. L4 s} / 4 a e / $ 477 14 C ����? 457 U.S. 273 Page 1 of 11 457 U.S. 273 102 S.Ct. 2432 73 L.Ed.2d 1 State of CALIFORNIA, ex rel. STATE LANDS COMMISSION, Plaintiff V. UNITED STATES. No. 89, Original. Argued March 29, 1982. ' - 4 Decided June 18, 1982. Rehearing Denied Sept. 9, 1982. See 458 U.S. 1131, 103 S.Ct. 14. Syllabus Held:The United States, not California, has title to oceanfront land created through accretion, resulting from construction of a jetty, to land owned by the United States on the coast of California. Pp. 278-288. (a)A dispute over accretions to oceanfront land where title rests with or was derived from the Federal Government is to be determined by federal law. Hughes v. Washington, 389 U.S. 290, 88 S.Ct. 438, 19 L.Ed.2d 530; Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe, 442 U.S. 653, 99 S.Ct. 2529, 61 L.Ed.2d 153. Under federal law, accretion, whatever its cause, belongs to the upland owner. Pp. 278-283. (b)This is not a case where, as a matter of choice of law, state law should be borrowed and applied as the federal rule for deciding the substantive legal issue. Congress addressed the issue of accretions to federal land in the Submerged Lands Act,which vested title in the States to the lands underlying the territorial sea and confirmed the title of the States to the tidelands up to the line of mean high tide, but which in § 5 withheld from the grant to the States all "accretions"to coastal lands acquired or reserved by the United States. In light of this latter provision, borrowing for federal-law purposes a state rule that would divest federal ownership is foreclosed. Moreover, this is not a case in which federal common law must be created, since it has long been settled under federal law that the right to future accretions is an inherent and essential attribute of the littoral or riparian owner. Pp. 283-285. (c) Only land underneath inland waters was included in the initial grant to the States under the equal-footing doctrine, United States v. California, 332 U.S. 19, 67 S.Ct. 1658, 91 L.Ed. 1889, and hence California cannot properly claim that title to the land in question here was vested in the State by that doctrine and confirmed by the Submerged Lands Act.The latter Act was a constitutional exercise of Congress' power to dispose of federal property and "did not impair the validity" of the United https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/457/457.US.273.89.html 7/24/2013 457 U.S. 273 Page 2 of 11 States v. California decision, United States v. Louisiana, 363 U.S. 1, 7, 20, 80 S.Ct. 961, 967, 973, 4 L.Ed.2d 1025.To accept California's argument would require rejecting not only Hughes, supra, but also the established federal rule that accretions belong to the upland owner. Pp. 285-286. (d) Section 2(a)(3) of the Submerged Lands Act, defining "lands beneath navigable waters"that fall within the Act's general grant to the States as including all "made" lands that formerly were lands beneath navigable water, does not apply to the gradual process by which sand accumulated along the shore, although caused by a jetty.To the extent that accretions are to be considered "made" land,they would fall within the reservation by the United States in the Act of"all lands filled in, built up, or otherwise reclaimed by the United States for its own use." In any event, § 5(a)of the Act expressly withholds from the grant to the States all"accretions"to lands reserved by the United States. Pp. 286-288. (e) Section 3(a) of the Submerged Lands Act, confirming the title of persons who, on June 5, 1950,were entitled to lands beneath navigable water"under the law of the respective states in which the land is located," means nothing more than that state law determines the proper beneficiary of the grant of land under the Act. Federal law determines the scope of the grant under the Act in the first instance. P. 2441. The United States' motion for judgment on the pleadings granted. ;! Bruce S. Flushman, San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff. Louis F. Claiborne,Washington, D. C., for defendant. justice WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court. The issue before the Court is the ownership of oceanfront land created through accretion to land owned by the United States on the coast of California.The decision turns on whether federal or state law governs the issue. * From the time of California's admission to the Union in 1850,the United States owned the upland on the north side of the entrance channel to Humboldt Bay,Cal. In 1859 and 1871,the Secretary of the Interior ordered that certain of these lands, which fronted on the Pacific Ocean,the channel, and Humboldt Bay be reserved from public sale., Since that time the land has been continuously possessed by the United States and used as a Coast Guard Reservation.The Pacific shoreline along the Coast Guard site remained substantially unchanged until near the turn of the century when the United States began construction of two jetties at the entrance to Humboldt Bay.z The jetty constructed on the north side of the entrance resulted in fairly rapid accretion on the ocean side of the Coast Guard Reservation,so that formerly submerged lands became uplands.3 One hundred and eightyfour acres of upland were created by the seaward movement of the ordinary high-water mark. This land,which remains barren save for a watchtower,is the subject of the dispute in this case. The controversy arose in 1977 when the Coast Guard applied for permission from California to use this land to construct the watchtower.4 At this time it became evident that both California and the United States asserted ownership of the land. The United States eventually built the watchtower without obtaining California's permission.5 Invoking our original jurisdiction,California then filed this suit to https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c[US/457/457.US.273.89.html 7/24/2013 457 U.S. 273 Page 3 of 11 quiet title to the subject land.6 We granted leave for California to file a bill of complaint.454 U.S. 809, 102 S.Ct. 83,7o L.Ed.2d 78 (1981). California alleges that upon its admission to the Union on September 9, 1850,Act of Sept. 9, 1850,9 Stat.452,and by confirmation in the Submerged Lands Act,67 Stat. 29,43 U.S.C. § 13oi et seq.,California became vested with absolute title to the tidelands and the submerged lands upon which,after construction of the jetties, alluvion was deposited, resulting in formation of the subject land. Because the accretion formed on sovereign state land,California maintains that its law should govern ownership. Under California law,a distinction is drawn between accretive changes to a boundary caused by natural forces and boundary changes caused by the construction of artificial objects. For natural accretive changes,the upland boundary moves seaward as the alluvion is deposited,resulting in a benefit to the upland owner.Los Angeles v.Anderson,206 Cal. 662,667,275 P. 789,791(1929). When accretion is caused by construction of artificial works,however,the boundary; does not move but becomes fixed at the ordinary high water mark at the time the artificial influence is introduced. Carpenter v.Santa Monica,63 Cal.App.2d 772, 794, 147 P•2d 964,975(1944)• It is not disputed that the newly formed land in controversy was created by the construction of the jetty.Therefore,if state law governs, California would prevail. By its answer,and supporting memoranda,the United States contends that the formerly submerged lands were never owned by California before passage of the Submerged Lands Act in 1953,and that the disputed land was not granted to California by the Act.The United States also submits that the case is governed by federal rather than state law and that under long-established federal law,accretion, whatever its cause,belongs to the upland owner.Jones v.Johnston, 18 How. 150, 156, 15 L.Ed.320(1856); County of St. Clair v.Lovingston,23 Wall. 46,66,21 L.Ed. 813 (1874);Jefferis v.East Omaha Land Co., 134 U.S. 178, 189-193, 10 S.Ct. 518,520-22,33 L.Ed. 872(18go);Beaver v. United States,35o F.2d 4, 10-11 (CA9 1965).7 If such federal law controls,title to the deposited land vested in the United States as the accretions formed. Recognizing that the choice-of-law issue was clearly drawn,California moved for summary judgment and the United States moved for judgment on the pleadings.No essential facts being in dispute,a special master was not appointed and the case was briefed and argued.We conclude that federal law governs the decision in this case and that the land in dispute is owned by the United States. II In Borax Consolidated,Ltd.v.Los Angeles,296 U.S. 10,56 S.Ct.23,8o L.Ed. 9 (1935),the city filed suit to quiet its title to land claimed to be tideland and to belong to the city by virtue of a grant from the State.The defendant claimed by virtue of a patent from the United States issued after California entered the Union. In an opinion by Chief Justice Hughes,and with a single dissent,the Court held that if the land in question was tideland,the title passed to California at the time of her admission to the Union in 1850;that it remained to be determined whether the land at issue was tideland;and that this issue was "necessarily a federal question" controlled by federal law.The Court said: "Petitioners claim under a federal patent which, according to the plat,purported to convey land bordering on the Pacific Ocean.There is no question that the United States was free to convey the upland,and the patent affords no ground for holding that it did not convey all the title that the United States had in the premises.The question as to the extent of this federal grant,that is,as to the limit of the land. https:#bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/IJS/457/457.US.273.89.html 7/24/2013 457 U.S. 273 Page 4 of 11 conveyed, or the boundary between the upland and the tideland,is necessarily a federal question.It is a question which concerns the validity and effect of an act done by the United States;it involves the ascertainment of the essential basis of a right asserted under federal law.Packer v.Bird, 137 U.S. 661,669,670 [11 S.Ct. 210,211,212,34 L.Ed. 81g];Brewer-Elliott Oil Co.v. United States,26o U.S. 71,87 L43 S.Ct. 6o,64,67 L.Ed. 1401; United States v.Holt Bank,270 U.S.49,55,56 [46 S.Ct. 197, 19q,7o L.Ed.4651; United States v. Utah,283 U.S. 64,75 151 S.Ct.438, 440,75 L.Ed. 8441. Rights and interests in the tideland,which is subject to the sovereignty of the State,are matters of local law.Barney v.Keokuk[4 Otto 324, 3421,94 U.S.324,338 [24 L.Ed. 2241;Shively v.Bowlby, 1152 U.S. 1,] 40 1,14 S.Ct. 548,562,38 L.Ed.3311;Hardin v.Jordan, 140 U.S.371,382 [11 S.Ct. 8o8,812,35 L.Ed.428];Port of Seattle v. Oregon&Washington R. Co.,255 U.S.56, 63 141 S.Ct. 237,239,65 L.Ed.5001".Borax Consolidated,Ltd.v.Los Angeles,supra,296 U.S., at 22,56 S.Ct.,at 29. The Court went on to hold that tidelands extend to the mean high-water line, which the Court then defined as a matter of federal law. There was no question of accretions to the shoreline of the property involved in Borax. But some 30 years later,Mrs.Stella Hughes,the successor in interest to the owner of oceanfront property patented by the United States prior to the entry of the State of Washington into the Union,sued the State seeking to quiet her title to accretions that had become attached to her land and that had caused a seaward movement of the shoreline. Under Washington law,the accretions belonged to the State,the owner of the tidelands,and Mrs. Hughes would no longer own property fronting on the ocean. Under federal law accretions are the property of the upland owner.The trial court found that federal law applied.The Washington Supreme Court reversed,holding that Washington law applied and that the State owned any land that accreted after statehood.Hughes v.State,67 Wash.2d 799,410 P.2d 20 (1966). We in turn reversed, reaffirming the decision in Borax that federal law determined the boundary between state-owned tidelands and property granted under a federal patent and holding that the same law applied to determine the boundary between state-owned tidelands and oceanfront property where accretions had extended the shoreline seaward.Hughes v. Washington,389 U.S.290,88 S.Ct. 438, 19 L.Ed.2d 53o (1967).8 The justification for employing federal law was the special nature of the coastal boundary question: "The rule deals with waters that lap both the lands of the State and the boundaries of the international sea.This relationship,at this particular point of the marginal sea,is too close to the vital interest of the Nation in its own boundaries to allow it to be governed by any law but the'supreme Law of the Land.' "Id.,at 293,88 S.Ct.,at 440.We went on to decide that under federal law,the federal grantee of the uplands had the right to the accumulated accretions. Except for the fact that in the present case the upland to which the accretions attached has always been owned by the United States,this case and Hughes are similarly situated.Unless Hughes is to be overruled,judgment must be entered for the United States. California urges that for all intents and purposes Hughes has already been eviscerated by Oregon ex rel.State Land Board v. Corvallis Sand&Gravel Co.,429 U.S.363,97 S.Ct.582,5o L.Ed.2d 550(1977). Corvallis involved a dispute between the State of Oregon and an Oregon corporation over the ownership of land that became part of a riverbed because of avulsive changes in the river's course.The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's award of the land to the https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/457/457.US.273.89.html 7/24/2013 457 U.S. 273 Page 5 of 11 V corporation because that was the result dictated by federal common law,which, under Bonelli Cattle Co.v.Arizona,414 U.S. 313,94 S.Ct.517,38 L.Ed.2d 526 (1973),was the proper source of law.A majority of this Court reversed,overruling Bonelli and holding that the disputed ownership of the riverbed should be decided solely as a matter of Oregon law. Bonelli's error was said to have been reliance on the equal-footing doctrine as a source of federal common law.9 Once the equal- footing doctrine had vested title to the riverbed in Arizona, "it did not operate after that date to determine what effect on titles the movement of the river might have." 429 U.S.,at 371,94 S.Ct.,at 587. State,rather than federal law,should have been applied. California urges that in rejecting Bonelli and holding that disputes about the title to lands granted by the United States are to be settled by state law,the Court also , rejected Hughes since that case involved land that had been patented by the United States to private owners.We do not agree. Corvallis itself recognized that federal law would.continue to apply if"there were present some other principle of federal law requiring state law to be displaced."429 U.S.,at 371,94 S.Ct.,at 587. For example,the effects of accretive and avulsive changes in the course of a navigable stream forming an interstate boundary is determined by federal law.Id.,at 375,94 S.Ct.,at 589.The Corvallis opinion also recognized that Bonelli did not rest upon Hughes and that the Hughes Court considered oceanfront property"sufficiently different. . . so as to justify a'federal common law rule of riparian proprietorship." 