The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTR-6302 . . James F. King, President Jill M. Doherty, Vice-President Peggy A. Dickerson Dave Bergen Bob Ghosio, Jr. Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD December 12, 2007 Mr. William J. lohn Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. P.O. Box 2003 Bridgehampton, NY 11932 RE: EDWARD FERGUS 1854 NORTH BAYVIEW ROAD, SOUTHOlD SCTM# 70-12-39.3 Dear Mr. Wilm: The following action was taken by the Southold Town Board of Trustees at their Regular Meeting held on' Wednesday, December 12, 2007: RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Board of Trustees APPROVE the Amendment to Permit #6302 to revise the footprint and location of the proposed dwelling, which dwelling will be located 80' from the situate wetland boundary; reconfigure the proposed sanitary system; and relocate the proposed shed 82' from the wetland boundary, and in accordance with the plans prepared by Peconic Surveyors, P.C., last revised on October 30,2007, and received on November 1,2007. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board of Trustees grants a One- Year Extension to Permit #6302, as issued on February 15, 2006. Any other activity within 100' of the wetland boundary requires a permit from this office. This is not a determination from any other agency. . . 2 If you have any questions, please call our office at (631) 765-1892. Sincerely, C:: -'7 President, Board of Trustees JFK:eac . . Donald Wilder, Chainnan Lauren Standish, Secretary Town Hall, 53095 Main Rd. P.O. Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 Conservation Advisory Council Town of Southold At the meeting of the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council held Wed., December 5,2007, the following recommendation was made: Moved by Glen McNab, seconded by Jack McGreevy, it was RESOLVED to NOT SUPPORT the Amendment application of EDWARD FERGUS to Amend Permit #6302 to revise the footprint and location of the proposed dwelling, which dwelling will be located 80' from the situate wetland boundary; reconfigure the proposed sanitary system; and relocate the proposed shed 82' from the wetland boundary. Located: 1854 North Bayview Rd., Southold. SCTM#70-12-39.3 Inspected by: Glen McNab, Don Wilder The CAC does Not Support the application because the shed appears to be too close to the wetland boundary, as defined by Code, and there should be no increase in the size of the proposed dwelling. Vote of Council: Ayes: All Motion Carried . . Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. Newman Village, Suite E, 2322 Main Street, P.O. Box 2003, Bridgehampton, New York 11932-2003 (631) 537-5160 Fax: (631) 537-5291 Bruce Anderson, M.S., President November 8, 2007 Ms. Lauren Standish Southold Town Trustees Town Hall P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Situate: FERGUS Property 1854 North Bil1Jview Road Town ofSoutho/d, New York 1000 - 70 -12 - 39.3 6302 LOO7, 5 - ~,ON \"i,. ,"'-,:~ C\ 'I =:, InJl"~.I~ :'. .: !', l' "~I . oJI <:"1" L,~"! :-oj /1'''..- ,11_5"..5..,-',"":::::'-' -- SClM II: Pennitll: Dear Ms. Standish, As per our conversation this morning, please find the following enclosed herewith as it relates to the above referenced property: . Check in the amount of $50.00 to cover the Permit Extension Fee. To clarify, in addition to the requested amendments previously filed, we wish to extend Permit 116302 for an additional two [2J years. Kindly amend your activity description' and maintain our position on the December calendar. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. Thank you for your added consideration in this matter. c~c\-- 9-~ ~o') \\11':::1 Encl Cc: E. Fergus . . Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. Newman Village, Suite E, 2322 Main Street, PD. Box 2003, Bridgehampton, New York 11932-2003 (63]) 537-5]60 Fax: (631) 537-5291 Bruce Anderson, M.S., President OclDber31,2oo7 Mr. James King; President Southold Town Trustees Town Hall P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Situate: FERGUS Property 1854 North Bayview Road Town ofSouthold, New York IIHHJ - 7D -12 - 39.3 6302 SCIM #: Pennit#: Dear Mr. King, As you may recall, the above referenced permit was originally approved by your Board on February 15, 2006 and was thereafter amended on February 14, 2007 to include a small amount of fill as per the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals. That application to the ZBA was received poorly, and the requested reIief for the attached garage was not granted. Therefore, the project has again undergone changes, which changes require approval from your Board. To that end, please find the following enclosed herewith: (1) Pennit Amendment Description prepared by this Firm outlining the proposed changes (four [4J copies); (2) Survey of the subject parcel prepared by Peconic Surveyors and last dated OclDber 30, 2007 indicating all existing and proposed structures thereon (four [4J copies); (3) Check in the amount of $50.00 to cover the requisite fee. . By way of this correspondence, kindly commence review of this application and schedule same for approval at the first available meeting of your Board. Please note that the praposed dwelling is situared further from the wetlands than was originally appruued. H you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. Thank you as always for your attention and consideration. WilliamJ. Lohn C"" !-' F' \,0' -rl-~\::-~~-~-~ ;., I:; rC; lc= L \: ,', ': , \ '\ \ \ '=' 1.-'-> , \ 1,',):'---' I \'rD'LNOV - 1 1C~. _ \ "" t F> ':.: irL:""':'~~.-.---J L --'-' Encl Cc: E. Fergus James F. King, President : Jill M. Doherty, Vice-President Peggy A. Dickerson Dave Bergen Bob Ghosio, Ir. Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BOARD OF TRUSTEES: TOWN OF SOUTHOLD In the Matter of the Application of '~~.~n'J -------------------~--~-~~-~- ~------------- COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) STATE OF NEW YORK) . n AFFIDA VII OF POSTING ~ I,&Cl A .kVJIl"l>!~reSiding at ~~ ~\J'~_ 7.(.)."i~ ~1'~,Q~...J ~ being duly sworn, epose and ~ That on thelt t!:ctay of"'~, 2001; I personally posted the property known as ~u by placing the Board of rustees official poster where it can easily be seen, and that I have checked to be sure the poster has remained in place for eight days prior to the date of the public hearing. Date of hearing noted thereon to be held l....{kJ ~ f{)o ~ m (J.U) I rl. ( ~(y) 7 /" r1 ifl Q OQLf"X:O pm, C11Jc. 7\-0(:. .k-. It f, "'-- - Dated: '])t(. (t. tQC)) Sworn to before me this ~ day ofl)!c.. 200 7 Nol ~ Matthew Divans Notary Pul:,c 01 ~fW York No. O~ '\/H)5~)U'_19 QualifieC ',.Iolk County Commissior, Ex~ii'S January 22, 2r411fll . . PERMIT AMENDMENT DESCRIPTION FOR THE FERGUS PROPERTY Situate: 1854 North Bayview Road; Town of Southold, NY SCTM#: 1000 - 70 - 12 - 39.3 Existina South old Town Trustee Approval: Permit # 6302 dated February 15, 2006, was amended by the Southold Town Trustees to include a proposed single family dwelling served by three [3]drywells located 77' from the wetland boundary and an attendant sanitary system located 100' from the wetland boundary requiring 150 fj3 of clean fill for installation. Please refer to the partial survey copy below for easy reference: ~."~,,,..,..,.~,..,,,~,,.^",_.,- .... ,... -,,, .~. I.E. : 8.0' I.E.,; l.~ i --..., TE:S1 , &.8.J' 0..2.8' . " 00/6'7,.S_ ""'-.; ~ba OS~ {S>~ CD '" :.. '4.. I I 1- b__.__-..___ C'~.e 'C>"f" N82"SJ5S"W uriC -i41:iF- """-",, -,----~-,~.~~_..,.._,,'~---~,--~.,,",~~,-,~- ".., .. "" - . . Pro Dosed Southold Town Trustee Permit Amendment: As a result of design changes to the proposed dwelling, Permit #6302 requires the following amendments: 1) Revised footprint and location of the proposed dwelling, which dwelling will be located 80' from the situate wetland boundary; 2) Reconfiguration of the proposed sanitary system (please note that said system is still located 100' from the wetland boundary; 3) Relocation of the proposed shed 82' from the wetland boundary. Please refer to the partial survey copy for easy reference: - -'-1:111 i 7F:si i n.4J' i ! EL2.a' . " 4teS',,,,,0 """''-' Q'oa 0,,'11- (S>,e -1_. """-_ ........."'" -- .(\ .c ~. ..sr~k."V lJ..Jl! tt>I- _ ~>e~"",,} l!;) '.._'_'~.:..i..l..;.;.l... J -~'.lJ I -t~' I....J. -'.. '/ o'-'//, / I. :~ EOGEC'!';' tIETl.ANOS AS DELlNtA7FD BY 5UFF'OU< !NlIfROMIENTAL coNSUL TINC INC. ON.AJLYZZ ~ - CD "" ~ - EI-I/ ~~.e ~<f" N82'5355"W 'E:--- - i41:ii"" . . Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. Newman Village, Suite E, 2322 Main Street, P.O. Box 2003, Bridgehampton, New York 1 ]932-2003 (63]) 537-5]60 Fax: (63]) 537-5291 Bruce Anderson, M.S., President November 28, 2007 Ms. Lauren Standish, Trustee Secretary Southold Board of Trustees Town Hall P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 SCTM #: FERGUS Property 1854 North Bayview Road Town ofSouthold, New York 1000-70-12 -39.3 Re: Situate: Dear Ms. Standish, As you know, this Firm represents Mr. Fergus, owner of the property referenced property above, who is seeking to improve thereon. As per the Public Hearing requirements, enclosed please find the Affidavit of mailing along with the original certified receipts The green receipt cards will be submitted at the hearing as we receive them. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, or require additional information, please feel free to contact this office at any time. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Sincerely, ;d~~ ." ~ 'In IE RI 1",,:', IS; Ii" ~" ~I \ i '\,' \ \ \r\~ I'" \\9, _" ..-_______,' " U .--- . , ' . \ II; , \n,\\ NOV 2 9 2007 r~ \ i \ , , 'L' L----.d..;:",:c ~_~'~:::~.~~..2~~..:.:..- i -~ Diane K. Wassick Enc. cc: Mr. Fergus ~ROOF OF MAILING OF NOTICE~ ATTACH CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPTS Name: Address: Joanna Lane - 140 Wagon Wheel Ln, Cutchogue, NY 1000-70-12-39.4 Peter & Lucy Bogovic - 1980 N. Bayview Rd, Southo1d, NY 1000-70-12-39.5 William & Rena Kuhl - 69 pine Street, Garden City, NY 1000-70-12-38.1 Antoinette Locascio - P.O. Box 1407, Southold, NY 1000-70-13-20.11 STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK Diane K. Wassick , residing at 2322 Main st.; Newman Village Suite E; P.O. Box 2003; Bridgehampton, NY 11932 , being duly sworn deposes and says that on the 26th day of November, 2007, 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 Bridgehampton ,that said Notices were mailed to each of said persons by (certified) (registered) mail. -,~~~ Sworn to before me this day of , 2007 I~ . / Notary Public Matthew Divans I "I"~I York Notary PG;~ I,C . G,',.- ;:;~ \. \~o 0-1 :1}rY.::JJL,)9 Qualillbd ", SullOIK Coun~2 20 II Commission Expires January , ru"" o-~ r'l~ iJ r'l r'CI CCI CCI C CI to- Dm rCl , LO 'CI ICI 1["- I .-'l ..D .-'l ~ . . osta erVlce,,, CERTIFIED MAIL" A-EIPT (Domestic Mail Only; No Insura~verage Provided) a- a- LO CI ~r1t'1T/i~ lt~~ Postage $ $0.58 Certified Fee $2.65 .-'l CI CI Return Receipt Fee D (Endorsement Required) Postmark i _r'~:Lj $2.15 to.OO $5.38 :N;ym~ ~ 11Il'"~~JL?"> o Restricted Delivery Fee [J"'" (Endorsement Required) m o Total Postage & Fees $ LO ~ "Siiiii.~Ai/fij/..k..(Cl..mnmK~tflc__m-;:;::-.._____m.mm____m_ ~r:c:_~~_'!":._m.k_fnm_e~~mm.:i~:'m......nmn._____m.m. City, SIaJo.Zl1'>4 (! I ." SC!)IP If ltrC I to.41 $2.65 $2.15 to.OO $5.21 p- $ Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) Total Postage & Fees $ t o.t:)f.!7J./lJli'.2JL__nCaCASy?!..'2.nn.m._nn_nmm"n llbOSr,\p'CJIii; (.)..., / lY'\ 0<" PO Box No. J. b,i? 0,& - I n.m_n...nmm Ci6i,'$iidB;zr,;;<--- . ..., . .m' n.m..m.nn..m..n D 'h ... :1 - ~ LO .-'l ~ a- a- LO CI .-'l CI CI 0 0 a- m CI U.S. postMlerVice"" CERTIF MAIL"" RECEIPT (Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided) , '" , "' , ,,: I SIDIH:P II)'Uml .;,p. ............. I ~ . Postage . to.41 Certified Fee $2.65 05 Return Receipt Fee W. p",,"~," $2.15 !'; '+Iere' (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee to.OO (Endorsement Required) Total Postage & Fees $ $5.21 11~~!+> ["" LO c:J nt 0 . ~ "Siiiii.ii1l!!IJI4;K.-:;ncacAf~ff).m.........mnnmn.. ~r:c:.~.'!":...m..J...,b,l2..04-.m.mm.m......mm..m.mm..._.. City._Zl1'>4 D "" '0 ,ru ~ U.S. Postal Service", CERTIFIED MAIL" RECEIPT (Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided) a- a- LO CI SOqi /FIt(; J Postage $ .-'l CI CJ Retum ReoeIpt Fee Cl (Endorsement Recjuired) C Reetrlcted Oel[very Fee \ ~ (Endorsement Required) $0 00 \ , CI TOla'_e' Fee, $ $5:38 11/~:>'" LO o t o/~ . "" ,'I::) ~ llbOS('Af;..~Y.......1:..?t2.iW.t!.I.~_.mm.......n...____...nnm ;"'~::';';.J.5..fj-!...~{'(J.bJ..Xi!:n..n.....n...n_... 1/ 7 Certified Fee ~----_.-- --.----- ----.- N ~ NOh o.Ji\- s~ .cr'J>~.. /'J'''' o."w u8~. q Q 's~ .1<.:j.O'"c./)4 r . 6:", ~./'e~ -, r-':'~____ ~ I L q. ~<' ------ ~ ~ I r'w Q ! l:~ ~ ~ 01 ~:z I ~ ~'d ~ I ~ ~~ I :f:; I, ~ I MON nuTY ot. I POLE ! 4>041) SURVEY OF PROPERTY AT BAYVIEW TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, N. y: 1000-70-12-39,3 SCALE: 1"=50' FEBRUARY 20. 2004 JANUARY 6, 2005 (Revisions) SEPTEM8ER 9, 2005 (Loc. wetlands flags, revise prop. house) }JOII'. 9. 2..c::::.0$ (r~y,..!J''''1~) ~b. 2, 1./>06. (~/,o".".1 /a.fh) ;4"""', .zz 'loo~ ") t:t-y J3, Zbo~ (rey,J~f"lb_?,> PROPOSED SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM 5ept. 5, zoo ~ (r<:v/~I""J) Od IJ, '2-00," (rap/.-/' "~t' ') [6J LEACHING POOLS WITH 3' SAND COLLAR DEC, 19, 2006 (f:RENCH DRAIN. [I) 1,200 GALLON SEPnC TANK <X 7 CONTOUR. FILL CALC.) r. ' ,'2607 (tepID t hj~,) o.:;.~ 30, ?no"} tOWtlIl BOTTOM OF LEACHING POOLS TO BE 2' ABOVE GROUND WA TER Area... <:>.f weNo-nd. ~ ",~,30Z ~.jf - 3~~ 2-'" .3~G'>2 59'.{-f 5~9+os9f't :z o -I 01 I'\i o . ::IE FRENCH DRAIN DETAIL 0000 ., r:J.oO",,~ ~ p " C' <> CI 0 .,,, o 0 Q (' "r:> 0 {;' 0 0 I) '" 0 () 0 0 Q(} ~ QCOARSE" 00 . t) ~ . () co GRAVEL 0 0 - ., ' .., ,,0 STON~ 0 0 C.(I o a () cQ. (10. ..,0'0 of' , ... , ~ 18' .1 :z 'd ~ ~ <:l~ ~> r-... ~.... "'~ 1= ); :f:; :;I\; c: ::t r- SUBSURFACE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM DESIGN BY: JOSEPH FISCHETTI, PE HOBART ROAD SOUTHOLD, N. Y. 11971 (631) 765-2954 APPROXIMA TEL Y 152. cu. ft, OF FILL REQUIRED, GRADING PLAN Lof covet"""'4<:'l ~ 40/3 ~'7.-r:f' "/0 c.over-o.-<j<z ;4&/3/1$19,;+0 :. 7.7%' -.....;. r.r. EL /~. 4. APPRavro PIPe APPROVED B'--'l I COARD OF TRUST E. j I TO'vVN OF SOUTH L I. "' ~ /J-! 17/'7 .1 I.~~ I , L PROPOSED CROSS SECTION FRENCH DRAIN ( 160''''.5''''5 ) ( 360 eu If.) E"I'V PROPOsro GRAD< EL. II ~~ - 9.0' /.c.. ~GAL. /.f. /.c. .'_WCHII. ~{1 if' ,and. col/p.r 6.' rANK 63 IJ.,'.1'GCC. .L 2,'",,;". 13 ~ ,'Z'",,;,. ~s~-HO:E-~~~l-- .-?--- r::..OU:':'WATf:R '989 n>f; J~ -II or 5ANP 5P EL.a3' EL2.S' LOAMY SIINO to- ---~~,.----:-.~: MCDlUli TO COARSE ~.$~ I:l~ \,C,,~_',\\ ' \\'J),--' 4' \; ,..,-' SIINOY CLAY GRADING ~ \ '. \'\011- CLA l1:Y SANO SC \ $ 5.5' ~ L--. . 8' WATf.'R /N CLAl1:Y SIINO _" ,. .:... - -- -' WATf.'R 'N BROWN BOG OH "--"1 NOTE' ..@-, pl'Op corda'" ~:prdp el. 9 : d-'''twe.1! ---~ FLOOD ZONE LINES FROM FIRM 36103C0166 G MA Y 4, 1998 ELEVA TIONS REFERENCED TO N,G, V.D, I am familiar with the STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL AND CONSTRUCTION OF SUBSURfACE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS FOR SINGLE FAMIL Y RESIDENCES and will abide by the conditions set forth therein and on the permit to construct, The location of wells and cesspools shown hereon ore from field observations and or from data obtained from others, ANY AL TERA TlON OR ADDITION TO THIS SURVEY IS A \I10LA TlON OF SECTION 7209 OF THE NEW YORK STA TE EDUCA TlON LA W. EXCEPT AS PER SECTION 7209-SU8DIVISION 2. ALL CERTlFiCA TlONS HEREON ARE VALID FOR THIS MAP AND COPIES THEREOF ONL Y IF SAID MAP OR COPIES 8EAR THE IMPRESSED SEAL OF THE SURVEYOR WHOSE SIGNA Tl./RE APPEARS HEREON. o . !TI ____ '0' ---- 13' WATf.'R'N M<D/UM . " . "'6' ..., ~ '''S' ""~ OO~~ OS~ C"~~~~ .. Clll ~ ~ , I [CONIC SU 0 (631) 765-5020 FA P.O, BOX 909 1230 TRAVELER STREET SOUTHOLD, N. Y. 11971 04-108 - EI-II .... N82'5355"W TlEUNF-- 141. iT;- AREA=6J,J02 SQ. FT. TO nE LINES >c =LA TH SET A=WETLAND FLAG 0, New York State. Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Environmental Permits, Region One SUNY @ Stony Brook, 50 Circle Road, Stony Brpok, NY 11790 - 3409 Phone: (631) 444-0365 . FAX: (631) 444-0360 Webslte: www.dec.state.ny.us ~ -... ~ May 15, 2007 Re: '...-.'......---....;1 \f["'1\ . ~~~{C_.