429 U.S.,at 377,n.6,94 S.Ct.,at 59o,n.6.The Corvallis decision did not purport to_--= disturb Hughes. Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe,442 U.S. 653,99 S.Ct. 2529,61 L.Ed.2d 153 (1979),made clear that Corvallis also does not apply"where the[United States] Government has never parted with title and its interest in the property continues." 442 U.S., at 670,99 S.Ct.,at 2539•1° The dispute inCorvallis was between the State and a private owner of land previously in federal possession. In contrast,the riparian owner in Wilson was the United States,holding reservation land in trust for the Omaha Indian Tribe.The issue was the effect of accretive or avulsive changes in the course of a navigable stream. State boundaries were not involved. What we said in Wilson is at least equally applicable here where the United States has held title to,occupied,and utilized the littoral land for over too years: "[T]he general rule recognized by Corvallis does not oust federal law in this case. Here,we are not dealing with land.titles merely derived from a federal grant,but with land with respect to which the United States has never yielded tide or terminated its interest."442 U.S.,at 670,99 S.Ct.,at 2539• We conclude,based on Hughes v. Washington and Wilson v.Omaha Indian Tribe,that a dispute over accretions to oceanfront land where tide rests with or was derived from the Federal Government is to be determined by federal law. III Controversies governed by federal law do not inevitably require resort to uniform federal rules. Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe,supra,at 672, 99 S.Ct., at 2540. It may be determined as a matter of choice of law that,although federal law should govern a given question,state law should be borrowed and applied as the federal rule for deciding the substantive legal issue at hand.Board of Commissioners of Jackson County v. United States,3o8 U.S.343, 6o S.Ct.285,84 L.Ed.313 (1939); Royal Indemnity Co.v. United States,313 U.S. 289,61 S.Ct. 995,85 L.Ed. 1361 (1941).This is not such a case. First,and dispositive in itself,is the fact that Congress has addressed the issue of accretions to federal land.The Submerged Lands Act,43 U.S.C. § 13o1 et seq.,vested tide in the States to the lands underlying https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/457/457.US.273.89.html 7/24/2013 457 U.S. 273 Page 6 of 11 the territorial sea,which,in California's case,extended three miles seaward from the ordinary low-water line.The Act also confirmed the title of the States to the tidelands up to the line of mean high tide. Section 5(a)of the Act,however withheld from the grant to the States all "accretions"to coastal lands acquired or reserved by the United States.'1 43 U.S.C. § 1313(a). In light of this provision,borrowing for federal-law purposes a state rule that would divest federal ownership is foreclosed. In Wilson,where we did adopt state law as the federal rule,no special federal concerns,let alone a statutory directive,required a federal common-law rule. Moreover,this is not a case in which federal common law must be created. For over too years it has been settled under federal law that the right to future accretions is an inherent and essential attribute of the littoral or riparian owner. New Orleans v. United States, to Pet. 662,717,9 L.Ed. 661(1836); County of St. Clair v.Lovingston,23 Wall.,at 68. "'Almost all jurists and legislators, . . .both ancient and modern,have agreed that the owner of the land thus bounded is entitled to these additions.' "Jefferis v.East Omaha Land Co., 134 U.S.,at 189, 10 S.Ct.,at 520,quoting Banks v. Ogden,2 Wall.57,67, 17 L.Ed.818 (1865).We rejected the invitation to rely on state law in Hughes,which California readily ` admits is a case"in which the facts and issues are essentially identical,"Statement in Support of Motion for Leave to File Complaint 16,and we see no reason at thisUj juncture to adopt California's minority rule on artificial accretions,'2 even if we were free to do so. Applying the federal rule that accretions,regardless of cause,accrue to the upland owner,we conclude that title to the entire disputed land in issue is vested in the United States. IV Despite Hughes and Wilson,California claims ownership of the disputed lands because all of the accretions were deposited on tidelands and submerged lands,title to which, California submits,was vested in the State by the equal-footing doctrine and confirmed by the Submerged Lands Act. But California's claim to the land underlying the territorial sea was firmly rejected in United States v.California,332 U.S. 19, 67 S.Ct. 1658,91 L.Ed. 1889 (1947),which held that only land underneath inland waters was included in the initial grant to the States under the equal-footing doctrine.Furthermore,the Submerged Lands Act was a constitutional exercise of Congress' power to dispose of federal property,Alabama v. Texas,347 U.S. 272, 273-274, 74 S.Ct.481,482,98 L.Ed.689 (1954),and"did not impair the validity"of the California decision, United States v.Louisiana,363 U.S. 1,7,20,80 S.Ct. 961, 967,973,4 L.Ed.2d 1025(1960).13 In any event,whatever the ownership of the submerged lands,this approach,based as it is on the equal-footing doctrine and the federal statute,is not a claim that state law should govern but a claim that the historic rule that accretions belong to the upland owner is wrong and should be replaced with a rule awarding title to the owner of the land on which the accretions took place.To accept this submission,however,would require rejecting not only Hughes,but also the long-established federal rule that accretions belong to the upland owner—a doctrine consistent with the majority rule prevailing in the States. See Part III,supra. Indeed,the proposed rule is also inconsistent with California's own law that accretions attributable to natural causes belong to the upland owner. For all these reasons,we refuse the invitation to depart from the long-settled rule.14 Independent of the above analysis,California claims that the United States expressly surrendered title to the disputed land through the Submerged Lands Act. California argues the subject land falls within the general grant to the States of https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/IJS/457/457.US.273.89.html 7/24/2013 457 U.S. 273 Page 7 of 11 "lands beneath naviagable waters."Section 2(a)(3) of the Act defines "lands beneath navigable waters"to include"all filled in, made, or reclaimed lands which formerly were lands beneath navigable waters."43 U.S.C. § 1301(a)(3). Because the jetty construction caused fairly rapid accretion,and,but for the construction of the jetties,the subject land would have remained submerged,California submits the accretion-formed land is "made"land,whose title rests in California by virtue of the Submerged Lands Act. We do not read this provision of the Act as applying to the gradual process by which sand accumulated along the shore,although caused by a jetty affecting the action of the sea.1 S Moreover,to the extent that the accretions are to be considered "made"land,they would fall within the reservation by the United States of"all lands filled in,built up,or otherwise reclaimed by the United States for its own use."This follows from the congressional object to assure each sovereign the continuingbenefit of landfill and like work performed b each.1 6 In an event §5 p y 3' � ;. (a) of the Act expressly withholds from the grant to the States all "accretions"to lands reserved by the United States,and both California and the United States agree that the exposure of the formerly submerged lands in dispute constitutes "accretion."This reading of the Act adheres to the principle that federal grants are to be construed strictly in favor of the United States. United States v. Grand River Dam Authority,363 U.S.229,235,8o S.Ct. 1134, 1138,4 L.Ed.2d 1186 (i96o); United States v. Union Pacific R. Co.,353 U.S. 112, 116,77 S.Ct. 685,687, 1 L.Ed.2d k 693 (1957). Finally,California submits that the Act granted title to the State by confirming the title of persons who,on June 5, 1950,were entitled to such lands "under the law of the respective States in which the land is located. . . ."43 U.S.C. § 1311(a).This provision means nothing more than that state law determines the proper beneficiary of the grant of land under the Act;it is clear that federal law determines the scope of the grant under the Act in the first instance. V We reaffirm today that federal law determines the boundary of oceanfront lands owned or patented by the United States.Applying the federal rule that accretions of whatever cause belong to the upland owner,we find that title to the disputed parcel rests with the United States.Accordingly,California's motion for summary judgment is denied,and the United States' motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted.The parties,or either of them,may,before September 27, 1982,submit a proposed decree to carry this opinion into effect,failing which the Court will prepare and enter an appropriate decree at the next Term of Court. It is so ordered. Justice REHNQUIST,with whom Justice STEVENS and Justice O'CONNOR join, concurring in the judgment. I concur in the judgment. I believe that our decision in Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe,442 U.S. 653,99 S.Ct. 2529,61 L.Ed.2d 153 (1979),requires the application of federal common law to resolve this title dispute between the United States and California,and that§5(a)of the Submerged Lands Act indicates the source of that law. The dispute in this case concerns the ownership of artificially caused accretions on oceanfront property belonging to the United States.The dispute centers on the legal effect of the movement of the"mean high-water mark."That mark separates the fastlands continuously owned by the United States from the "tidelands"—the https:Hbulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c[US/457/457.US.273.89.html 7/24/2013 457 U.S. 273 Page 8 of I l area of partially submerged lands between the mean high-and low-water marks. California's claim of title to the tidelands is based.upon the equal-footing doctrine. Because the tidelands belong to it and because the accretions formed on the tidelands,California contends that state law applies to resolve this title dispute between it and the United States.The rule adopted by the California courts regarding artificially caused accretions holds that title to accreted land vests with the State rather than the riparian or littoral owner.The United States contends that federal common law applies and argues that the federal common-law rule holds that title to land formed by accretion vests in the owner of the riparian land. The dispute in this case is similar to that in Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe.We held in Wilson that federal common law and not state law governs title disputes resulting from changes in the course of a navigable stream where an instrumentality of the Federal Government is the riparian owner.442 U.S.,at 669- 671,99 S.Ct.,at 2538-2539•The rule of Oregon ex rel.State Land Board v. Corvallis Sand&Gravel Co.,429 U.S.363,97 S.Ct.582,5o L.Ed.2d 550(1977), was distinguished.The Corvallis rule—that state law governs—applies where the dispute over the legal effect of a shifting riverbed does not involve claims of title by a federal instrumentality. I agree with the Court that the Wilson rule applies to oceanfront property as well f as riverfront property where the Federal Government is the littoral owner. Wilson should apply to the movement of the high-water mark along the ocean in a fashion similar to the way it applies to changes in the bed of a navigable stream. In the instant case,as in Wilson,it is irrelevant that the accretion,as a geographical "fact," formed on land within the State's dominion,be it a river bottom or the ocean tidelands.The fact is that bothWilson and the instant case concern title disputes over changes in the shoreline where the Federal Government owns land along the shoreline. In Wilson,we held that state law supplied the applicable rule of decision even though federal common law applied to resolve the title dispute.We found no need for a uniform national rule and no reason why federal interests should not be treated under the same rules of property that would.apply to private persons. In contrast to Wilson,however,I agree with the Court that Congress in §5(a) of the Submerged Lands Act has supplied the rule of decision. Section 5(a)withholds from the grant to the States all accretions to coastal lands acquired or reserved by the United States. I also agree with the Court that California did not acquire the disputed lands pursuant to the "made lands"provisions in§2(a)(3). Consequently,the Court's discussion regarding the continuing vitality of Hughes v. Washington,389 U.S. 29o,88 S.Ct.438, i9 L.Ed.2d 530(1967),is dicta.Hughes is unnecessary to the resolution of choice-of-law issues in title disputes between the Federal Government and a State or private person. Reliance on Hughes would be necessary only if we were to hold that federal common law,rather than state law, applied in a title dispute between a federal patentee and a State or private persons as to lands fronting an ocean.The instant case does not present that issue. It is difficult to reconcile Hughes with Corvallis and we should postpone that endeavor until required to undertake it. In summary,I think this case can be easily resolved as a title dispute between the United States and California concerning the legal effect of movement of the Pacific Ocean's high-water mark. Wilson and the Submerged Lands Act resolve the dispute. The continuing vitality of Hughes should be left to another day. https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/457/457.US.273.89.html 7/24/2013 457 U.S. 273 Page 9 of 11 I Secretarial Order,December 27,1859;Secretarial Order,August 19,1871.See Exhibit C to Exhibits in Support of California's Motion for Leave to File Complaint. Z Construction of the jetties commenced on the South Spit in 1889 and on the North Spit in 1890.U.S.Army Corps of Engineers,San Francisco District,Survey Report on Humboldt Bay,California,App.I,Shoreline Changes 2-3,8-9(Feb.10,1950),Exhibit D (hereafter cited as Corps Report).The north jetty was a massive work,having a total length of 7,500 feet. 3 The United States and California agree that the seaward shift of the shoreline was caused by the construction of the jetties.A study by the Army Corps of Engineers found: "With the inauguration of jetty construction in 189o,there began a series of interruptions in normal littoral transport[of sand].With each increment in length of the jetties the[Humboldt]bar was pushed seaward.Consequent decrease in offshore depths caused the shore to advance on each side of the inlet."Id.,at 8,¶25. After jetty construction, ". ..the Humboldt bar.. .shifted and reformed seaward of its 1870 position,and the ocean high-water shore line along the north spit. ..shifted seaward.The seaward advance of the north spit shore line was most pronounced upon reconstruction of the north jetty in 1917."Id.,at 9,¶25. 4 California does not contend that,having applied for a state permit,the United States is estopped from asserting its claim to ownership of the disputed land.Tr.of Oral Arg.at 5- 6.Such an argument is foreclosed by United States v. California,332 U.S.19,39-40,67 S.Ct.1658,1668-69,91 L.Ed. 1889(1947)(footnote omitted): "[O]fficers who have no authority at all to dispose of Government property cannot by their conduct cause the Government to lose its valuable rights by their acquiescence,laches,or failure to act." +' See also United States v. City and County of San Francisco,310 U.S.16,31-32,6o S.Ct. 8 L.Ed. 10 o 749,757, 4 5 (194®); Utah v. United States,284 U.S.534,545-546,52 S.Ct. ,.. 232,235,76 L.Ed.469(1932). 5 In May 1978,California transmitted a proposed permit to the United States to allow construction of the watchtower.See Corps Report,Exhibit F.A few days later,the f..i Bureau of Land Management of the Department of the Interior formally advised the Coast Guard and the California Commission that the United States claimed the disputed acreage as accretion.Letter of June 5,1978,attached to Corps Report,Exhibit G.The proposed permit was never executed. 6 Disputes between a State and the United States over ownership of property are fully within our original jurisdiction over cases in"which a State shall be Party,"Art.III,§2, Cl.2.Although our jurisdiction over this matter is concurrent with that of the district courts,California v.Arizona,440 U.S.59,65,99 S.Ct.919,923,59 L.Ed.2d 144(1979); 28 U.S.C.§1251(b)(2),we have previously indicated that coastal boundary disputes are appropriately brought as original actions in this Court. United States v.Alaska,422 U.S. 184,186,n.2,95 S.Ct.2240,2244,n.2,45 L.Ed.2d log(1975). The United States has waived its immunity to suit in actions brought against it to quiet title to land.28 U.S.C.§1346(f).See California v.Arizona,supra,440 U.S.,at 65-68,99 S.Ct.,at 923-924• 7 California's claim that Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe,442 U.S.653,672,99 S.Ct.2529, 2540,61 L.Ed.2d 153(1979),determined that there was no"federal common law"of accretion and avulsion,is a misunderstanding of that decision.We said only that"[t]he federal law applied in boundary cases. . .does not necessarily furnish the appropriate rules to govern"a case not involving a boundary dispute.Too much is also read into dictum in Oregon ex rel.State Land Board v. Corvallis Sand&Gravel Co.,429 U.S. 363,380-381,n. 8,97 S.Ct.582,591-592,n.8,5o L.Ed.2d 550(1977),taking issue with the dissent's meaning of the term"federal common law." https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/IJS/457/457.US.273.89.html 7/24/2013 457 U.S. 273 Page 10 of 11 8 All participating Justices joined except Justice Stewart,who concurred on grounds that the State's claim to the property constituted a taking without compensation.He rejected the majority's application of federal law to the question.Justice MARSHALL took no part in the case. 9 The equal-footing principle holds that all States admitted to the Union possess the same rights and sovereignty as the original 13 States.Pollard's Lessee v.Hagan,3 How.212, 229,11 L.Ed.565(1845);Shively v.Bowlby,152 U.S.1,26,30,14 S.Ct.548,557,559,38 L.Ed.331(1894)• 10 The majority opinion in Corvallis appears to recognize that its rule does not extend to land remaining in federal hands: "'We hold the true principle to be this,that whenever the question in any Court,state or federal,is,whether a title to land which bad once been property of the United States has passed,that question must be resolved by the laws of the United States;but that whenever,according to these laws,the title shall have passed,then that property,like all other property in the state,is subject to state legislation;so far as that legislation is consistent with the admission that the title passed and vested according to the laws of the United States."'429 U.S.,at 377,94 S.Ct.,at 590(quoting Wilcox v.Jackson,13 Pet. 498,517,10 L.Ed.264(1839);emphasis added by Corvallis Court). r r In relevant part,§5(a)of the Act,62 Stat.32,43 U.S.C.§1313(a),excepts from the grant to the States AA all tracts or parcels of land together with all accretions thereto,. . .title to which has been lawfully and expressly acquired by the United States. . .and.. .all lands expressly retained by or ceded to the United States when the State entered the Union.. .." - Although"accretions"are expressly mentioned only in connection with federal"acquired lands,"accretions to retained lands should be similarly excepted from the grant to the States.Former Solicitor General Cox,in an opinion approved by the Attorney General, s explained: "There can be no doubt that Congress intended each of the various categories of lands excepted by section 5(a)to include accretions.The terms of section 5(a)make this clear. The customary rights of landowners are set forth in full in the first of the several exceptions listed in section 5(a).Thus,it speaks of'all tracts or parcels of land together With all accretions thereto,resources therein,or improvements thereon. .. .'Each of the other exceptions speaks simply of'all lands.'Obviously,the more comprehensive word 'lands'was used instead of'tracts or parcels of land'and the explicit reference to accretions,resources and improvements was omitted in order to avoid repetition.There is no reasonable basis for any other conclusion.Congress would not have limited its exceptions of'all accretions thereto,resources therein,or improvements thereon'to lands'lawfully and expressly acquired by the United States'from any State or its grantees and then denied them where the lands were'expressly retained'or'acquired by the United States by eminent domain proceedings,purchase,cession,gift,or otherwise in a proprietary capacity. .. ."'42 Op.Atty.Gen.241,264(1963). 12 In United States v. California,0.T.1951,No. 6,Orig.,California argued that the"Court should adopt the federal rule that accretions formed by gradual and imperceptible degrees even though induced by artificial structures accrue to the owner of the adjoining land."Brief in Relation to Report of Special Master go. California suggested"ample reasons why[the]exceptional California view should not be extended and applied in determining the boundaries of the marginal sea off California."Id.,at 91.Those reasons included the fact that the California rule is contrary to that adopted by courts of most other States,that the application of state law would lead to varying results in different States,and that the California rule was devised for wholly inapplicable reasons. 13 See also Alabama v. Texas,347 U.S.,at 273-274,74 S.Ct.,at 482; United States v. California,381 U.S.139,145-148,85 S.Ct.1401,1405-o6,14 L.Ed.2d 296(1965); United https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/tJS/457/457.US.273.89.html 7/24/2013 457 U.S. 273 Page 11 of 11 s States v.Louisiana,389 U.S.155,156-157,88 S.Ct.367,368,19 L.Ed.2d 383(1967); Texas Boundary Case,394 U.S.1,2,89 S.Ct.768,769,22 L.Ed.2d 36(1969); United States v.Maine,420 U.S.515,524-526,95 S.Ct.1155,116o-61,43 L.Ed.2d 363(1975); United States v.Louisiana,446 U.S.253,256,268,1oo S.Ct.1618,1621,1627,64 L.Ed.2d 196(198o). 14 For the same reasons,we reject California's alternative theory that the equal-footing doctrine vests title in the State to all lands that ever were tidelands.California argues that as deposition occurred on submerged land,these areas went to a tideland phase— vesting title in the State—before eventually emerging as uplands.Federal law governs the scope of title initially vested by the equal-footing doctrine;at most,this argument suggests a different federal rule should apply to former tidelands.The suggestion has little to recommend it.Even leaving aside the concerns expressed in text,we see no reason for an exceptional rule to apply to land that once was,but no longer is,tideland. Moreover,implementation of the rule would require plotting the high-and low-water lines at all intervening times between statehood and the present. 15 The word"made"was inserted into the provision in a bill introduced by Congressman Walter.H.R.8137,81st Cong.,2d Sess.,§2(a)(2)(1950).The Report on that measure describes it as"in substance,the same"as earlier proposals omitting the term. H.R.Rep.No.2078,81st Cong.,2d Sess.,3(1950).Throughout Congress'consideration of the bill there was no comment on the"made"land provision.No Member of either House ever suggested that§1301(a)(3)covered accretions that were attributable to artificial works.Against this background,we find no significance in the two casual references by Robert Moses and Senator Daniel to naturally formed accretions as "made."Hearings on SA.Res.13 et al.before the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,83d Cong.,1st Sess.,158(1953)(remarks of Robert Moses); id.,at 193- 194(remarks of Sen.Daniel). 16 The interpretive opinion rendered by former Solicitor General Cox,while including naturally formed islands within the"made"language of§2(a)(3),rejects the suggestion that accretion to the mainland,whether or not directly attributable to artificial causes,is included in the Submerged Lands Act grant to the States.42 Op.Atty.Gen.,at 259-265, 266-267.We express no opinion on the Act's treatment of naturally formed islands in the marginal sea. CCO PUBLIC.RESOU RCE.ORG X` https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/457/457.US.273.89.html 7/24/2013 Hobson, Thomas From: Veronica Walsh <vwalsh176@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 15, 2025 4:18 PM To: Hobson, Thomas Subject: [SPAM] - Beach access at the end of Sound Drive I understand you will be reviewing the historic beach access at the end of Sound Beach Drive this Wednesday 9/17. Unfortunately myself and my husband are not available to attend. Our house is on the bluff above the beach access point in question at 205 Summit Drive. We have been using this beach access point since our house purchase in 2017.We feet that eliminating a shared, convenient, and historically public beach access in favor of one homeowner is shortsighted and ignores the needs of the broader community. We ask, respectfully, that you consider those that have been using this parking area and beach access point over the years. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Veronica Walsh ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. 