~'~ ,IP J~..ir. '\. \ ' I ~I .." : U~\ MAY 1 7 2007 ~Jd I I L ______--.1 I Permit #1-4738-03554/00001 Southold lo~' Fergus Property, North Bayview Road, Southold! Poore of Trustees Joanna Lane Property Angels , 140 Wagon Wheel Lane Cutchogue, NY 11935 Dear Ms. Lane: This is in response to your letter dated May 14, 2007, requesting that the above Tidal Wetlands permit be revoked and expressing concern regarding possible impacts to Diamondback Terrapin nesting habitat. We appreciate your concerns for the environmental quality of this area in general and the neighborhood around North Bayview Road in particular. We also recognize the effort you have made to provide us with your pertinent comments. The Fergus site is sometimes used by Diamondback Terrapin turtles. The Diamondback Terrapin is a protected species in New York State, however, the currently protection is listed as a game species. Game species may be hunted during special seasons with certain restrictions and limitations. Diamond Terrapins are an aquatic species that spend the majority of time directly in marine and brackish waters. They use the immediate beach and shoreline areas for nesting habitat. The Tidal Wetlands permit issued for the Fergus site requires a 50 foot natural buffer area to remain undisturbed along the shoreline. Our wildlife biologists believe this buffer area will provide sufficient nesting habitat and protection to any Diamond Terrapins using this area. In addition, our review of the project revealed that the application met the standards for permit issuance pursuant to the applicable sections of the Tidal Wetland Land Use Regulations (6NYCRRPart 661). We also found that the proposal would not likely result in impacts to Diamondback Terrapins using the area. Because the application met the requirements of the regulations and no impacts were likely to occur the enclosed permit was issued. We are confident that the project, completed correctly, will not adversely impact tidal wetlands, Diamondback Terrapins or other natural resources in the area. In addition, the project design incorporates protective features and the permit contains special conditions that should sufficiently protect against damage to natural resources and wildlife. Therefore, we find that there are insufficient grounds to revoke this permit and it shall remain in effect. Thank you for bringing your concerns to our attention. Please do not hesitate to contact me at (631) 444-0374 if you have any questions. Sincerely, /~ Mark Carrara Deputy Permit Administrator cc: Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Southold Board of Town Trustees, Town of South old file - -' .~ \ \ ',i': i'" \~ ',', ., 'I "j .:-'.J1 L':l . ;. 1 ',.::> '~ I' 'r' !...:: . I..., \ \ i~Ui'iI MA'i 1 S ieOI , I w. II I L.---..' .. 1 .. \ 5,Q\j~\lOI(j 0.;\ I F "c.A '1~ 1rusteo::s l'~ <J' t; 0 \: i property angels ,.---' 140 WAGON WHEEL LANE CUTCHOGUE, NY 11935 PHONE: 631 252-5653 TOLL FREE FAX 1-866-356-9203 e: joanna@propertyange/s.com i ~ ..l ,- Monday, May14,2007 Mr. Mark Carrara Deputy Permit Administrator NYS Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Environmental Permits, Region One Building 40 - SUNY Stonybrook, NY 11790-2356 RE: Permit # 1-4738-03654100001 Edward Fergus, 1864 North Bayview, Southold, NY 11971 Dear Mr. Carrara, A new issue has presented itself with regard to the above detailed permit, which I am now bringing to your attention by way of this letter. Specifically, I am writing to inform you that the subject property is a habitat for nesting wild Diamondback Terrapins, Ma/ac/emys terrapin, which as I'm sure you know is a protected species. We now seek your assurance that there will be no disturbance to the property at this time and until the Department has properly and fully investigated the matter. Please find attached the following supportive documentation: 1. Aerial photograph of the subject property and neighboring properties with a non- exhaustive list of recent sightings, indicating location where found and by whom. 2. Three photographs taken in June 2006 depicting the rescue of an adult female from the driveway of the Lane property by a then houseguest, the location of which is +/-100ft from the high water mark, well beyond the proposed 50ft buffer. 3. Copy of the publication by Dr. Russell Burke, Department of Biology at Hofstra University, on his work on Ma/ac/emys terrapin, or Diamondback Terrapins. Amongst other relevant facts, this established the breeding season for terrapins in this area as being April through August, and more important, the distance from water used bv terraoins as aooroximatelv 250 meters or 820ft. The following experts have positively identified the turtle in the above photographs submitted here as an adult female diamondback terrapin Ma/ac/emys terrapin: Ilene (Bean) Eberly - Coordinator of Research & Conservation The Wetlands Institute 1/3 1075 Stone Harbor Boulevard Stone Harbor, NJ 08247 Phone: 609-368-1211 Fax: 609-368-3871 www.wetlandsinstitute.ora www.terraoinconservation.ora Dr. Russell Burke Department of Biology 114 Hofstra University Hempstead, NY 11549 voice: (516) 463-5521 fax: 516-463-5112 htto:/Iwww.oeoole.hofstra.edulfacultv/russell I burke/ If you need additional information, please feel free to contact them. Both Ms Eberly and Dr. Burke have informed us that terrapins are territorial in nature regarding nesting sites, almost always returning to the same place, which includes the subject property. In addition, the only reasons the terrapins come out of the water onto land is to nest, hence it is fairly safe to assume that the adult female found and photographed in excess of 100ft from the high water mark on our property was at the time looking for a place to nest. Given the nature and extent of the confirmed sightings we now have, not to mention others that may be forthcoming during the current season, now we are aware of their existence, it's reasonable to assume that the entire Feraus orooerty is home to Diamondback Terraoin nests at this time. With reference to htto:/Iwww.dec.nv.Qov/reas/4045.html. we are mindful that the habitat of Diamondback Terrapins is protected under Environmental Conservation Law 11-0311, and in particular clause (vii), which is in force at this time and explicitly prohibits: .. Willfully taking, destroying or disturbing in any manner the eggs or nest of a diamondback terrapin in the wild" Consequently, we now seek your assurance that the Department will revoke the permit previously granted to commence construction on this property, and instead impose appropriate restrictions that lawfully protect the habitat of this threatened species. It is imperative that the property is not disturbed at this time during the current nesting season. 2/3 It is our intention to seek proper and permanent protection for the habitat of this increasingly rare and endangered species, and to that end, we have contacted a previous tenant at our property, an attorney at the Nature Conservancy. However, we are relying on the fact that all involved agencies and your good self in particular will take appropriate corrective steps in light of this new discovery to ensure DEC Special Regulations are upheld by the applicant, his agents, invitees and guests. Yours Sincerely, r1~~ Joanna Lane Cc: Board of Town Trustees, Town of Southold Building Department, Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Southold 3/3 GOOSE CREEK, SOUTHOlD, NY - -.:~-~.- .:: .. DIAMONDBACK TERRAPIN SIGHTINGS 1. DENNIS LANE: baby running into the water, second week of September 2005 2. WilLIAM KUHl: numerous adult females and babies, including one deceased, summer 2006 3. GEORGE GRAFER: rescued adult female from Lane driveway, June 2006 Jou17lil1 of Herpd~, Vol. 37, No.3, pp. 517-526, 2003 Copyright 2003 Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles Nesting Ecology and Predation of Diamondback Terrapins, Malaclemys terrapin, at Gateway National Recreation Area, New York JEREMY A. FEINBERG' AND RUSSELL L. BURKE Depa,tment of Biology, Hofst,a Univetsity, Hempstead, New York 11549, U5A ABSTRACT.-We studied Diamondback Terrapins, MRlaclemys terrapin, at Gateway National Recreation Area, New York. We found evidence of nesting terrapins at three locations within the Recreation Area and focused our research on the islands of Jamaica Bay Wddlife Refuge. Female terrapins nested from early June through early August and oviposited at least two clutches per year. Mean clutch size was 10.9 eggs. Nesting activity increased with daily high temperature and high tide. The greatest number of terrapin nests was found in shrubland, dune, and mixed-grassland habitats, but nest densities were higher on a human~made sandy trail and on sandy beaches. We estimate that approximately 2053 nests were oviposited on the largest island in the refuge in 1999. In 1998 and 1999, we counted 1319 and 1840 depredated nests, respectively, throughout the refuge. Raccoons were introduced into Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge approximately 20 yr prior to this study. Raccoons depredated 92.2% of nests monitored on the largest island during the 1999 nesting season. We also found the carcasses of adult female terrapins that apparenUy were killed by raccoons as they came on land to nesl This terrapin population may be undergoing demographic changes as a result of the introduction of raccoons. The Diamondback Terrapin, Malademys terra- pin, is an estuarine emydid turtle that occurs along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of North America, from Cape Cod, Massachusetts, to Corpus Christi Bay, Texas (Ernst and Bury, 1982). In New York, terrapin populations are scattered around Long Island, Staten Island, and the lower Hudson River