1 Hobson, Thomas From: Elissa Fondiller <efondiller@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, September 15, 2025 2:42 PM To: Hobson, Thomas Subject: [SPAM] - Hearing re: Tenforty Central LLC Wetland Permit To the Southold Town Board of Trustees, I am writing in regards to Tenforty Central LLC's Wetland Permit to remove asphalt and remove/eliminate cleared beach access path at Sound Beach Drive, which is set for hearing for Wednesday, September 17, 2025. The applicant's property sits on the bluff above the beach, along with a few other homes. Some of those homes have private staircases but the owners are rarely(if ever) seen using the beach.To eliminate a shared, convenient, and historically public beach access in favor of one homeowner— especially one who has yet to even build on the property—is shortsighted and ignores the needs of the broader community. The application proposes revegetating the cleared path, which implies that the applicant does not intend to utilize the Sound Beach Drive portion for beach access. However, if access is desired the applicant can still construct a path or staircase within the boundaries of their property without eliminating a long- standing community access point. The Town should give serious consideration to the principle of prescriptive easement, given the historic and continued use of this path by members of the community over many years. Removing such an established access route in favor of a single, undeveloped parcel would not only disregard that history, but also diminish public trust and access to a shared coastal resource. Additionally, if the beach access path is moved closer to an existing beachfront home on Sound Beach Drive it would bring foot traffic closer to them, potentially increasing privacy concerns.The current path is far less intrusive. Furthermore, removing the existing asphalt reduces the available space for vehicles to safely turn around at the end of Sound Beach Drive. Lastly I would like to raise that the sign notifying residents of this hearing was only posted within the past week which limits effort to ensure community input. I respectfully ask the Board to reject the applicant's request at this time and preserve this access point for the use and benefit of the wider Southold community. Sincerely, Elissa Fondiller i s,UF�0 Glenn Goldsmith, President ��ti� c�� Town Hall Annex A.Nicholas Krupski, Vice President 54375 Route 25 Eric Sepenoski �� P.O. Box 1179 Liz Gillooly �`may �N_ Southold,NY 11971 Elizabeth Peeples �� ���� Telephone(631)765-1892 Fax(631)765-6641 Southold Town Board of Trustees Field Inspection Report Date/Time: Completed in field by: �, En-Consultants on behalf of TENFORTY CENTRAL LLC requests a Wetland Permit to remove approximately 150sq.ft. of asphalt (at end of Sound Beach Drive), from applicant's property; remove and relocate metal Town signage pole from applicant's property; remove/eliminate cleared beach access path extending across applicant's property from Sound Beach Drive by revegetating approximately 770sq.ft. of cleared pathway with native vegetation, including Baccharis halimifolia, Myrica pensylvanica, and Ammophila breviligulata, to be sourced from nursery stock and plant material transplanted from new/relocated Town beach path (to be established on Town lands by Town of Southold); and install temporary (12 months max.) snow fencing along northeasterly property line to protect newly established plantings. Located: 1940 Central Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-116-1-27 Type of area to be impacted: Saltwater Wetland Freshwater Wetland Sound Bay Part of Town Code proposed work falls under: y/ 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.: vo Present Were: /G. Goldsmith N. Krupski E. Sepenoski L. Gillooly E. Peeples � r NOTES r (I) Approx 77o SF of existing cleared I path to beach from town property to q -- be removed I revegetated with native k44 �— �— — �� � �,--is f' grasses(Ammophila breviligulata) I18"o.c.sourced from new/relocated town beach path(to be established q J U L 2 9 by Town of Southold)and nursery p IN SOUND BEACH D R I V 2�25 stock as needed. rJ O FROM DEC ASTAL EROSION ARHAZARD LINE SCALED Southold Town O �l o (i) Area of asphalt to be removed from r I I`� (SOMOLD r OF 49) EXISTTNGARPH RMro nfTh istees \\ subject property pursuant to BEACH PARKING\ ` Boundary Line Agreeement with � �\ I Town of Southold,Liber Doo13269, ExlsnNc META, w O 9 I \�' I REMOVED(RELOCATED PROPOSED Page 8 6 4'HICH TEMPORARY _Q+ Ux month)SNOW FENCE \ / PROPOSED e I� I _ _ (2)3-4'Baccharis halunifolia V APPROX �I ET —/� ••��� (3)to gal Myrica penavlvanic,a i5o SF OF EXISTING L• I PROPERTY LINE ASPHALT TO BE REMOVED '�. 8.85t �— ./-5'x:5'-SEE NOTE x GUY O r APPROX 7/o SF OF EXISTING CLEARED PATH TO BEACH FROM TO"PRO-SEEN TE, 4 8. REMOVED/REVEGETATED.-SEB NIYIEt I \ EX BEACH PATH — L 8' 8. / I ` 9.4� / - - - - - _ _ _ _ - - _IOt - - - 12' / 1-. I g PROPOSED ALTERATION TO EXISTING BEACH PATH - (Site plan based on survey by Lenze Land Surveying, last dated October 23,2024) SCALE: t'=zo'-o" P.aTalc A JLANDSC APE DESIGN ` qt M Y1y s _ + a TOWNOr 8- 1iN C ..` - o Alf , 124 I - eat o O — r PROJECT: 194o CENTRAL DRIVE w 1 o� ar o / SHEET: BEACH PATH MEDIATION PLAN slowI SCALE: AS SHO WN DATE JULY 16 2025 PROPERTYOWNER: Tenforry Central LLC PROPERTY ADDRESS: t94o Central Drive w r?ti Mattitudk NY1195a • .� \ �t)I� 2!'� a tars SCTM: #IooO-IO6-I-27 !E • Qlt L,. I O I AERIAL VIEW OF EXISTING CONDITION SITE LOCATION NO SCALE: NO SCALE SURVEY N0: 24-0103 //' SURVEY NOTES: SURVEYED: 12-11-23 CATIONSFEXISTING DWELLINGS N ADJACENT LOTS ARE FOR REFER N E ONLY AND ARE FROM SURVEYS REFERENCED BELOW. THEY OT F / IGHEST WATER MARK — ALL OWNERS FROM ADJACENT LOTS ARE FROM SUFFOLK COUNTY GIS WEBSITE AND ARE AS CURRENT AS THE WEBSITE STAKEOUT: 1-15-24 ON 10/10/24 (LINE OF VEGETATION) BELOW INFO DATA DERIVED FROM GROUND SURVEY SHOTS TAKEN ON THE DATE OF SURVEY AS WELL AS CONTOUR DATA REFERENCED INFO ADDED: 2-15-24 SURVEY REFERENCES 1� //afl,l�af,\OI 1, COASTAL EROSION HAZARD AREA MAP,PHOTO No.59-533-83,SHEET 2 OF 49 HAZARD LINE ADDED: 3-13-24 J 2. CONTOUR DATA; https://gis.ny.goy/nys—contours(SUFFOLK COUNTY) 4,r�QL 3. FEMA INFO FROM MAP&SHAPE FILE DERIVED.FROM FEMA FIRM MAP 36103COl 39H EFFECTIVE MAY 41h,1998 REVISED SEPTEMBER 25th, 2009 CONC. MON SET: 6-21-24 R 4. TAX LOT 26 SURVEY BY NATHAN TAFT CORWIN III DATED DECEMBER 261h, 2001 (APPROXIMATE DWELLING LOCATION ONLY) TIE LINE 5, TAX LOT 29 SURVEY BY PECONIC SURVEYORS PC DATED JANUARY 9th, 2014(APPROXIMATE DWELLING LOCATION ONLY) TOPO ADDED: 10-11-24 �O r0° JACREAGE CORR.: 10-23-24 N 57 5100"E• 41.6Cf)'NC. ~ �� MON SET �G `�o TACK &,•FIUB SET CON. CONC. �o ON LINE,.�' d ON. MON SET a �'o\P 8.00� o� // 1 /FjOUND NA �ET PATH IN �`�P� 1 \ SAN I K Na SET G� R�J \ , o F LARGE BOULDERS r' No- 7200 �5730'00"E O,O' B T tOM OF �o CONC. BLUFF Gt1Y 0tid MON \ / I FOUND COASTAL EROSION HAZARD INE / ,a°° ! °'`FOUND SCALED FROM DEC HAZARD IPA o0 1�°0;-"'1 (SOUTHOLD 2 OF 4}) °poo ryas 3a�000po oo= ORGY 66O O \ ° oci °° 6° 6a° 0 r. p� 6 oy "1a�o o6p0 00 /. a6go ga°% ( gPR PRS� i goo ���aG 5 STOP OF BLUFF T 0 O�PR CO 2 11 CONC. MON. � FOUND \\ 92.00 to 41 I CONC. MOAT lb Ib' FOUND; "339 \ ati9apo ----\�'" --'- SOS 4 0) Po5 62 \\ ggp0 \\ SP CP�1�5 2 9i.00 I�PG�P�P G a _go.p0--._._--------- - ��F P \ZIP / \ g6 p0 - \ ,,D WAI Y F 5.0, W \ R=176.79 01 CONC. c3NO ego J U L 2 9 2025 may. \ FOUND 120,0� °h - -" Southold Town CONC. Y '26 P ! ��� P SET MON. pR�vEW DRIVE Board of Trustees FOUND v as 0° CENTRAL a CE , DOE Oxw•�O.N 120 0 0 YF' _oxw- 0 00• 5 �1 Oxw' TOTAL DEVELOPABLE LOT AREA (SOUTH OF T.O. BLUFF)= 33,244 SQUARE FEET ' oxw�"ox } VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD88 SCALE: 1"=60' TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY ��oF NEW Yo SITUATE AT CO ,RD D. 4F���� �r M A TTI TU C K TOWN OF SOUTHOLD COUNTY OF SUFFOLK LAND SURVEYING STATE OF NEW YORK FILED MAP: CAPTAIN KIDD ESTATES SURVEY PREPARED FOR AND CERTIFIED TO: F 051099 FILED: JANUARY 19th, 1949 tisFO LAND Sv FILE NO: 1672 BLOCK: 1 MASSAPEQUA ♦ NEW YORK LOT(S): 4 GERARD D. LENZE L.S. PRESIDENT TAX MAP ID: 1000-106.00-01.00-027.000 PHONE: (516)967-3028 NYS LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR EMAIL: LENZELANDSURVEYING@GMAIL.COM PROPERTY AREA (TO TIE LINE)= 1.35 ACRES/ 58,635 SQ. FEET LICENSE NO. 051099 SURVEY NOTES• UNAUTHORIZED ALTERATION OR ADDITION TO THIS SURVEY IS A VIOLATION OF SECTION 7209 OF THE NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION LAW•COPIES OF THIS SURVEY NAP NOT BEARING THE LAND SURVEYORS INKED SEAL SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE A VAUD TRUE COPY 4 GUARANTEES OR CERTIFICATIONS INDICATED HERON SHALL RUN ONLY TO THE PERSON FOR WHOM THE SURVEY IS PREPARED,AND ON HIS BEHALF TO THE TITLE COMPANY,LENDING INSTITUTION,AND GOVERNMENT AGENCY LISTED HEREON♦GUARANTEES ARE NOT TRANSFERABLE TO ADDITIONAL INSTITUTIONS OR SUBSEDUENT OWNERS 4 ENCROACHMENTS BELOW GRACE AND/OR SUBSURFACE FEATURES,IF ANY,NOT LOCATED OR SHOWN HEREON•OFFSETS SHOWN ARE FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSE ONLY. THEY ARE NOT INTENDED TO ESTABLISH PROPERTY LINES FOR THE ERECTION OF FENCES,STRUCTURES,OR ANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT 1 SURVEY IS SUBJECT TO ANY STATE OF FACTS WHICH AN UP-TO-DATE TITLE EXAMINATION MAY DISCLOSE♦SURVEY PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EXISTING'CODE OF PRACTICE FOR LAND SURVEYS' ADOPTED BY THE NEW YORK STATE ASSOCIATION OF.PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS 4 PROPERTY CORNERS WERE NOT SET AS PART OF THIS SURVEY 40 _ 1111111111111111111111111111�111111111111IIlllillllllll I IIIIII IIIII IIIII IIII sill SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK RECORDS OFFICE RECORDING PAGE Type of Instrument: BOUNDARY LINE AGREEMENT Recorded:. 10/25/2024 Number of' Pages-: 6 At: 04 :30 59 PM Receipt Number 24- 1132833 TRANSFER TAX NUMBER: 24-10140 LIBER: D00013269 PAGE:. 896 District: Section: Block:. Lot: 1000 106.00 01.00 027 .000 EXAMINED AND CHARGED .AS FOLLOWS Deed Amount: $0.00 Received the Following Fees For Above Instrument Exempt. Exempt Page/Filing $30.00 NO Handling $20.00 NO COE $5.00 NO NYS SRCHG $1:5.,00 NO TP-584 $10.00 NO Notation $0.00 NO CertwCopies $0.00 NO RPT $200.00 * NO Transfer tax $0.00 NO Comm.Pres $0,00 NO Comm.-Pies Fund $0.00 NO Comm.Housing Fund $0.00 NO Fees Paid $280.00 TRANSFER TAX NUMBER:, 24-10.140 THIS PAGE IS A PART OF THE INSTRUMENT THIS IS NOT .A SILL VINCENT PULED County Clerk, Suffolk County RECORDED 2024.Oct 25 04;30:59 PM Numberofpages VINCEFIT PULEO CLERK OF SI iFFOLK COUNTY This documentvuill be public L D00013269 record: Please remove all P 896 DT# 24-10140 Social Security Numbers prior to recording. Deed/Mortgage Instrument Deed/Mortgage Tax Stamp Recording/•Filing Stamps 3 FEES Page/F.ilingFee 3�-0Q ' Mortgage Amt. 1 Basic Tax. Handlin 20. 00 g 2.. Additional Fax Xo7 R 0.,00 iSub Total Notation Spec./Assit. or EA-5217(County),- SubTotal (od.CD Spec./Add, EA4i217(State) TOT.MTG.TAX ZDDDual Town Dual County R.P.T.S.A. .. HeldforAppoinfinent Comm.of Ed. 5. 00 Transfer Tax Affidavit Mansion Tax. CertifiedCo The property covered by this-mortgage is Copy or will be improved by a one or two 15. 00- family dwellirig only. NYS Surcharge: Sub Total 19,90•C)c YES or NO Other Grand Total 41�0 CZ, If NO,see appropriate.tax clause on page# of.thisinstrument. 9 DIst.1'0( 54107S$ 1000-10600 0100 027000 5 Community Preservation Fund Real PropertyPA IIIII IIIII IIIII IIII[I Consideration Amount$R TaxService Agency PF Due $ :Verification a Improved' G Satisfactions/Discharges/Releases List Properly Owners:Mailing Address RECORD&R&URN TO: 7 Vacant Land OFFIT KURMAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW TD BRAD JACOBS, ESQ, 590 MADISON AVENUE,6TH FLOOR TD NEW YORK,NY 10022 TD Mail to: 'Vincent Puleo,Suffolk-County Clerk 7 Title Company Information 310 Center Drive, Riverhead, NY 11901 Co.Name CORE TITLE SERVICES LLC www.suffalkcountyny.govhcleirk Title# CORE28877 8 Suffolk County Recording & Endorsement Page, This page forms part.of the attached BOUNDRY LINE AGREEMENT made by: (SPECIFY TYPE OF'INSTRUMENT)' THE CHRISTINE MESKOURIS 2020'REVOCABLE The premises herein is situated situated in TRUST DATED MARCH 16,2026 SUFFOLK COUNTY,NEW YORK, TO Inthe TOVVN of MATTITUCK TOWN OF,SOUTHOLD IntheVILLAGE' or HAMLET of BOXES 6 THRU 8 MUST BETYPEO OR PRINTED IN BLACK INK'ONLY PRIORTO RECORDING OR FILING, over .so BOUNDARY LINE AGREEMENT 'b:IMD S'Mb-AD AGREEMENT made this 811 day of July,2024 by and between Christine Meskouris, as Sole 01.OD Trustee of the Christine Meskouris 2020 Revocable Trust dated 3/16/2020, residing at 216 W*�WD Beverly Road, Douglaston,NY 11363, party of the first part,and the Town of Southold,with an address at 53095 Main`Road, Southold,New York 11971, party of the.second part. WITNESSETH WHEREAS,the party of the first part is record owner of the premises known as 1940 Central Drive, Mattituck,NY 11952 in.the Town of Southold,County of Suffolk, State of New York, further identified as Suffolk County Tax Map number 1000-1,06.00-01.00-027.000(hereinafter referred to as the"Meskouris Property") and See AA -he6 ��edu12 A WHEREAS,.the party of the second part is record owner of the road and adjacent open space more specifically known as Sound.Beach Drive, M. ttituck,NY 11952 in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New York(hereinafter referred to as the"Town Property");and WHEREAS,the Meskouris Property and the Town Property are contiguous and share a common boundary line along.a portion of the northeast of the Meskouris Property and along a portion of the northwest of the Town Property; and WHEREAS, according to a survey of the Meskouris Property made by Lenze Land Surveying dated December H, 2023, last revised June 21,2024, annexed hereto and made a part hereof as. Exhibit.A (the "Meskouris Property Survey"), there is an approximate 265 square feet area that party of the second part paved along the northeast of the Meskouris Property (the "Road Encroachment'); and WHEREAS, the Meskouris Property Survey also depicts a beach path leading northwest from the Road.Encroachment area across the Meskouris Property to the shore of the Long lsland Sound(the"Beach Path") and WHEREAS,,the parties now desire to definitely establish the property line between the Meskouris Property and the Town Property described above and to clarify their respective rights, title;and interests in the referenced properties; and NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of Ten ($10.00) Dollars and other good and valuable consideration, the parties, for themselves, their successors or assigns, hereby covenant and agree as follows: 1. The parties acknowledge that the common boundary is the record line delineated in the attached Meskouris Property Survey. 2. The parties acknowledge and agree that any maintenance of any part of the Meskouris Property by the party of the second part is and has been consensual and without claim of 1 M � right and shall never result in the vesting of any property rights in the party of the second part or any successor in interest,.by adverse possession or otherwise. 