north to Rockland, Putnam, and Orange Counties. Terrapin nesting ecology varies widely. Varia- tion in clutch size (Montevecchi and Burger, 1975; Auger, 1989; Roosenburg, 1991),clutchfrequency (Burger, 1977; Cook, 1989; Roosenburg, 1991), and incubation time (Burger, 1977; Auger and Giovannone, 1979; Zimmerman 1992) have been documented in different terrapin populations. The time and duration of the nesting season also varies by location (Burger, 1977; Seigel, 19803; Emst et aI., 1994). Terrapins have been reported to nest from April through July with a preference for nesting during the day in fair weather with minimal cloud cover (Burger and Montevecchi, 1975; Seigel, 1979, 198Oa; Zimmerman, 1992). However, nesting also occurs nocturnally (Auger and Giovannone, 1979; Roosenburg, 1992, 1994; Wood and Herlands, 1997), during rain (R. Wood, pers. comm.), and soon after rain (Bur- ger and Montevecchi, 1975; Roosenburg, 1992, 1994). Female terrapins prefer nesting in sunny, 1 Corresponding Author. Present address: U.S. FISh and Wtldlife Service, Brookhaven National Laboratory, 81 Cornell Avenue, Building 120, Upton, New York 11973, USA; E-mail: jfeinberg@bnl.gov sparsely vegetated areas (Burger and Montevec- chi, 1975; Roosenburg, 1992, 1994; Zimmerman, 1992), and sand is the preferred nesting substrate (Roosenburg, 1994). Variation in nest survivorship has been docu- mented in different parts of this species' range (Burger 1976, 1977; Auger and Giovannone, 1979; Roosenburg, 1992). Eggs and hatchlings of M. terrapin are eaten by ghost crabs (Ocypode quadrata; Zimmerman, 1992), striped skunks <Mephitis mephitis; Auger and Giovannone, 1979), red foxes (Vulpes vulpes), racroons (Procycm wtor), crows (Corvus brachyrhynclws), and laugh- ing gulls (LArus atrid/la; Burger, 1977). The roots from beachgrass (Ammophila breoiligulata) and Spartina spp. also invade terrapin nests (Auger and Giovannone, 1979; Lazell and Auger, 1981; Roosenburg, 1992). Other biotic causes of nest and hatchling mortality include fungal infections and maggots (Auger and Giovannone, 1979). Abiotic causes of nest mortality include flooding and wind erosion (Auger and Giovannone, 1979; Roosenburg. 1992). Infertility, failed develop- ment, and unexplained mortality of hatchlings can further decrease survivorship (Burger, 1977). Predation upon adult terrapins has been ob- served (Seigel, 1980b; Clark, 1982; Watkins- Colwell and Black, 1997). Terrapins are facing increased threats through- out their range (Emst et aI., 1994; Burke et aI., 2(00). Nevertheless, information on their status in the New York metropolitan area is very limited, threats to their survival have not been fully identified, and they continue to be sold illegally in many major cities (Burke et aI., 2000; 518 J. A. FEINBERG AND R. L. BURKE Long Island Staten Island New York/New Jersey Harbor New Jersey Atlantic Ocean A 3 0 - 3 6 Kilometers FIG. 1. Map of Gateway National Recreational Area (GNRA). 1 = Subway Island; 2 = Ruler's Bar Hassock; 3 = Uttle Egg Island; 4 = Ruffle Bar; 5 = Canarsie Pol; 6 = Dead Horse Bay; 7 = Floyd Bennett Field; 8 = Bergen Beach; 9 = Canarsie Pier; 10 = Spring Creek; 11 = Breezy Point; 12 = Miller Field; 13 = Great Kills Park; 14 = Sandy Hook. RLB, pers. obs.). We sought to address the lack of information reganding terrapin nesting ecology in the New York metropolitan area, identify im- portant nesting sites, and quantify current nest predation to develop a better understanding of their survival and recruitment. On a broader scale, we sought to obtain a greater understand- ing of how external factors such as predation and environmental conditions influence terrapin ecol- ogy and nesting behavior. MATERIAlS AND METI-IODS Study Area.-Gateway National Recreation Area (GNRA) stretches across the mouth of the Hudson River from southwestern Long Island, New York to Sandy Hook, New Jersey (Fig. 1). Gateway is composed of 10,400 ha of land and water, including the 3700 ha Jamaica Bay WIldlife Refuge (JBWR). JBWR and surrounding areas have been significantly altered over the past 120 yr by extensive dredging for land reclamation, shipping channels, and the creation of John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK; Black, 1981). JBWR includes five upland islands: Ruler's Bar Hassock (RBH, the largest island), tittle Egg Island (LED, Ruffle Bar, Canarsie Pol, and Sub- way Island. Nesting Area Identification at GNRA.-In 1998, we identified all feasible nesting areas in GNRA based on three criteria. The first criterion was availability of sun-<!Xposed, sparsely vegetated habitats; we also included small pockets of exposed areas surrounded by relatively dense vegetation as reported by Burger and Montevec- chi (1975). The second criterion was the presence of sandy soils for nesting. We included mixed soils and gravel substrates because they attract nesting terrapins at GNRA (D. Taft, pers. comm.). The third criterion was proximity to water. Our preliminary surveys suggested the maximum distance from water used by terrapins was ap- proximately 250 m. In addition to these criteria, we also reviewed historic terrapin data from GNRA. We considered ocean-facing beaches, bulkheaded shorelines, and landfill sites un- feasible. We searched all feasible areas for evidence of nesting activity including depredated nests, ECOLOGY AND PREDATION OF DIAMONDBACK TERRAPINS punctured turtle eggs and egg fragments, live or dead adult female terrapins found in uplands, hatchlings, false nests, and crawl trails leading inland from the water. Dead terrapins found on the beach were not used as indicators of nesting activity because they may have died elsewhere and washed ashore. PredafiDn at TBWR.-ln 1998 and 1999, we surveyed all suitable nesting areas on RBH (including 3180 m of shoreline and 22 ha of uplands) with the assistance of volunteer groups ranging from 2-10 people. We searched for depredated nests and dead terrapins from 1 Tune through 31 July and sporadically in August. We surveyed LEI, Ruffle Bar, Canarsie Pol, and Subway lsland once in July 1998, and in July 1999, we resurveyed LEI and Ruffle Bar. These four islands were surveyed by walking parallel transects 2 m apart, traversing each entire island. During depredated nest counts, we only counted holes that were accompanied by punc- tured eggs or egg fragments (unless we had previously observed oviposition). We identified predators to species when possible, using direct observation, tracks, nest scars, or scat. When punctured eggs were found complete and intact adjacent to depredated nests, we counted them for clutch size estimates (see Nesting Ecology in Materials and Methods). We removed depre- dated eggs and covered holes to prevent recount- ing them. In 1999, we recorded the surrounding habitat type of depredated nests on RBH when time permitted, to compare nesting habitat selections. We calculated absolute values and a relative index that corrected for differences in habitat size by dividing the number of nests per habitat type by the total area of each habitat type. We used three habitat types from a National Park Service (NPS) characterization (National Park Service, 1979): beach (exposed sand and no vegetation); dune and mixed grassland (20-75% vegetation such as A. breviligulata and seaside goldenrod [Solidago sempervirens]); and shrubland (10-50% low-growing shrubs such as bayberry [Myrica pensylvanicaJ and beach plum [Prunus maritima]). We based two additional habitat types on our observations: Terrapin Trail (a 590-m sandy trail), and Main Trail (a 1730-m trail covered in gravel and mixed soils). When we found adult terrapin carcasses, we inspected them for cause of death. We presumed a "probable raccoon attack" for those found with severed rear limbs, punctured body cavities, and evisceration adjacent to the hindquarters, as seen by Seigel (198Ob) and RLB (pers. 000.). We presumed a "possible raccoon attack" when car- casses were too severely decomposed to confirm a raccoon attack, but evidence such as location (e.g., upland nesting areas) and physical condi- 519 tion (e.g., upside down) indicated raccoon attack during nesting. We recorded sex as "unknown" when a carcass had washed onshore, the cara- pace was less than 140 mm, and/or severe de- composition had occurred. Nesting Ecology on Ruler's Bar Hassock.-With the assistance of our volunteers, we searched all suitable nesting areas on RBH for nesting terrapins. The searches were conducted from 1 June through 31 July, and 5, 19, and 29 August 1999, over 4-i).h periods from 0700-2200 h. We adjusted the daily observation period according to day1ime high tide by timing the middle of the period to correspond with high tide. We did this to maximize the number of terrapins observed based on reports of increased nesting activity associated with high tide (Burger and Montevec- chi, 1975; Auger and Giovannone, 1979; Zimmer- man, 1992). On days with two daytime high tides, we selected the tide closer to the solar zenith or conducted observations during both tides. We observed nesting terrapins as they emerged from the water and inconspicuously followed them on their nesting forays. We also found some terrapins during walking surveys along the shoreIines and trails. We recorded terrapins observed ovipositing as "nesters" and terrapins we disturbed or encountered prior or subsequent to nesting events as "incidentals." Observers watched complete nesting events whenever possible and then captured the fe- males. We uniquely marked females using the shell-notching method of Cagle (1939). In rare instances, we used disturbed soil patterns to lind recently laid nests as did Burger (1977) and Roosenburg (1992), but dense vegetation made this difficult. The earliest and latest nesting dates were recorded based on direct observations of oviposition or depredated nests. In addition to our 1999 data, we collected supplemental field data on earliest and latest nesting in 2000. We compared the time of capture for each female terrapin to tide, temperature, and cloud- cover to determine how environmental factors influence nesting activity. We obtained our data from the National Climatic Data Center weather station at JFK. We recorded absolute values and calculated relative indices by dividing the num- ber of terrapins observed in a measured unit by the total number of observer-hours or overall hours during the study period. Whenever we observed terrapins nesting, we marked the nests and monitored them for survivorship. We define "nest survivorship" as the percentage of nests in a sample that were not destroyed (e.g., depredated or flooded). We estimated nest survivorship by marking a sample of nests (N = 77) with three surveyor's flags placed approximately 1 m from each nest in an 520 J. A. FEINBERG AND R. L. BURKE TABLE 1. Density of Mnlaclemys terrapin nests by habitat type. Habitat type Beach Dune/Mixed Grasslands ShrobJand Terrapin Trail Main '!rail Total Numoo- depredated nests Nests/m2 0.0026 0.0092 Area (m2) 50,512 50,851 129 469 485 254 122 1459 119,593 945 5190 227,ll91 0.0040 0.269 0.0235 0.0064 equilateral triangle. We monitored them daily through September and recorded the length of time between oviposition and depredation. We examined all monitored depredated nests for predator spoor, uneaten eggs, and egg remains. If a marked nest was disturbed and no eggshell fragments were found, we assumed that preda- tors had completely consumed the eggs within the nest. We monitored another sample of nests (N = 5) for hatchling development using predator ex- cluders (Auger, 1989). Excluders consisted of 50- em2 sheets of one-quarter-inch hardware cloth. We buried excluders approximately 2 em below the surface and anchored them with 200-mm metal stakes. After 40 days, we removed the excluders so that hatchlings would not be obstructed if they attempted to emerge. We then excavated the top eggs in each nest to check developmental characteristics such as swe1ling and textune changes. We examined the eggs without removing them and then re-covered them. We continued monitoring these nests weekly for signs of hatchling emergence through the end of September. Two of the nests were depredated after the predator excluders were removed. We excavated and inspected the re- maining three nests on 27 September 1999. Where hatchlings had emerged prior to 27 September, we counted eggshells in the nest. We removed nonemerged hatchlings from the nest chamber and released them into an adjacent marsh. Because our data were gathered from excavated nests, the results should not be inter- preted as emergence data. We calculated mean clutch size by counting punctured eggs adjacent to depredated nests. We generally did not dig up marked nests to determine clutch size because we did not want to bias predators. The only time we took clutch size measurements from intact, nondepredated nests was when we excavated the successfully pr0- tected nests, and in one additional instance, when we counted the eggs of an intact nest that was laid below the high-tide line, before it flooded. We present all results in this paper as :t 1 SO, and statistical tests are two tailed, unless other- wise noted. REsULTS Nesting Area Identification at GNRA.-We de- termined that 14 different areas in GNRA were feasible for nesting by M. terrapin (Fig. 1), but we found evidence of nesting in only three areas: RBH, LEI, and Sandy Hook. Nesting areas were generally sparsely vegetated sandy uplands with Spartina marshes nearby. Predation at ]BWR.-We found a combined total of 1319 depredated nests in 1998 and 1840 nests in 1999 on RBH and LEI. Eggshells did not persist between years, and we are confident that our numbers accurately represent the reported year class. Of the 3159 depredated nests counted during this study, 98.9% were found on RBH where raccoons were the primary nest predators. We saw no evidence of predation by other animals on RBH. We never found uneaten eggs in depredated nests. We discovered nearly all predation events post factum, but we did observe raccoons depredating nests on three occasions between 1800 and 0600 h. We saw as many as six raccoons per night in the nesting area, and they were usually in groups of two or three individ- uals. One of our protected nests was invaded by plant roots. Seven of nine eggs were penetrated, shriveled, and desiccated. Nearby plants weredtall wormwood (Artemisia campestris caudata) and hayberry, but we could not determine which, if either, of the species' roots were involved. We found depredated nests (N = 34) on LEI but did not observe nesting there. In three cases, the top and middle eggs of nests were depre- dated, yet the bottom eggs were intact. In all cases, the nest scars were different from those left by raccoons on RBH. We categorized the habitat surrounding 1459 (80.1%) depredated nests on RBH. We observed significant differences in the absolute and rela- tive number of depredated nests found in each habitat type (Table 1; absolute comparison: '1.2 goodness-of-fit test = 447, df = 4, P < 0.001; relative comparison: '1.2 goodness-of-fit test = 10,644, df = 4, P < 0.001). The greatest absolute number of depredated nests was in dune and mixed grassland habitat and sbrubland habitat. The Terrapin Trail and Main Trail had the highest relative depredated nest densities. It appeared that the way raccoons ate eggs on RBH varied seasonally. During the first half of the 1999 nesting season, raccoons usually left depre- dated eggs in conspicuous mounds within a few centimeters of depredated nests. During the second half of the nesting season, the number of nests that were consumed with little or no ECOLOGY AND PREDATION OF DIAMONDBACK TERRAPINS 521 1.60 1.40 1.20 ! 1.00 ~ " 0.60 .. ... J .5 0.60 0.40 ~-u l~ 0.20 0.00 . ~~~~~~~~G_~~~!Ji-M~~E~M~~~_M~~ a~~._r___~ ~~ ~~~hh~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~c ~~~~~h~~~ Dale (1999) FIG. 2. Index of total daily captures. Black bars represent "nesters" that were observed nesting and then captured (N = 85). White bars represent "incidental" females (N = 59). eggshell evidence left behind increased. Addi- tionally, our observations of raccoon scat in 1998 and 1999 provide further support of a change in the way raccoons consumed eggs. In the begin- ning of the 1998 and 1999 nesting seasons, raccoon scat in the nesting areas was typically dark brown. Starting gradually in early July, we observed some raccoon scat with visible quanti- ties of terrapin eggshell fragments. By the end of both nesting seasons, nearly all the raccoon scat we observed was white and contained large quantities of eggshell fragments. We found 28 adult terrapin carcasses on RBH during our study. In 1998, we found eight females (six probable raccoon attacks, two possible raccoon attacks) and one terrapin of unknown sex (possible raccon attack). In 1999, we found the carcasses of 15 female terrapins (11 probable raccoon attacks, four possible raccoon attacks), one male (unknown/natural causes), and three terrapins of unknown sex (possible raccoon attacks). Predation appears to have been the primarily cause of mortality, but we never observed predation on adults. Nesting Ecology on Ruler's Bar Hassock.