3. The party of the second part agrees that.the party of the first part may remove the paved road encroachment. Party of the first part agrees to hold the party of the second part harmless and assumes no liability or responsibility for removal of paved road encroachment. or results froth same. Any actions/ inaction by party of the first part regarding the,paved road encroachment must comply with all town code requirements. 4. The parties agree to permit this agreement to be recorded. 5. This agreement and the covenants herein shall run with the land,and inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective heirs, legatees, administrators, executors, Legal representatives, successors and/or assigns, including remote,as well as immediate, successors to and assignees of the parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties havesectheir hands and seal on the day and year written above. CHRISTINE MESKOURIS 2020 REVOCABLE TRUST dtd 3/16/20 0 13 hristine Meskouris: ole Trustee TOWN OF SOUTHOLD By: Albert J. Krupski, Jr., Supervisor 2 State of New York: County of 5146V : ss: On the 1 day of 4ygVSI in the year 2024 before me, the undersigned, personally appeared CHRISTINE MESKOURIS; personally known to me or proved to me on the:basis of satisfactory evidence to:be the individual whose name is subscribed.to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she executed the same in his/her capacity and that by his/her signature on the instrument,the individual,or the person upon behalf of which the individual acted, executed this instrument. l; Al N ANNALtSE O.UELLET7E otary Public NOTARY PUBLIC-STATE OF NEW YORK No.o160409467_ . . .__ oijaiif.ietlin Sgffglkeounty My Commission Expires 09-29-2028. State of New York: County of ' .Ili, ; ss On the day of in the year 2024 before me,the undersigned, personally appeared ALBERT J. kRUPSKI,,JR., personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the individual whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she-executed the same in,his/her capacity and that by his/her signature on the instrument, the individual, or the person upon behal f which the individual acted,executed this instrument. Notary Public MARTIN M FTNNEGM NOlary PubQ"M d Nv*Y01lk Na01FI6056lo7 ° Ownfied in&Aom 2Q kL 3 ' Stewart Title. Insurance Company Title Number:CORE28877 Page 1 SCHEDULE A DESCRIPTION (AMENDED 91412024) ALL that certain,plot piece or parcel of land, situate, lying and being at Mattituck, Town of Southold,.county of Suffolk and State of New York, known as lot 4 on the certain map known as.Map of"Captain Kidd Estates"filed January 19, 1949,file number 1672,with the Office of the Clerk of the County of Suffolk which said lots is bounded and described as follows BEGINNING at a point on the northerly side of Central Drive, distant 55.64 feet westerly from the westerly end of the arc of a curve having a radius of 176.79 feet which connects said northerly side of Central Drive with the.northwesterly side of Summit Drive; RUNNING THENCE along Central.Drive;.South 77 degrees 26 minutes 00 seconds West, 120:00,feet; THENCE along the:dividing line of lots 3 and 4 North 24 degrees 44 minutes 40 seconds West 602.64 feet more or less to the present.high water-mark"at Long Island Sound; THENCE along the present high watermark, North 57 degrees 15 minutes 00 seconds East 41.59.feet more or:test.to Sound Beach Drive; THENCE along Sound Beach Drive, South 38 degrees 00 minutes 00`seconds East, 207.39 feet more or less; THENCE still along.Sound Beach Drive, North 57 degrees 30 minutes 00 seconds East, 12.00 feet to the dividing tine of lots 4.and 5.South 26 degrees.56 minutes U0.seconds East,433.83 feet to the northerly side of Central Drive at the point or place of BEGINNING. ,For Information Only: Premises is known as 1940 Central Drive,Mattituck, NY L J� yrRv;r NP. 24--1i SURLEVCD: 12-ti-23 COVENANTS, CONDITIONS. RESTRICTIONS. =ASEMENTS, AGREEMENTS._ETC, OF RFCORD STAKEOUT: 1-15-ZA TELEPHONE EASEMENT LIBER 2965 .PACE 234 INFO ADDED-. 2-15-24' HAZARD UNE AOWD::3-13-24 APPARENT CCNC.MDN SET: 6-21-24 \y' -Hm WATER uARR ` , ON,12-11-23 CART&PILE ADDED: 9-5-24 11 N 5775'00'F '` �• Lp CORR.LOT NDN9EH5:.9 5-2.4 41.69' CaHG � UON SET 11 CONC. \ - SACK&+0 SET, CON 1 uN uDN SET LINE\ 99 S,'OF kC�C FdWAID PATH UWT OF ENC>K7ACHI,AT SAND ( K SET U¢T i-26S SO.FEE . F G ' � 4.0' ' 0 I'�IIP SET!/S� RTTDY APPROX. 1" N.§7:'T)'00'f 1\BLbfF ��1 fi \ ! GUY ( 1 � L AID.FOGT1 L / r 1\ LOT COASTAL EROSION HAZARD ITN SCALD FROM DEC HAZARD NAP(SWTHOLD 2 OF 49 1 /'! 16 L0T 3 \ / 9 ,.<,-APPROIL TwOf9LAuwrr \ cbwc uay. Fan \ t \ . \\ OVA �\ 0'W \a° \ 1 \ � E•TE7.74' $� Fcl LRPONWO 124Q4- cma \ W aa�Dt 4. -MM� ' SCAT.[: I-.6D' NE TITLE SURVEY SITUATE AT �1PS�gD D"r MATTITUCK TOWN OF 50UTHOLD COUNTY OF SUFFOLK LAND SURVEYING STATE OF NEW YORK HLED MAP. CAPTAIN MOD ESTATES SURVEY:PREPARED fOR mD CER71FQ'O TO: tc�05100 Fll£D: JANUARY 191n,1949 ALE.40:1672 TENFOR1Y CENTRAL LLC ;ANDgV aLOU: I CORE RILE SE7t`4CES MASSAPEQUA I NEW YORK LOT(S): A STEWART RiLE INAIRANCE COMPANY GERARD D.LENZE L.S. TITLE NO.CORE28R77 PRLSDENI TAX MAD M. IDCO-ICfi�.o1.OD-027:000 PHONE (5761967-3028 NY$"LICENSED LAND SL'R'tEYOR EMAK:LENZELA`+DSUMINGOGMAII.COL1 PROiER1T AREA(70 DE LLNt)-1.7T Ames/.NS.J27'SC.1EET UCENSE NO.051099 LM OAI.rrwa�dd•dd•rAwr��R41s•uID...1RN••nw NI.W4d�..m.tsr W..m f.e6%.%YY�n+D•.>yl-H mm•O•Iu•.m+1 %�11T•IV.¢.s��•d!•Vnl tl••l:m.%1•RrnlwitN�.n UO W..MM1ya Y.fn+L.O•�4�OIMR�I,Wa01Yn11 uw".IIngN44�nnlVlw•144•n.A A71 rgidIwS Ywf a1..M.w.w.E���mrur�on+Wr'.%usb.a.om oeunl•...na.WK4.�:.Mar�ulno wts..rn owr. �tl�wo.IrLWw Wesb d.�¢n.w.w�vwnordm...M114b+1 oonx•.vmr wm.�•�mlwa lw rA•�n loon mlm a�enwun:•ww1 �s.<;nrn�..d�.s.•;s w•ror.u.www..%armow+nc eo..r wT . ,"'�; /, 'i"°s.. ,.'< ♦ ;�..r! 4, it- �,�% yy I MMM lilll lll1 � - _�aA'.--..... .. _: ._f,,, �X..` ,y� '.ra.�'�p^--+s-•a•" A • � ,,,,yam 1'f / „ � ...r�� � d r M r TENFORTY%TRAL LLC, 1940 CENTRAL DRIVEESATTITUCK <, V. a '�� , Figure 3. Looking northwest from end of Sound Beach Drive atportion of asphalt(outlined in green)and Town signagepole to be removed from applicant's property;and at existing beach path to be eliminated through revegetation. 4-1 4. .I F MnC. `y n . dv �`•W r. Figure 4. Looking southeast at end of Sound Beach Drive and portion of asphalt to be removed from applicant's property(outlined in green). t 9� aw ae x E sEc SEE SEC W.(ria LINE t as99 K a+a"� c_ _ f _• aiT� ,,Tp., t{� a xoax x z. a� fJ� �*6d t �tk) ° a a.,� - ,�.:.x'+l t t q'•a as -,+r�. �'r.w,_- � z +o : ��t - �+aJa a a d a.4A(4 °DR » s: z•#a f zz Fz„„"'� s y...,nY�(�Z) e ;jS' v 2. 1.. 7 42 to P M 4 (Ad a p �r a « .t l tSz At ek+ °,£a�,w- y u_ '+b Je I y ±r '"•to i ab,jJxtl n t Ig ( P'att S.xt xa (yAI I Ilr Y 1 a 21 _ ay .- ��g. J �. tS ,t °..:11 ti.� ;y'. a _ t 2 W U g bd. .. ' t !Y._. • ry y eµ . - .. 1a° A , i f� y'2 27,2 " o, 1•. J 'M1 t ¢. .n 1 4 1.9 4 I ! y :". y < ,� • P�. tP'b�k '.2 ++AE1 j t ao i. M A t 1 Ib aiYa x f 91, 'POG tBPKt e J 81 I , a+ t No zMta t a T ° _ .. ' y' o JJA .S q• • � � ��'w . a • } W ti I r. y. ya<I y ♦ r. aAl I y!\ z d: )a ea 7 e vio .593' - ..F4•Yb ` .� .t t2Az1 F iin __ ✓ " n ' 1 u 'ram - 1 < 9 r,.$' t. 9EE 6E0 O e �• '• 's tMJ 1 )+a _ "4 o i . TTw 'L6'l f A i 4- tc5.o.0ae.J b9 M ucE,rww� y1 �< 3• taAl1 r IS IIA ° L'. SEE tiEC.NO.tIJ� e :'nin T�.al':..o a:,,Ke ,••" '"•••r• `•'"•` —O •�� .. .. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK© lwo SECiwNw -�— ...: ,.. R 1 Pz P rzyl a etlg—Y on Y A 90UTNOtD 10 V (21) a..... i.�nc OFFICE LOCATION: MAILING ADDRESS: Town Hall Annex P.O.Box 1179 54375 State Route 25 Southold, NY 11971 (cor. Main Rd. &Youngs Ave.) Telephone: 631 765-1938 Southold, NY 11971 , cou LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM TOWN OF SOUTHOLD To: Glenn Goldsmith, President Town of Southold Board of Trustees Cc: Honorable Lori Hulse, Attorney From: Heather Lanza, AICP, Planning Director LWRP Coordinator Date: October 6, 2025 Re: LWRP Coastal Consistency Review TENFORTY CENTRAL, LLC Walkway Remediation SCTM#1000-116.-1-27 The application referenced above is to remove approximately 150 sq. ft. of asphalt (at end of Sound Beach Drive) from applicant's property; remove and relocate metal Town signage pole from applicant's property; remove/eliminate cleared beach access path extending across applicant's property from Sound Beach Drive by revegetating approximately 770sq.ft. of cleared pathway with native vegetation, including Baccharis halimifolia, Myrica pensylvanica, and Ammophila breviligulata, to be sourced from nursery stock and plant material transplanted from new/relocated Town beach path (to be established on Town lands by Town of Southold); and install temporary (12 months max.) snow fencing along northeasterly property line to protect newly established plantings 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 proposal is CONSISTENT with the LWRP as follows: Policy 6.1 B, Protect and restore ecological quality by adhering to the following measures. Item 2. Retain and add indigenous plants to maintain and restore values of natural ecological communities. This action will restore a section of this significant coastal habitat by removing asphalt and a cleared walkway and revegetating with native salt-tolerant plants. When re- creating the walkway on the Town's parcel, it is recommended to limit the width to the narrowest that is practical. Pursuant to Chapter 268, the Board of Trustees shall consider this recommendation in preparing its written determination regarding the consistency of the proposed action. Page 2 Glenn Goldsmith,President t>VT SO l�T , Town Hall Annex A.Nicholas Krupski,Vice President ,`4 �© � 54375 Route 25 P.O.Box 1179 Eric Sepenoski Southold,New York 11971 Liz Gillooly Elizabeth Peeples •� ` �'' Telephone(631) 765-1892 s, Fax(631) 765-6641 COW N BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD This Section For Office Use Only 1 �� l�rt4 ' Coastal Erosion Permit Application Wetland Permit Application !� Administrative Permit JUL 2 9 2025 Amendment/Transfer/Exte Sion _Received Application: a Southold Town Received Fee: $ Board of Trustees Completed Application: Incomplete: SEQRA Classification: Type I Type II Unlisted Negative Dec. Positive Dec. Lead Agency Determination Date: Coordination:(date sent): J _',�j_LWRP Consistency Assessment Form Sent: CAC Referral Sent: AAr _Date of Inspection: 10 Receipt of CAC Report: /V 11� Technical Review: _Public Hearing Held: ,:)Z Resolution: Name of Applicant Tenforty Central LLC c/o Italian Green Design Address 530 West 25th Street,New York,NY 10001 Phone Number: 64 895-9430 Suffolk County Tax Map Number: 1000 - 116- 1 -27 Property Location: 1940 Central Drive, Mattituck (property located on north side of Central Drive,+/-200'east of Linda Road) (provide LILCO Pole #, distance to cross streets, and location) AGENT: En-Consultants (If applicable) Address: 1319 North Sea Road, Southampton,NY 11968 Phone:631-283-6360 C'� Riq� Board of Trustees Appl°'� `�tion GENERAL DATA Land Area(in square feet): 58,635 sf Area Zoning: R-40 Previous use of property: Vacant-Residential Intended use of property: No change created by activities proposed herein Covenants and Restrictions: Yes X No If"Yes", please provide copy. Will this project require a Building Permit as per Town Code? Yes X 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 Building Dept. Yes X No Does the structure(s)on property have a valid Certificate of Occupancy N/A Yes No Prior permits/approvals for site improvements: Agency Date X No prior permits/approvals for site improvements. Has any permit/approval ever been revoked or suspended by a governmental agency? X No Yes If yes, provide explanation: Project Description (use attachments if necessary): Remove approximately 150 sf of asphalt(at end Sound Beach Drive)from applicant's property;remove and relocate metal Town signage pole from applicant's property;remove/eliminate cleared beach access path extending across applicant's property from Sound Beach Drive by revegetating approximately 770 sf of cleared pathway with native vegetation, including Baccharis halimifolia,Myrica pensylvanica,and Ammophila breviligulata,to be sourced from nursery stock and plant material transplanted from new/relocated Town beach path(to be established on Town lands by Town of Southold);and install temporary(12 months max.)snow fencing along northeasterly property line to protect newly established plantings,all as depicted on the site plan prepared by Patrick Conlan Landscape Design,dated July 16,2025. 3oard of Trustees Applica' 'z WETLAND/TRUSTEE LANDS APPLICATION DATA Purpose of the proposed operations: To remove,through revegetation,an existing cleared beach path that extends across applicant's property from the end of Sound Beach Drive,thus eliminating potential public tresspass over private land;and to remove asphalt and Town signage from applicant's property. Area of wetlands on lot: 0 square feet Percent coverage of lot: 0 0/0 Closest distance between nearest existing structure and upland edge of wetlands: N/A feet Closest distance between nearest proposed structure and upland edge of wetlands: N/A feet Does the project involve excavation or filling? X No Yes If yes, how much material will be excavated? N/A cubic yards How much material will be filled? N/A cubic yards Depth of which material will be removed or deposited: N/A feet Proposed slope throughout the area of operations: Manner in which material will be removed or deposited: Approximately 770 sf of native plant material sourced from nursery stock and plant material transplanted from new/relocated Town beach path(to be established on Town lands by Town of Southold)shall be installed throughout existing cleared beach path;asphalt to be removed and carted away for disposal at an approved upland location. 