-In 1999, terrapins nested from 3 June through 23 July, a 51-day nesting season. In 2000, terrapins nested from 9 June through 4 August, a 57-day nesting season. The earliest time we observed nesting was 0930 h; the latest was 2115 h. The average time of nesting was 24.8:t 6.9 min (range 13-47, N = 28). We found no significant difference in mean clutch size between depredated eggs (N = 41) and whole eggs from nondepredated nests (N = 4; one-tailed Mann-Whitney U-test = 62.5, P = 0.45); thus, we combined the data. We used a one- tailed test because animals, waves, wind, and visitors could have removed eggshells from de- predated nests whereas nondepredated nests were protected from those influences. The overall mean clutch size was 1O.9:t 3.5 eggs per nest (N = 45, range 3-18). One depredated nest appeared to contain 29 eggs, but we are skeptical of this large number. It may have been the remains of two adjacent nests; thus, we did not include it in our calculations. We marked 133 adult female terrapins cap- tured on land in 1999. Six of these were re- captured, all in the same general areas of initial capture. One of these was observed to nest twice during the nesting season. A second turtle was gravid and disturbed during a nesting attempt on 13 June 2003 and observed nesting on 2 July 2003, 19 days later. Two other turties were recaptured moving toward the water from up- lands 17 days after they were originally observed nesting. The remaining two recaptures were gravid or nested on at least one of their dates of capture. The mean number of days between the first and second capture for all six terrapins was 17.5 :t 1.39 days (range 15-19). We did not capture any terrapins more than twice in a year. The greatest number of terrapins captured on a single day (N = 43) occurred on 13 June 1999. When we corrected for the total number of search hours each day, we found three distinct activity peaks during that nesting season (Fig. 2). Although we found nesting turties at all limes, from low to high tide, and from dawn to dusk, we found significant correlations between the number of terrapin captures per hour and increased tide level (r = 0.74, df = 100, P < 0.001) and between the number of terrapin 522 J. A. FEINBERG AND R. L. BURKE TABLE 2. Relative number of Millaclemys terrapin nests oviposited under different cloud cover regimes. Total nwnber of Nests/ Nurnbe< hourly cloud-cover cloud-cover Goud cover of nests observations observation Clear (0-25%) 10 680 0.555 Partly sunny 32 94 0.077 (25-50%) Partly cloudy 31 201 0.164 (50-75%) Overcast 13 249 0.203 <75-100%) captures per hour and daily high temperature (r = 0.72, df = 100, P < 0.001). Mean air temper- ature at time of capture for nesters was 25.4 :!:: 3.2'C (N = 78, range 19.4-35.0"C). Mean air temperature for incidentals was 27.7 :!:: 4.7"C (N = 25, range 20.6--35.0"C). This difference is significant (t = 2.3, df = 101, P = 0.03). The cloud-rover regime during the 1999 study period was 56% clear, 20% partly sunny, 16% partly cloudy; and 8% overcast. Of the 86 nesters we observed in total, 15% nested in rainy or overcast conditions (75-100% cloud cover), 36% nested in partly cloudy conditions (50-75% cloud cover), 37% nested in partly sunny conditions (25-50% cloud cover), and 12% nested in clear conditions (0-25% cloud cover). Both absolute and relative differences were significant (absolute compari- son: X2 goodness-of-fit test = 18.84, df = 3, P < 0.001; relative comparison: X2 goodness-of-fit test = 148.84, df = 3, P < 0.001). The absolute and relative numbers of nests found in each cloud-rover regime are presented in Table 2. We estimated that nest survivorship among our sample of unprotected nests was 5.2% (N = 77). Predation accounted for the loss of 92.2% of nests and flooding accounted for a 2.6% loss. The time between nesting and predation was recorded in one-day intervals for 70 depredated ~ests. Seventy-one percent of predation occurred In the 24-h period following oviposition (Fig. 3). The greatest time between oviposition and de- predation was seven days. We used our nest survivorship data to estimate the total number of nests laid on RBH based on Burger's (1977) use of the Lincoln-Peterson index (Brower et aI., 1998): N _ (N,)(P2) 2- P1 ' where P, = number of unprotected, depredated, marked nests (71), P2 = number of unmarked, depredated nests on RBH (1822), N, = total unprotected marked nests (77), and N2 = total number of unmarked nests on RBH = 1976. Thus, we estimate the total number of nests laid . ( J. .. . o.ya~.-tl""and~ Fic. 3. TIme (in days) between oviposition and depredation by raccoons on Ruler's Bar Hassock eN = 70). at RBH (N, + N2) in 1999 = 2053 (95% CI = 1615-2491) and the total number of eggs laid on RBH to be 22,378, calculated by multiplying 2053 (estimated total nests on RBH) by 10.9 (mean clutch si2e). The three successfully protected nests used to monitor hatchling development were excavated 70, 69, and 64 days after oviposition. Each nest ~ontained some live hatchlings. Two of nine eggs m Nest 1 (22%) produced live hatchling, six of the 13 eggs in Nest 2 (46%) produced live hatchlings, and 12 of the 13 eggs (92%) in Nest 3 produced hatchlings, but one was dead. Additionally, eggs within the two depredated protected nests (see Materials and Methods) were developing normally prior to depredation, and a hatchling carcass was found in one of them afier depreda- tion indicating some hatchling production in that nest as well. Hatchlings from Nest 1 and Nest 3 were still present at the time of excavation. All six live hatchlings from Nest 2 had emerged, with only the unsuccessful eggs and posthatch egg- shells remaining. Although we did not study nest emergence, our observations from Nest 2 suggest that the. hatchlings emerged within 69 days of OVIposItion. Only four (5.2%) of the 77 monitored un- protected nests survived predation and flooding. We could not determine the success of the eggs in these nests because we were unable to determine their precise locations within our marking flags, even though we originally observed oviposition of all four nests. Nevertheless, we assumed that at least some hatchlings were produced in all four surviving nests based on the data from our protected nests. Therefore, we estimate that there were 107 successful nests on RBH (52% of 2053 nests) and that successful nests contained 1166 eggs (107 nests X 10.9 eggs/nest). DIscUSSION Nesting Area ldentificatinn at GNRA. -Al- though 14 areas at GNRA appeared feasible as terrapin nesting areas, only three definitively ECOLOGY AND PREDATION OF DIAMONDBACK TERRAPINS proved so. Nesting had not been previously recorded on LEI. The 11 other areas contained suitable upland habitat (e.g., beaches, dunes, and grasslands) similar to the three confirmed sites, but nearby aquatic habitats may have been in- sufficient for sustaining terrapin populations. Most of these sites lacked ample Spartinn marsh, and have been dredged, bulkheaded, filled, and substantially developed. We did not find nest- ing evidence at Floyd Bennett Field or Great Kills Park, two areas where Cook (pers. comm.) reported occasional observations of nesting terrapins and hatchtings in the 1980s although a NPS official reported a dead terrapin at Great Kills Park in 1999. Predation at !BWR.-We detected high levels of predation by raccoons at RBH. Despite similar search efforts in both years, the number of depredated nests on RBH increased from 1303 in 1998 to 1822 in 1999. This may indicate an increase in predation, improved proficiency in our nest detection, increased nesting, or some combination of these. We also found that the rate of nest predation dropped off rapidly after 24 h, indicating that raccoons likely use a tran- sient indicator, probably scent, to locate terrapin nests. During the early 1980s, Cook (1989, pers. comm.) studied terrapin nesting ecology on RBH. He never observed nest predation and hatching success was 93% (N = 8), but this estimate may be suspect because of low sample size. None of the typical predators of turtle nests (raccoons, foxes, skunks) were present on RBH (O'Connell, 1980). In the mid-1980s, raccoons began to colonize RBH but were observed only rarely, dead on roads (R Cook, pers. comm.). Raccoon sightings remained uncommon until the early to mid-1990s when sightings began to increase (R. Cook, pers. comm.). NPS officials athibute this to an increase in the number of nuisance raccoons that were captured by humans and illegally released on RBH (D. Riepe, pers. comm.). Subsequently, depredated terrapin nests and raccoons have both become common on RBH (R. Cook, pers. comm.). Avian predation has never been reported on RBH and may be limited by the constant daily flow of visitors during daylight hours when avian predation typically occurs (Burger, 1977). We observed nest invasion by roots. Many nests were found in dune, mixed grassland, and shrubland habitats with plants growing nearby. Roots may represent a significant source of egg mortality exclusive of animal predators. Beach grasses can obtain nutrients from terrapin nests (Lozell and Auger, 1981; Stegmann et aI., 1988). It was difficult to determine the full extent and impact of roots because of their inconspicuous nature. 523 We found that shrubland habitat and dune and mixed-grassland habitat contained the greatest number of depredated nests on RBH. These habitats were similar to those studied by Burger and Montevecchi (1975), Roosenburg (1992), and Zimmerman (1992) in that they were sparsely vegetated, contained loose sand, and received substantial sunlight. Although the Terrapin Trail represents a small area relative to other habitats, it is also a key nesting area (Table 1) as well as a major corridor for nesting terrapins. The trail's sandy soil and minima1 vegetation is ideal for nesting terrapins. Moderate pedestrian use of this trail is common outside the nesting season and may benefit terrapins by inhibiting plant growth and maintaining high-quality nesting habitat. Nesting also was observed in marginal habitats. Thirty-six depredated nests were oviposited on gravel sections of the Main Trail, which is extremely compacted and difficult to excavate. Far fewer depredated nests were found on LEI than on RBH. We were unable to estimate the total number of nests on LEI because we only surveyed LEI for depredated nests. Raccoons have not been observed on LEI, and the island's lack of fresh water, small size, and isolation may preclude it from supporting raccoon populations (R. Cook, D. Avrin, pers. comm.). The pattern of predation on LEI was more ronsistent with Burger's (1977) observation of avian predation where gulls only took a few eggs from each nest. LEI hosts large breeding colonies of great black- backed gulls (Larus marinus) and herring gulls (Larus argentatus). Burger (1977) reported that raccoons also occasionally left eggs intact within raided nests, but they only left two or three eggs per nest. We suspect that avian predators are the primary nest predators on LEI because we found greater numbers of intact eggs in depredated nests. We observed what appears to be a qualitative seasonal shift in the way raccoons consumed eggs on RBH. Early in the season, raccoons generally displayed the behavior described by Aresco (1996) in that they only consumed the contents of eggs while discarding the shells adjacent to the nest. Later in the season, raccoons displayed the behavior described by Burger (1977) in that they consumed eggs completely, shells included. If this behavior is common, then our estimate of the total number of depredated nests may be conservative because our dep:re-- dated nest counts only considered nests accom- panied by eggshell evidence. Roosenburg (1992) suggested that nests laid within the first 10 days of the nesting season may have a survival advantage because of a "lag time" that exists before predators start to detect nests. The first nests we observed each season 524 J. A. FEINBERG AND R. L. BURKE were depredated nests. Thus, if such a lag time exists on RBH, we might have missed a number of nondepredated nests laid at the start of the season and nest survivorship rates may be higher than we report. Like eggs and hatchlings, adult temtpins are vulnerable to predators, and the death of sub- stantial numbers of adult females can have severe impacts on population persistence (Hep- pell, 1998). Seigel (1980b) studied two temtpin populations comprising more than 600 turtles. Raccoons killed at least 10% of adult female terrapins as they came on land to nest. Although temtpins of both sexes were killed, the majority were adult females (86%). The scattered remains of additional old temtpin sheIls were also dis- covered, indicating that similar predation had occurred prior to Seigel's investigation. During a resurvey in 1992 and 1993, Seigel (1993) found no more than six terrapins per year because of a severe population crash caused by raccoons. Nesting Ecology on Ruler's Bar Hassock.- The 51 (1999) and 57 day (2000) nesting seasons we observed at JBWR are substantiaIIy longer than the 34- to 44-day nesting seasons reported in New Jersey (Burger, 1977) or the 34-day nesting season reported previously at JBWR (Cook, 1989). The nesting season we report is similar to the 52- to 57-day nesting season in Florida (Seigel, 1980a) and the 6O-day nesting season in South Carolina (Zimmerman, 1992). Our report of a nest on 4 August 2000 is one of the latest reported nesting dates for this species. Late nesting may be influenced by annual weather variation. The 2000 nesting season was charac- terized by several extended periods of overcast skies and cool temperatures that may have temporarily suppressed nesting. The mean clutch size we report (10.9 eggs/ clutch) is smaller than the 14.5 eggs/clutch (N = 10) reported by Cook (1989, pers. comm.) at JBWR This difference may be caused by our greater sampling effort. We are confident that the methodology we used to estimate clutch-size was reIiable. We used extreme care when count- ing depredated eggs to avoid miscounts and Giambanco (2003) reported a similar mean clutch size of 11.8 eggs/nest (N = 69) in a subsequent study of whole eggs within nests at JBWR. We conclude that some terrapins lay two clutches/yr at JBWR. One turtle nested twice and several others exhibited reproductive con- ditions on both dates of capture. Our mean- recapture interval was 17.5 days, which closely corresponds to the 17-day intemesting interval for temtpins in Rye, New York (Klemens, 1993). Additionally, Auger and Giovannone (1979) reported two clutches/year from a terrapin popu- lation in Massachusetts, lSD-kin north of JBWR where temperatures are cooler. There was a direct correlation between higher tide levels and the number of terrapins observed on land. Burger and Montevecchi (1975), Auger and Giovannone (1979), and Zimmerman (1992) reported similar findings. Our observations also indicated that onshore migrations of terrapins increased in association with daily high temper- ature. Likewise, Seigel (1980.) reported a similar association between temperature and nesting terrapins. Terrapins did not nest when air temperature exceeded 35'C. In Florida, the maximum 0b- served air temperature during nesting was 36'C (Seigel, 1979). Although the maximum nesting threshold is similar in New York and Florida, terrapins at JBWR nest at a mean temperature nearly 6'C lower than temtpins in Florida. Temtpins were more likely to nest under 25-75% cloud cover than either 0-25% or 75- 100% cloud cover, perhaps because of the tem- perature extremes associated with very low or very high cloud cover. The extent to which terrapins nest at night at JBWR is still unknown, although four turtles started nesting between 2000 and 2030 h and continued nesting past sunset. We conservatively estimated that approxi- mately 2053 nests were laid on RBH in 1999, making this the largest nesting site reported in New York and one of the largest reported anywhere. Many factors may contribute to the large terrapin population at RBH including protection from commercial collection (for terra- pins and their prey), large expanses of productive Spartina marshes (Tanacredi and Badger, 1995), and low nest predation rates prior to the recent colonization of RBH by raccoons. We estimate that approximately 22,378 eggs were laid on RBH in 1999 but only 1166 in successful nests. Thus, most eggs do not survive and remain onshore. Bouchard and Bjomdal (2000) demonstrated that Loggerhead Seaturtles contributed significant quantities of nutrients in the form of eggs and eggshells, to a beach ecosystem in Florida. We conclude the same is true of terrapins at JBWR Ricklefs and Burger (1977) estimated that on average terrapin eggs contain approximately 64.9 kJ/egg. Therefore, the temtpins that nest on RBH bring about 707 kJlnest from marine ecosystems into terrestrial ecosystems each year, or approximately 1,450,000 kJ overall. More than 92% of this energy was consumed by raccoons quickly after eggs were laid, resulting in a much larger percentage of egg nutrients going to predators than found by Bouchard and Bjomdal (2000). The large amount of rapidly decomposing raccoon scat observed in terrapin nesting areas suggests that some of the ingested nutrients may be made available rap- idly to nearby plants. ECOLOCY AND PREDATION OF DIAMONDBACK TERRAPINS This paper documents current nesting areas, nesting ecology, and predation of Diamondback Terrapins in one of the largest and most densely populated urban areas in the country. Although typical threats such as development, commercial harvesting, and by-catch are limited in this federaIIy-protected area, raccoons have been introduced onto RBH and may pose the greatest threat to this terrapin population. We suspect that raccoon predation on terrapin eggs and adults may detrimentally affect the long-term success of this population. Although beyond the scope of this paper, management strategies and community awareness programs aimed at pre- venting future raccoon introductions may be necessary to ensure the survival of Diamondback Terrapins at JBWR. Acknowledgments.