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): There currently exists a cleared beach path to Long Island Sound from the end of Sound Beach Drive,which is intended to provide public beach access,but the pathway is situated entirely on the applicant's property rather than on the adjacent public lands owned by the Town of Southold.Therefore,to eliminate the continued invitation and potential for public tresspass over private land,the applicant proposes to remove the path through revegetation,such that a new,relocated path can be established by the Town of Southold on Town land, in cooperation with the Town of Southold.The revegetation of the existing pathway will of course have no adverse impacts on the surrounding natural resources or ecosystem,but in order to employ Best Management Practices and maximize environmental sustainability and conservation efforts,the applicant would revegetate the pathway not just with nursery stock but with existing plant materials transplanted from the new/relocated pathway,which would need to be removed to create the new pathway.And whereas the majority of the existing pathway has a width of at least 10 feet, it is anticipated that the new Town pathway would have a maximum width closer to 4 feet,meaning that one effect of the pathway relocation would be an increase in vegetative coverage of the shorefront.The proposed project would thus have a neutral to positive environmental impact,consistent both with the permit standards of Chapter 275 and with Policy 5 of the Town's LWRP. - t 617.20 Appendix B Short Environmental Assessment Form Instructions for Completing Part I-Project Information.The applicant or project sponsor is responsible for the completion of Part 1.Responses become part of the application for approval or funding,are subject to public review,and may be subject to further verification. Complete Part I based on information currently available. If additional research or investigation would be needed to fully respond to any item,please answer as thoroughly as possible based on current information. Complete all items in Part 1. You may also provide any additional information which you believe will be needed by or useful to the lead agency;attach additional pages as necessary to supplement any item. Part I-Project and Sponsor Information Name of Action or Project: Tenforty Central Beach Path Pro ect Location(describe, and attach a location map): 194Central Drive,Mattituck;SCTM#1000-106-1-27;(property located on north side of Central Drive,+/-200'east of Linda Road; location map attached. Brief Description of Proposed Action: Remove approximately 150 sf of asphalt(at end Sound Beach Drive)from applicant's property;remove and relocate metal Town signage pole from applicant's property;remove/eliminate cleared beach access path extending across applicant's property from Sound Beach Drive by revegetating approximately 770 sf of cleared pathway with native vegetation,including Baccharis halimifolia, Myrica pensylvanica,and Ammophila breviligulata,to be sourced from nursery stock and plant material transplanted from new/relocated Town beach path(to be established on Town lands by Town of Southold);and install temporary(12 months max.) snow fencing along northeasterly property line to protect newly established plantings,all as depicted on the site plan prepared by Patrick Conlan Landscape Design,dated July 16,2025. Name of Applicant or Sponsor: Telephone: 646-895-9430 Tenforty Central LLC E-Mail: claudio@italiangreendesign.com Address: c/o Italian Green Design,530 West 25 Street City/PO: State: Zip Code: New York NY 10001 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. X 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: NYS DEC Letter of Non-Jurisdiction,Suffolk County Department of Health Services X 3.a.Total acreage of the site of the proposed action? 58,635 sf b.Total acreage to be physically disturbed? <1,000 sf c.Total acreage(project site and any contiguous properties)owned or controlled by the applicant or project sponsor? 58,635 sf 4. Check all land uses that occur on,adjoining and near the proposed action. ❑Urban ❑Rural(non-agriculture) ❑ Industrial ❑Commercial ®Residential(suburban) ❑Forest ❑Agriculture ®Aquatic ❑Other(specify): ❑Parkland Page 1 of 4 r - 5. Is the proposed action, NO YES N/A a.A permitted use under the zoning regulations? X b. Consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan? X 6. Is the proposed action consistent with the'predominant character of the existing built or natural NO YES landscape? X 7. Is the site of the proposed action located in,or does it adjoin,a state listed Critical Environmental Area? NO YES If Yes, identify: X 8. a. Will the proposed action result in a substantial increase in traffic above present levels? NO YES X b.Are public transportation service(s)available at or near the site of the proposed action? X c.Are any pedestrian accommodations or bicycle routes available on or near site of the proposed action? X 9.Does the proposed action meet or exceed the state energy code requirements? NO YES If the proposed action will exceed requirements,describe design features and technologies: X 10. Will the proposed action connect to an existing public/private water supply? NO YES If No, describe method for providing potable water: NA X 11. Will the proposed action connect to existing wastewater utilities? NO YES If No, describe method for providing wastewater treatment: NSA X 12.a. Does the site contain a structure that is listed on either the State or National Register of Historic NO YES Places? b. Is the proposed action located in an archeological sensitive area? X X 13.a. Does any portion of the site of the proposed action,or lands adjoining the proposed action, contain NO YES wetlands or other waterbodies regulated by a federal,state or local agency? X b.Would the proposed action physically alter,or encroach into,any existing wetland or waterbody? X If Yes, identify the wetland or waterbody and extent of alterations in square feet or acres: 14. Identify the typical habitat types that occur on, or are likely to be found on the project site. Check all that apply. ® Shoreline ❑Forest ❑Agricultural/grasslands ❑Early mid-successional ® Wetland ❑Urban ® Suburban 15.Does the site of the proposed action contain any species of animal,or associated habitats,listed NO YES by the State or Federal government as threatened or endangered? X 16.Is the project site located in the 100 year flood plain? NO YES X 17. Will the proposed action create storm water discharge,either from point or non-point sources? YES If Yes, a. Will storm water discharges flow to adjacent properties? ❑NO❑YES b.Will storm water discharges be directed to established conveyance systems(runoff and storm drains)? If Yes,briefly describe: ❑NO❑YES Page 2 of 4 t c 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: X 19.Has the site of the proposed action or an adjoining property been the location of an active or closed NO YES solid waste management facility? If Yes,describe: X 20.Has the site of the proposed action or an adjoining property been the subject of remediation(ongoing or NO YES completed)for hazardous waste? If Yes,describe: X I AFFIRM THAT THE INFORMA ION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Applicant/sponsor name: Robe arm,Coastal Mgmt. Specialist Date: July 23,2025 Signature:_ lt�, 7�� Part 2-Impact Assessment.The Lead Agency is responsible for the completion of Part 2. Answer all of the following questions in Part 2 using the information contained in Part I and other materials submitted by the project sponsor or otherwise available to the reviewer. When answering the questions the reviewer should be guided by the concept"Have my responses been reasonable considering the scale and context of the proposed action?" No,or Moderate small to large impact impact may may occur occur 1. Will the proposed action create a material conflict with an adopted land use plan or zoning regulations? 2. Will the proposed action result in a change in the use or intensity of use of land? 3. Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of the existing community? 4. Will the proposed action have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area(CEA)? 5. Will the proposed action result in an adverse change in the existing level of traffic or affect existing infrastructure for mass transit,biking or walkway? 6. Will the proposed action cause an increase in the use of energy and it fails to incorporate reasonably available energy conservation or renewable energy opportunities? 7. Will the proposed action impact existing: a.public/private water supplies? b.public/private wastewater treatment utilities? 8. Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of important historic, archaeological, architectural or aesthetic resources? 9. Will the proposed action result in an adverse change to natural resources(e.g.,wetlands, waterbodies,groundwater,air quality,flora and fauna)? Page 3 of 4 No,or Moderate small to large impact impact may may occur 10. Will the proposed action result in an increase in the potential for erosion,flooding or drainage problems? 11. Will the proposed action create a hazard to environmental resources or human health? Part 3-Determination of significance.The Lead Agency is responsible for the completion of Part 3.For every question in Part 2 that was answered"moderate to large impact may occur",or if there is a need to explain why a particular element of the proposed action may or will not result in a significant adverse environmental impact,please complete Part I Part 3 should,in sufficient detail, identify the impact, including any measures or design elements that have been included by the project sponsor to avoid or reduce impacts.Part 3 should also explain how the lead agency determined that the impact may or will not be significant.Each potential impact should be assessed considering its setting,probability of occurring, duration,irreversibility,geographic scope and magnitude.Also consider the potential for short-term,long-term and cumulative impacts. ❑ Check this box if you have determined,based on the information and analysis above,and any supporting documentation, that the proposed action may result in one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts and an environmental impact statement is required. ❑ Check this box if you have determined,based on the information and analysis above,and any supporting documentation, that the proposed action will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts. Name of Lead Agency Date Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer(if different from Responsible Officer) Page 4 of 4 rf r t, ry, xW `! ��v, r r { x'y 1 7 r f s - 1 u c n A a>-•: tsappro>umalely v- z r.t r J � ,� s k � 5 a .� 0, � :�j��� ...s r�.•.��.zS+72"3600�>�,f,S.��:.��,��� rfi?..� .s +?�f. 723516�*S,sw .,"�� �Zi �-� xs ' rr `' �23430..`;t� .�.,ur....5 t\�c f-.: a72°3345 'A3 .F.t�y hfJ-':� Suffolk CouitL{Ha Strom Map 440 Bail' each i ° - + 2,000 Park I =`.,. . r Bre water Park Cons a Area on ': Site C kce55 Via 0F4 QO NP p ; 5ubjet Property) LOSE LA r j Y 0 n to Ca 9 33 CA TAIN KIDDao as o en r ESTATES ° RO o OZ SSPN�EV _' n BAYVIEW �J coAV { i rt Y 9os 99p N9�Lp� g5 ACKSON { 84 a =.• f 0 .Y ? 4 se' 9c� MEOP 3 3�2 x. 4110 + h G� �OSgpN�' 'r - O k Y 9,13 MA ITUCK ';- Rocks 9c Lieb Fam P ily 9 t 1+6 ondh Cellars Macari Pit t ' 7 i� SOUND yG� Vineyards �Gq o 'z tY t e"oy Hallockswlle ,q� 4$ E� r 4� i Museum PVENUE F °`°Cj 99� �L v Y s Martha Clara Vineyards TRK a Law-el �, t 25 = Lake91; h �l / ` ',` yF ! may �v Laurel Lake 'r � .,,.•� e Y.S. Park 22 l t;` Conserva'n `a Are +fo �. Laurel Lake LAUREL Vineyards P\a �.cPs 25 y ' 2 d x s ri+ ' t i 1194 \.. p Town of Southold Erosion, Sedimentation & Storm-Water Run-off ASSESSMENT FORM 4 PROPERTY LOCATION: S.C.T.M.#: THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS MAY REQUIRE THE SUBMISSION OF A Q� 1000 106 1 27 STORM-WATER,GRADING,DRAINAGE AMP EROSION CONTROL PLAN iII s3:r F Section Block Lot CERTIFIED BY A DESIGN PROFESSIONAL IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK. SCOPE OF WORK - PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ITEM#/WORK ASSESSMENT Yes No a.What is the Total Area of the Project Parcels? 1 Will this Project Retain All Storm-Water Run-Off (include Total Area of all Parcels located within $8,635 S.F. Generated by a Two(T)Inch Rainfall on Site? the Scope of work for Proposed Construction) (S.F./Acres)) (This item will include all run-off created by site b,What is the Total Area of Land Clearing clearing and/or construction activities as well as all and/or Ground Disturbance for the proposed <1,000 S.F. Site improvements and the permanent creation of construction activity? (S.F./Acres) impervious surfaces.) 2 Does the Site Plan and/or Survey Show All Proposed PROVIDE BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION(Provide Additional Pages as Needed)) Drainage structures Indicating Size&Location?This item shall include all proposed Grade Changes and Remove approximately 150 sf of asphalt(at end Sound Beach Drive) Slopes Controlling Surface Water Flow, from applicant's property;remove and relocate metal Town signage 3 Does the Site Plan and/or Survey describe the erosion pole from applicant's property;remove/eliminate cleared beach access and sediment control practices that will be used to path extending across applicant's property from Sound Beach Drive by control site erosion and storm water discharger.This revegetating approximately 770 sf of cleared pathway with native Item must be maintained throughout the Entire vegetation,including Baccharis halimifolia,Myrica pensylvanica,and Construction Period. Ammophila breviligulata,to be sourced from nursery stock and plant 4 Will this Project Require any Land Filling,Gradinj or ❑ Excavation where there is a change to the Nat ura material transplanted from new/relocated Town beach path(to be Existing Grade involving more than 200 Cubic Yards established on Town lands by Town of Southold);and install temporary of Material within any Parcel? (12 months max.)snow fencing along northeasterly property line to 5 Will this Application Require Land Disturbing Activities ❑ protect newly established plantings,all as depicted on the site plan Encompassing an Area in Excess of Five Tousand prepared by Patrick Conlan Landscape Design,dated July 16,2025. (5,000 S.F.)Square Feet of Ground Surface? 6 Is there a Natural Water Course Running through the Site?Is this Project within the Trustees jurisdiction General DEC SWPPP Requirements: or within One Hundred(100')feet of a Wetland or Submission of a SWPPP is required for all Construction activities involving soil Beach? disturbances of one(1)or more acres:including disturbances of less than one acre that 7 Will there be Site preparation on Existing Grade Slopes Elare part of a larger common plan that will ultimately disturb one or more acres of lands; which Exceed Fifteen(15)feet of Vertical Rise to Including Construction activities involving soil disturbances of less than one(1)acre where One Hundred(100')of Horizontal Distance? the DEC has determined that a SPDES permit is required for storm water discharges, p (SWPPP's Shall meet the Minimum Requirements of the SPDES General Permit O Will Driveways,Parking Areas or other impervious for Storm Water Discharges from Construction activity-Permit No.GP-0-10-001.) Surfaces be Sloped to Direct Storm-Water Run-Off ❑ 1.The SWPPP shall be prepared prior to the submittal of the NOI. The NOI shall be into and/or in the direction of a Town right-of-way? submitted to the Department prior to the commencement of construction activity. 2.The SWPPP shall describe the erosion and sediment control practices and where 9 Will this Project Require the Placement of Material, ❑ required,post-construction storm water management practices that will be used and/or Removal of Vegetation and/or the Construction of any constructed to reduce the pollutants in storm water discharges and to assure Item Within the Town Right-of-Way or Road Shoulder compliance with the terms and conditions of this permit. In addition,the SWPPP shall identify potential sources of pollution which may reasonably be expected to affect the Area?(This item will NOT include the installation of Driveway Aprons.) quality of storm water discharges. NOTE:If Any Answer to Questions One through Nine is Answered with a Check Mark 3.All SWPPPs that require the post-construction storm water management practice in a Box and the construction site disturbance is between 5,000 S.F.&1 Acre in area, component shall be prepared by a qualified Design Professional Licensed in New York a Storm-Water,Grading,Drainage&Erosion Control Plan is Required by the Town of that is knowledgeable in the principles and practices of Storm Water Management. Southold and Must be Submitted for Review Prior to Issuance of Any Building Permit. (NOTE: A Check Mark(X)and/or Answer for each Question is Required for a Completed Application). STATE OF NEW YORK, Suffolk SS COUNTY OF --- ------------------- That I, Robert E.Herrmann ----------------being duty sworn,deposes and says that he/she is the applicant for Permit, (Name of individual signing Document) And that he/she is the -Agent-for-Owner - - ------------- ------------------------------------------------------- --------------- (Owner,Contractor,Agent,Corporate Officer,etc. Owner and/or representative of the Owner or Owners,and is duly authorized to perform or have performed the said work and to make and file this application;that all statements contained in this application are true to the be f his knowledge and belief;and that the work will be performed.in the manners set forth in the application filed herewith. Sworn to before me this; ----------------- 23rd day of, - Jul ------------------- ,20 25 Notary Publi --------- KIM H. STEPHFNS (signature of Applicant) FORM - 06/10 Notary Public-State of New York No.01 ST5015931 Qualified in Suffolk County My Commission Expires August 02,20 tu- 'Et,o�40J: .bf- Xrut$a(bEls A )aa. Ail[JT H �U�.112"A7[ION: ` (Whet thlu appllcant`is not the;omier) Claudio'Conter, i14ari�a inc`.M6iriber � I ` of ir the town ofommersh ] zq',, 0 " ,.;30uthc)lcl Irrevv Yl�rk lhter�lrI ®rY , , Lltl. _ e�'9 En-Consultants, tip act vis nay agent and:handle all Mce scary:pork invo hve d vA.xh Ilia alip li':atip n pircivess for pemit(s) :From the; So-ad;io;id Town �Flaalrcl of'rrcastees hr dais pylsi E Y N/A Prope ner' Signature -�-�~-� Propeily Ovmvr's Signature .._..�_ C:laLiciio.Conter,.M:canacjing M rnbe'r TENFORTYCEPCfRe��.LIL.0 ESWORN TGBEhOIU:ME THIS S '�3a�l.i tkY,OF N'otary lbl� p1YU8.H 0,80M1 Notary Public,State.of New York No.01 S0603864� Qualified`in Kings County COmmission Expires March 20,2026 t:��:a. a)f T`4 ci stem A.0 j.air Claudio Conter, Managing Member `TENIF RTY CIEPJTRA .L LGIGE4IN4S TDIJl:,Y-SVIVOWC III�Is��s �°A1 I1-�i►1[�+1�'.C1d L�a']r`I +i7� l[$.C1[�:H[]: I"���`' 3[ ;.t 'lF':[�ll`+f EEP�T'3"°lC'C1R']CIII ABOVE I)I�;�>.�:P yIE E 1► l'1�;��1 1:'TQ" � A►:�Rt➢ �lGl� 'i►7 A'C..�J;1MEi'°d`I'a +r`�I.ea`I['r�IT+�I_D]HI +'D, IN C�il�J1'I';I't.1LmE�I'Ct `.$ 44 - l tJ'����.1(� �Sl)[ /�PGAA:I�[�l��O.L'\(���ILlJt'DGF A:STO JLD�I:/)I�l.i9.'J.L'9 L1.` D'A HA ALL, "4�t ELL-1 ItIa:L�+CDI�II� I[�°➢ ITIE �17EIi;:�;�°I' 'I�1N . E 1'�11�: S 1V+IA ' ➢>l ; iI'.I"lEl it➢ ➢+: Ii'S ']r'I�I+; �a�➢1�[`1i I�D Y'+[� I d �cJ► +:]Et3@ d�F T;�1J8 EES , 7'II1.1',API UC,�1 Po�'.C'�(al +�� P'q`(� lE:[7►LID 'I°Iri>E' �C`��?6' i �J]E'"59�1L€TII QI� ? �`i°TI 'l['IiF�. .E III}EV:R.l7+ BCD "."d'lE:➢J,S'I lEE,�;<Ujir :;[tSVI[l[.,]� 51� E `�i11; 11� I S �►I�TSI[1'Ri�Cp,�Jr+�[ E,Ia� +C�l1I IIY 7,VIE:TU +elf`►gAI°6APE;PAI;[`D: iF' (xRAT41`C'IIM.•`'USf +L.'Wv®l'[ ;'I''l[1k,IGe rtflfS1,tY;1"3[.sl[t' ZE9911E:` 7C1Et11:��'IEI:S,TIC ;I t�l:t I�T'l['I( '� Qat1[a:`[ li W°STWTA'>c][' IKS:,INCIL LTIC E t ()ItT IIJIL`V TI��►1' °A Cd�T �'s©I °+IIL1I'�T+C'I[ {,7�"`C1 E N')PEW()N7[' I TSPIt1� '7['7CI E➢�'1[I + Cv1rYSlE;�� ➢'1°T C1" �lI�1P�+C'I"ION) mill TkI 7[7FI:ICS� 1iIP',]P➢,]C: TI9@:i�[� Ifi CI.�[I Il�1Q �� 0 F[:fmT�9►ll.: If'I'I�'It)il[�1[n►,l[i; 1p ,:• ,J, JST;Ek:S Ti 1 lE:,rT IE� ,�C9N fl` T'w'1[ "`1 ,�I IE'`IE;I,i'1''it AJ1,g1I AS J.UKQCJQI+.I+;1J}'ll'O lf.`[�SU �E t)INf L➢E>f.RrCEAVl[7,I[,�!fi�dfix' �f �D]'d C� 'rIODf t�,[�;�rd9# '6��E'1'I,M4U)':�(]1 CaDAST.A►1i , � �,}lH "BOA FE DFIl [sIJS7 I1 � TIIr,RO;5I,l()S4 PkILAI7 Is; IT,7E➢W (llE� THJEj!EllalVl 1 -.,r'.•iissrnnrirwrn.rmmrri-�fw•+ - arwrw%' » .. w+wr ..a.wiw� evnranxiw n.ra.;, r✓'r�"^^'•".fr+,viw.� "SigXYatiar ix� 0 k `zner `iit►ri tuf+s of[' o e k;y ���a h' Claudio ,onter, 'Managing Member TENFO"RTY CE[ATRAL LLB [dTd T4.t3E1{C►l. e1� iL7l;i I�TOtctt}+�Pll[3IIC. PIYUSH a SONi Notary Public,State of New York No. 01 S06038647 Qualified in Kings County Commission Expires March 20,2026 • ��Il'I.�°l:+��aln1'I'J���1�1'�'I:EtL�-���.���T�T"�'.�'1['�'��: 1311SCLOSURE.FORM- r A �� '2UWaEC4lh i,;.k fi ,i+miga�hm— ;E�1��t j tat i aldd�noEle!X�a�the.limos tl>i font i, i r vide Er{rt)mrEt#cpn':�vh{,San t t Elie tawij, �;it le.cu�m icts o`rt"r s 'ate��rw��take wl 'Y�,errecact)ori § , a �tr llas c, C',l uadio'Clonte'r, Managing MembE:,r YOUR NAME' , TENFC)IFZ.I Y C;IH:NI I-AI LIX, (Last name,first narm,4n ci+line�{){tral,.unl�ss you aft appUytng itn;tl`ie :Y){v{ebnE else OI'Ot1Ver entity,stack as a a )ntptury.hFs-i,`ind{caMmthe.other• person's or comp ..)'s narne.) ;x 0 NANfE Oft APPUCATION ;(Check a{]I that:apply,) Trot g+tic;vancE --..�._. t I u{ldill, - Variance —._�._ Trustee; -X— Change of Zone Coastal Erosion _-_--_ Approval ofplat lvlooring _.—.—. Exem!ptiori fn?m plat ofofi[icial,nialp Pleurining:, Am x; ae Other (1F"Other,narpe'the activity) ' Do you,,persdpii ly(or thra,u;h.ypEar co;nap+3nj;spCna`e; 3{bitn91.p; yen`,mE ch�lal)'l avc a r lat{ottship �t�{th"sny'ciffio ee o�'E mployE e, s;; H of the Tawn of Southold% "Rebitiolnslup".qSc I ade l� .bloeKl m{rt t tl;t,E>r be;can s5+1n rE sl Buisinc a iraterr t"rnE ans a,t�usEEr��ss,. inctudtngaaYp>Ertnersh{p:irYsrt{irh h ;tenvn i►fcLr a+�rrr�ployc has f, gn,a pal4ial amnersl+ap of(oli etilplyymerit tjr ,a`cbn)oration in which tRtt?karrtt offica�r r►remployi;:e awn3 rporE tluuia�9'c rif3ii sh:urs. 1; ''. _._ NIA►:YE _ if you answered"`YES';cigniptete t'he bEdeace of this form'and date'and sig6where indicated. Name ol;persi)n employed by the Td uEh{,af:icautht►Id ' Tttle ur;pos:itionrofthut!pers� n Describe the relationship,between yourself(ale applicant/agenU epinsentative)and the town officer or Employee,Either check the appmpriate line A)i Arough`1 )and/or doscri. in the.space!Fwo%iided. The town oFfice;r or emplo�ree or his or her spouse;isibl 119,.par Tt,or child is;(chectc,ill¢fiat apply): L)the owner of Qreatcr than► of the t otrorai� stock c�Cthie applp int 1 (when;the applWnt{,a cttpprailon), _E1)the legal or be ref c{al owner of{urPr mtc n-st:in i)r1iN1-c oTj)E r6IlL'entry(tivlie,rti'tlia's applicant is not a i or faratlow; ' f;)°an"oftocceer duecto:�, �irtn;;r;asr esntolutree uf`tJhe apiF[at ant,ui.; _;))'the actual applicant: D16SCRIYRON OF R'ELATIO'N'S 1P' , rniiteii This a bf, _ 20' 5igpatu{;_ Arz 7 1P'cirit Naive a .outer, Manadtn ~h4etnberP Forr>n'TES 1 Sri: i 1 t 1,.Illy I lrl M I C -- P!YUSH B SON, Notar y Public,State of,NewYgrk No.'01S06038647' Qualified in Kings County Commission Expires March 20,2020' fj APPLICANT/AGENT/REPRESENTATIVE TRANSACTIONAL DISCLOSURE FORM The Town of Southold's Code of Ethics prohibits conflicts of interest on the part of town officers and employees.The puMose of this form is to provide information which can alert the town of possible conflicts of interest and allow it to take whatever action is necessary to avoid same. i YOUR NAME: Herrmann' Rnhzrt- F (Last name,first name,middle initial,unless you are applying in the name of someone else or other entity,such as a company.If so,indicate the other person's or company's name.) NAME OF APPLICATION: (Check all that apply.) Tax grievance Building Variance Trustee X Change of Zone Coastal Erosion Approval of plat Mooring Exemption from plat or official map Planning Other (If"Other",name the activity.) Do you personally(or through your company,spouse,sibling,parent,or child)have a relationship with any officer or employee of the Town of Southold? "Relationship"includes by blood,marriage,or business interest."Business interest"means a business, including a partnership,in which the town officer or employee has even a partial ownership of(or employment by)a corporation in which the town officer or employee owns more than 5%of the shares. YES NO X If you answered"YES",complete the balance of this form and date and sign where indicated. Name of person employed by the Town of Southold Title or position of that person` Describe the relationship between yourself(the applicant/agent/representative)and the town officer or employee.Either check the appropriate line A)through D)and/or describe in the space provided. The town officer or employee or his or her spouse,sibling,parent,or child is(check all that apply): A)the owner of greater 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 this2 �ay of July 2025 Signature Print Name ' obert E. Henzr m Form TS 1 NOTICE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNED 1, o BOARD OF TRUSTEES, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD In the matter of applicant: Tenforty Central LLC SCTM#1000-106-1-27 YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN NOTICE: 1. That it is the intention of the undersigned to request a Permit from the Board of Trustees to: Remove approximately 150 sf of asphalt(at end Sound Beach Drive)from applicant's property;remove and relocate metal Town signage pole from applicant's property;remove/eliminate cleared beach access path extending across applicant's property from Sound Beach Drive by revegetating approximately 770 sf of cleared pathway with native vegetation,including Baccharis halimifolia,Myrica pensylvanica,and Ammophila breviligulata,to be sourced from nursery stock and plant material transplanted from new/relocated Town beach path(to be established on Town lands by Town of Southold);and install temporary(12 months max.)snow fencing along northeasterly property line to protect newly established plantings,all as depicted on the site plan prepared by Patrick Conlan Landscape Design, dated July 16, 2025. 2. That the property which is the subject of Environmental Review is located adjacent to your property and is described as follows: 1940 Central Drive, Mattituck .3. That the project which is subject to Environmental Review under Chapters 96,111 and/or 275 of the Town Code is open to public comment on: DATE: Wed..Sept. 17,2025 g 5:30pm;Town Hall Meeting Rm,53095 Main Road,Southold You may contact the Trustees Office at 765-1892 or in writing. The above-referenced proposal is under review of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold and does not reference any other agency that might have to review same proposal. Tenforty Central LLC c/o Italian Green Design PROPERTY OWNERS NAME: 530 West 25th Street MAILING ADDRESS: New York,NY 10001 PHONE #: 646-895-9430 AGENT: En-Consultants MAILING ADDRESS: 1319 North Sea Road, Southampton,NY 11968 PHONE #: 631-283-6360 Enc: Copy of sketch or plan showing proposal for your convenience. PROOF OF MAILING OF NOTICE ATTACH CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPTS Name: Address: SCTM#1000-106-1-26 2040 Central Drive Barry&Judith Barth Mattituck,NY 11952 SCTM#1000-106-1-29 166-25 Powells Cove Boulevard Andreas Pavlou QPRI Trust; George Pavlou Beechhurst,NY 11357 SCTM#1000-106-1-31.1 4 Eastwood Drive Raymond Olsen& Susan Calderbank Greenville, PA 16125 SCTM#1000-106-1-45 PO Box 1588 Aglaia Tsontakis Mattituck,NY 11952 SCTM#1000-106-2-34 1845 Central Drive James Stavrinos Mattituck,NY 11952 SCTM#1000-106-2-35 7 Wildwood Road Peter& Lucy Caviris East Chester,NY 10709 SCTM#1000-106-2-36 130 Pleasant Street Peter Frangiskou Haworth,NJ 07641 3, { STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK Robert E. Herrmann doing business at En-Consultants 1319 North Sea Road Southampton,NY 11968 being duly sworn, deposes and says that on the 8th day of September ,20 25 , deponent mailed a true copy of the Notice set forth in the Board of Trustees Application, directed to each of the above named persons at the addresses set opposite their respective names; that the addresses set opposite the names of said persons are the address of said persons as shown on the current assessment roll of the Town of Southold; that said Notices were mailed at the United States Post Office at Southampton that said Notices were Mailed to each of said persons by (certified)(>xegi d� mail. Robert E. Herrmann Coastal Managment Specialist Sworn to before me this 9th _ day of September 2025 KIM H. STEPHENS / Notary Public-State of New York No.01 ST5015931 Qualified in Suffolk County ' MY Commission Expires August 02,2 � " - Notary blic i I e p w v r� Certified Mail Fee Certified Mail Fee Ln $ Ln $ r.. (1.. Extra Services&Fees(check box,add fee as appropriate) Extra Services&Fees(check box,add fee as appropriate) ❑Return Receipt(hardcopy) $ �k ❑Return Receipt(hardcopy) $ j ❑ ec Return R eipt(electronic) $ �% PosOnar ❑Return Receipt(electronic) $ Postmark kF ® ❑Certified Mail Restricted Delivery $ �, Here C3 ❑Certified Mall Restricted Delivery $ °r�e78 `] ❑Adult Signature Required $ ❑Adult Signature Required. $ � G� 'I ED ❑Adult Signature Restricted Delivery$ ❑Adult Signature Restricted Delivery$ C3 Postage Postage $ jY FTO m Totell m C3 Sent; Barry&Judith Barth C3 Aglaia Tsontakis SlFeet 2040 Central Drive o PO Box 1588 Mattituck,NY 11952 r` Mattituck NY 11952 City Sta.+e,Zll City,, as ® c HBO— Ill.® M— - C3 r�- '� s Ln Ln Certified Mail Fee Certified Mail Fee Ln $ Ln $ Extra Services&Fees(check box,add fee as appropriate) ('a. Extra Services&Fees(check box,add fee as appropriate) ❑Return Receipt(hardcopy) $ ❑Return Receipt(hardcopy) $ ❑Return Receipt(electronic) $ ;:=Postmark Return Receipt(electronic) $ ;yP"Her k ® � []Certified Mail Restricted Delivery $ -+ Herb � ❑Certified Mall Restricted Delivery $ Here` `�H O ❑Adult Signature Required $ C3 Adult Adult Signature Required $ Q ❑Adult Signature Restricted Delivery$ ❑Adult Signature Restricted Delivery$ C7 Postage E3 Postage $ $ Total Po: M Andreas Pavlou QPRI Trust m $ C3Sent George Pavlou ® Sent To James Stavrinos rij _____ 1845 Central Drive C3 Si�eE 166-25 Powells Cove Boulevard ® Streetar Beechhurst,NY 11357 _______ Mattituck,NY 11952 ------------ � City,Sta 1 p 0 eae' Y Iti Certified Mail Fee Lr7 Certified Mail Fee Ln $ 17' Extra Services&Fees(check box,add fee as appropriate) It Extra Services&Fees(checkbox,add fee as appropriate) -. ❑Return Receipt(hardcopy) $ ❑Return Receipt(hardcopy) $ ❑Return Receipt(electronic) $ `,Postmark r-9 ❑Return Receipt(electronic) $ Postmark ❑Certified Mai{Restricted Delivery $ C:3 ❑Certified Mail Restrcted Delivery $ ❑Adult Signature Required $ •� C3 ❑Adult Signature Required $ r4 - []Adult Signature Restricted Delivery$ ❑Adult Signature Restricted Delivery$ p Postage Postage .0 C3 / $ $ Total Pos a Total I M P7"l O Sent To Raymond Olsen& Susan Calderbank O $ entni Peter& Lucy Caviris 4 Eastwood Drive 7 Wildwood Raod ---"-"--"--- O Street ani ® Stree r` Greenville, PA 16125 C3 pity_ East Chester,NY 10709 ------------I City SPate M )o Ln f-9 Ln Certified Mall Fee C°- - Extra Services&Fees(checkbox,add fee as appropriate) - ❑Return Receipt(hardcopy) $ ❑Return Receipt(electronic) $ Postmark ❑Certified Mail Restricted Delivery $ e H8T8 1:3 El Adult Signature Required $ hl []Adult Signature Restricted Delivery$ Postage $ t r-I Total Postagr M $ - Sent To peter Frangiskou l Street and A F 130 Pleasant Street -�- City State,zi Haworth,NJ 07641 , NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held by the Southold Town Board of Trustees at the Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York, concerning this property. OWNERS) OF RECORD: TENFORTY CENTRAL, LLC SUBJECT OF PUBLIC HEARING: For a Wetland to remove approximately 150sq.ft. of asphalt (at end of Sound Beach Drive), from applicant's property; remove and relocate metal Town signage pole from applicant's property; remove/eliminate cleared beach access path extending across applicant's property from Sound Beach Drive by revegetating approximately 770sq.ft. of cleared pathway with native vegetation, including Baccharis halimifolia, .Myrica pensylvanica, and Ammophila breviligulata, to be sourced from nursery stock and plant material transplanted from new/relocated Town beach path (to be established on Town lands by Town of Southold); and install temporary (12 months max.) snow fencing along northeasterly property line to protect newly established plantings. Located: 1940 Central Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-116-1-27 TIME & DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: Wednesday, September 17, 2025 at or about 5:30P.M. If you have an interest in this project, you are invited to view the Town file(s) which are available online at www.southoldtownny.gov and/or in the Trustee Office until to the day of the hearing during normal business days between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. BOARD OF TRUSTEES * TOWN OF SOUTHOLD * (631) 765-1892 t Town of Southold__ ,J LWRP CONSISTENCY ASSESSMENT FORM A. INSTRUCTIONS l, All applicants for permits* including Town of Southold agencies, shall complete this CCAF for proposed actions that are subject to the Town of Southold Waterfront Consistency Review Law. This assessment is intended to supplement other information used by a Town of Southold agency in making a determination of consistency. *Except minor exempt actions including Building Permits and other ministerial permits not located within the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area. 2. Before answering the questions in Section C, the preparer of this form should review the exempt minor action list, policies and explanations of each policy contained in the Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. A proposed action will be evaluated as to its significant beneficial and adverse effects upon the coastal area (which includes all of Southold Town). 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# 116 - 1 - 27 PROJECT NAME Tenforty Central LLC The Application has been submitted to (check appropriate response): Town Board ❑ Planning Board❑ Building Dept. ❑ Board of Trustees Category of Town of Southold agency action (check appropriate response): (a) Action undertaken directly by Town agency (e.g. capital ❑ construction, planning activity, agency regulation, land transaction) (b) Financial assistance (e.g. grant, loan, subsidy) ❑ (c) Permit, approval, license, certification: Nature and extent of action: Remove approximately 150 sf of asphalt(at end Sound Beach Drive)from applicant's property;remove and relocate metal Town signage pole from applicant's property;remove/eliminate cleared beach access path extending across applicant's property from Sound Beach Drive by revegetating approximately 770 sf of cleared pathway with native vegetation,including Baccharis halimifolia,Myrica pensylvanica,and Ammophila breviligulata,to be sourced from nursery stock and plant material transplanted from new/relocated Town beach path(to be established on Town lands by Town of Southold);and install temporary(12 months max.)snow fencing along northeasterly property line to protect newly established plantings,all as depicted on the site plan prepared by Patrick Conlan Landscape Design,dated July 16,2025. Location of action: 1940 Central Drive,Mattituck Site acreage: 1.35 Present land use: Vacant-Residential Present zoning classification: R-40 2. If an application for the proposed action has been filed with the Town of Southold agency, the following information shall be provided: (a) Name of applicant: Tenforty Central LLC (b) Mailing address: c/o Italian Green Design 530 West 25th Street,New York,NY 10001 (c) Telephone number: Area Code 646-895-9430 (d) Application number, if any: Will the action be directly undertaken, require funding, or approval by a state or federal agency? Yes ® No❑ If yes, which state or federal agency? New York State DEC 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 1 Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 3. Enhance visual quality and protect scenic resources throughout the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section III - Policies Pages 6 through 7 for evaluation criteria ❑ Yes ❑ No ® Not Applicable Attach additional sheets if necessary NATURAL COAST POLICIES Policy 4. Minimize loss of life, structures, and natural resources from flooding and erosion. See LWRP Section III - Policies Pages 8 through 16 for evaluation criteria ❑ Yes ❑ No ® Not Applicable Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 5. Protect and improve water quality and supply in the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section III - Policies Pages 16 through 21 for evaluation criteria ❑Yes ❑ No ® Not Applicable Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 6. Protect and restore the quality and function of the Town of Southold ecosystems including Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats and wetlands. See LWRP Section III - Policies; Pages 22 through 32 for evaluation criteria. ®Yes ❑ No ❑ Not Applicable 1 1\ / LWRP CONSISTENCY ASSESSMENT FORM ADDENDUM FOR TENFORTY CENTRAL LLC 1940 CENTRAL AVENUE MATTITUCK,NY SCTM#1000-106-1-27 LWRP Policy 6 There currently exists a cleared beach path to Long Island Sound from the end of Sound Beach Drive,which is intended to provide public beach access, but the pathway is situated entirely on the applicant's property rather than on the adjacent public lands owned by the Town of Southold. Therefore, to eliminate the continued invitation and potential for public tresspass over private land, the applicant proposes to remove the path through revegetation, such that a new, relocated path can be established by the Town of Southold on Town land, in cooperation with the Town of Southold. The revegetation of the existing pathway will of course have no adverse impacts on the surrounding natural resources.or ecosystem, but in order to employ Best Management Practices and maximize environmental sustainability and conservation efforts, the applicant would revegetate the pathway not just with nursery stock but with existing plant materials transplanted from the new/relocated pathway, which would need to be removed to create the new pathway. And whereas the majority of the existing pathway has a width of at least 10 feet, it is anticipated that the new Town pathway would have a maximum width closer to 4 feet, meaning that one effect of the pathway relocation would be an increase in vegetative coverage of the shorefront. The proposed project would thus have a neutral to positive environmental impact, consistent both with the permit standards of Chapter 275 and with Policy 6 of the Town's LWRP. See attached addendum. Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 7. Protect and improve air quality in the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section III — Policies Pages 32 through 34 for evaluation criteria. ❑ Yes ❑ No® Not Applicable Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 8. Minimize environmental degradation in Town of Southold from solid waste and hazardous substances and wastes. See LWRP Section III - Policies; Pages 34 through 38 for evaluation criteria. ❑ Yes ❑ No ® Not Applicable PUBLIC COAST POLICIES Policy 9. Provide for public access to, and recreational use of, coastal waters, public lands, and public resources of the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section III - Policies; Pages 38 through 46 for evaluation criteria. ® Yes ❑ No❑ Not Applicable Although the project proposes the removal of an existing public beach access path that is improperly located on the applicant's property, the project will be undertaken in cooperation with the Town of Southold so that a new public beach access path is relocated onto the adjacent land owned by the Town of Southold,thereby ensuring that the public's means of access to the public beach and coastal waters located north of the end of Sound Beach Drive is preserved and continuously maintained. Attach additional sheets if necessary WORKING COAST POLICIES Policy 10. Protect Southold's� �_er-de endent uses and promote s�, _.,4 of new water-dependent uses in suitable locations. See LWRP Section III - Policies; Pages 47 through 59 for evaluation criteria. ❑ Yes ❑ No ® Not Applicable Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 11. Promote sustainable use of living marine resources in Long Island Sound, the Peconic Estuary and Town waters. See LWRP Section III - Policies; Pages 57 through 62 for evaluation criteria. ❑Yes ❑ No ® Not Applicable Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 12. Protect agricultural lands in the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section III — Policies; Pages 62 through 65 for evaluation criteria. ❑ Yes ❑ No ® Not Applicable Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 13. Promote appropriate use and development of energy and mineral resources. See LWRP Section III - Policies; Pages 65 through 68 for evaluation criteria. ❑ Yes ❑ No ® Not Applicable PREPARED BY TITLECoastal Management Specialist DATEJuly 23,2025 Robert E. Neriiii5fin Amended on 811105 EN-CONSULTANTS July 23,2025 Town of Southold JUL 2 9 2025 Board of Trustees 54375 Main Road Southold Town Post Office Box 1179 Board of Trustees Southold,New York 11971 Re: Tenforty Central LLC 1940 Central Drive,Mattituck SCTM#1000-106-1-27 Dear Board of Trustees: In regard to the above referenced property, enclosed are the following for the Board of Trustees review: 1. One(1)copy of Operating Agreement for Tenforty Central LLC. 2. Four(4)Wetland Permit Applications including: a) Authorization&Affidavit Forms; b) Applicant/Agent/Representative Transactional Disclosure Forms; c) Short Environmental Assessment Form; d) LWRP Consistency Assessment Form. 3. Site plan prepared by Patrick Conlan Landscape Design, dated July 16,2025. 4. Survey prepared by Lenze land Surveying, last dated October 23,2024. 5. Two(2)sets of site photographs. 6. Application fee of$1,250.00. I hope this information shall allow you to process our permit request. Should any additional information be required,please do not hesitate to contact our office. Sincerel , i Robert E. Herrmann Coastal Management Specialist /khs Enc. r 1319 North Sea Road Southampton,New York 11968 p 631.283.6360 f 631.283.6136 www.enconsultants.com environmental consulting