-We thank J. Tanacredi, G. Frame, M. Ringenary, D. Taft, D. Riepe, J. Zuzworsky, and especially R. Cook from the National Park Service for their essential contri- butions to this study. S. Ner, M. Giambanco, S. Sclafani, and our other volunteers and friends are perhaps the most deserving of thanks. Their dedication and devotion during the long, hot days of summer will not be forgotten. K Krause, National Park Service, kindly helped with plant identification. We thank J. Lovich, W. M. Roosenburg, and R. Seigel for their insights and suggestions regarding terrapin biology. The manuscript was greatly improved because of suggestions made by C. K Dodd Jr. and R. Seigel. JAP was supported by The New York City Environmental Fund administered by the Hudson River Foundation and by a Summer Fellowship from the Department of Biology at Hofstra University. This project was approved by Hofstra University's Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, and permitted under New York State Fish and Wildlife ticense LCP98-551 and a Nation Park Service class A permit. LITERATURE CITED ARe;co, M. J. 1996. Malaclemys terrapin terrapin (North- ern Diamond-Back Terrapin): reproduction and nest predation. Herpetological Review 27:77. AUGER, P. J. 1989. Sex Ratio and Nesting Behavior in a Population of Malaclemys terrapin Displaying Temperature-Dependent Sex Determination. Un- pobl. Ph.D. diss., Tufts Univ., Boston, MA. AUGER, P. J., AND P. GIOVANNONE. 1979. On the fringe of existence: Diamondback Terrapins at Sandy Neck. Cape Naturalist 8:44-58. BLACK. F. R. 1981. Historic Resource Study-Jamaica Bay: A History. U.S. Deparhnent of the Interior. National Park Service, Gateway National Recrea- tion Area. Document No. 1981-727-<18111518. BouCHARD, S. S., AND K. A. BjORNDAL. 2000. Sea turtles as biological transporters of nutrients and energy 525 from marine to teITeStrial ecosystems. Ecology 81: 2305-2313. BROWER, J. E., J. H. ZAR, AND C. N. VON ENDE. 1998. Field and l.aboratory Methods for General Ecology. 4th ed. McGraw Hill, Boston, MA. BURGER, J. 1976. Behavior of hatchling Diamondback Terrapins (MJllac1emys terrapin) in the field. Copeia 1976:742-748. -. 1977. Determinants of hatching success in Diamondback Terrapin, Malaclemys terrapin. Am..... ican Midland Naturalist 97:444-464. BURGER, J., AND W. A. MONTEVECCHI. 1975. Nest site selection in the terrapin Malaclemys terrapin. Copeia 1975:113-119. 1JURxE, V. J., J. E. LoVlCH, AND J. W. GIBBONS. 2000. Conservation of freshwater turtles. In M. W. Kle.- mens (ed.), Turtle Conservation, pp. 156-179. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. CAGLE, F. R. 1939. A system of marking turt1es for future identification. Copeia 1939:170-173. CLAR>:, W. S. 1982. 1.\ntles as a food source of nestiog bald eagles in the Chesapeake Bay Region. Journal of Field Ornithology 53:49--51. COOK, R. 1989. A natural history of the Diamondback Terrapin. Underwater Naturalist 18:25-31. ERNSr, C. H., AND R. B. BURY. 1982. Malac1emys, M. terrapin. Catalogue of American Amphibians and Reptiles 299:1-4. ERNSr, C. H., J. E. LoVlCH, AND R. W. BARBOUR. 1994. Turtles of the United States and Canada. Smithso- nian Institution Press, Washington, IX. GIAMBANCO, M. R. 2003. Comparison of Viability Rates, Hatchling Survivorship, and Sex Ratios of Labora- tory- and Field-lncubated Nests of the Estuarine, Emydid Turtle Malaclemys terrapin. Unpubl. master's thesis, Hofstra Univ., Hempstead, NY. HEPPELL, S. S. 1998. Application of life-history theory and population model analysis to turtle conserva- tion. Copeia 1988:367-375. KLEMENS, M. 1993. Amphibians and Reptiles of Con- necticut and Adjacent Regions. State Geological and Natural History Sorvey of Connecticut. Bulletio No. 12, Hartford. lAzEu. JR., J. D., AND P. J. AUGER. 1981. Predation on Diamondback Terrapin (MJllac1emys terrapin) eggs by dunegrass (Ammophi/a bm>i1igulata). Copeia 1981:723-724. MONTEVECCHI, W. A., AND J. BURGER. 1975. Aspects of the reproductive biology of the Northern Diamond- back Terrapin, Malaclemys terrapin terrapin. Ameri- can Midland Naturalist 94:166-178. NATIONAL PARK SERVICE. 1979. Gateway National Recreation Area: Final Environmental Statement, General Management Plan. U.S. Department of the Interior. National Park Service, Gateway National Recreation Area. Document No. NPS-1271-A. O'CONNElL, A. 1980. The Relationships of Mammals to the Major Vegetation Communities in Gateway National Recreation Area (Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge, Breezy Point, and Sandy Hook) Including a Soil Analysis of Selected Areas. U.s. Department of the Interior. National Park Service, Gateway National Recreation Area. Document No. Gate-N- 012-11. 526 J. A. FEINBERG AND R. L. BURKE RICKLEFS, R. E., AND J. BURGER. 1977. Composition of the eggs of the Diamondback Terrapin. American Mid- land Naturalist 97:232-235. ROOSENBURG, W. M. 1991. The Diamondback Terrapin: population dynamics, habitat requirements, and opportunities for conservation. In J. A. Mihursky and A. Chaney (005.>' New Perspectives in the Chesapeake System: A Resean:h and Management Partnership, pp. 237-244. Chesapeake Research Consortium, Proceedings of a Conference. 4-6 December 1990, Baltimore, MD. -. 1992. Life History Consequences of Nest Site Selection by the Diamondback Terrapin, Malaclemys terrapin. Unpubl Ph.D. diss., Univ. of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. -, 1994. Nesting habitat requirements of the Diamondback Terrapin: a geographic comparison. Wetland Journal 6:6-11. SEIGEL, R. A. 1979. The Reproductive Biology of the Diamondback Terrapin, Malaclemys terrapin tequest.. Unpubl. master's thesis, Univ. of Central Florida, Orlando. -. 198Qa. Nesting habits of Diamondback Terra- pins (Malaclemys terrapin) on the Atlantic coast of Florida. Transactions of the Kansas Academy of SciencEs 83:239-246. -. 198Ob. Predation by raccoons on Diamondback Terrapins, Malaclemys terrapin tequesta. Journal of Herpetology 14:87~. -. 1993. Recent population changes: apparent long-term decline in Diamondback Terrapin pop- ulations at the Kennedy Space Center, Florida. Herpetological Review 24:102-103. 5TEGMANN, E. W., R. B. l'RIMARK, AND G. S. ELl.MORE. 1988. Absorption of nutrient exudates from terrapin eggs by roots of Ammophila breviligulata. Canadian Journal of Botany 66:714-718. TANACREDI, J. T., AND C. J. BADGER. 1995. Gateway: A VlSitor's Companion. Stackpole Books, Mechani.cs-- burg, PA. WATKINS<:OLWELL, G. J., AND M. BLACK. 1997. Malaclemys terrapin terrapin (Northern Diamondback Terrapin): predation. Herpetological Review 28:87-88. WOOD, R. c., AND R. HERLANDS. 1997. Turtles and tires: the impact of roadkills on Northern Diamondback Terrapin, Malaclemys terrapin terrapin, populations on the Cape May Peninsula, southern New Jersey, USA. In J. van Abbema, P. C. H. Pritcbard, S. Dohm, and M. W. Klemens (eels.), Proceedings: Conserva- tion, Restoration, and Management of Tortoises and Turtles--An International Conference, pp. 46-53. New York. ZIMMERMAN, T. D. 1992. Latitudinal Reproductive Variation of the Salt Marsh Turtle, the Diamond- back Terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin). Unpubl. master's thesis, Univ. of Charleston, Charleston, SC. Accepted: 15 May 2003. Landscape Architects, Architects, Engineers, and Planners, P.C. IIO)'~- ~-~ ~J(tl~n': ~i MAY - 8 2007 I~ LSOuiholdjown~J i Beard of Trustees . ._"J SARATOGA ASSOCIATES Transmittal To: New York State Department of From: Environmental Protection Of Environmental Permits, Region One Date: Building 40-SUNY Stony Brook, New York Project Name: 11790-2356 Bill Kuhl April 30, 2007 Fergus Application Project #: #5941 Attn: Mr. Mark Carrara, Deputy Permit Adminstrator Phone: 631-765-1802 ~Postal ONext Day AM OHand Deliver ONext Day PM o 20' Day Ciij'We Transmit: ~ Herewith For Your: o Signature o Review & Approval OUse The Following: o Drawings o Reproducibles o We Acknowledge Receipt of: o Under Separate Cover Via 0 In Accordance with Your Request o Distribution to Parties ~ Recordj1nformation o Other: o Acknowledge Receipt of Enclosures o Return Enclosures to Us o Prints/Copies o Product Literature o Samples o Shop Drawings o Specifications ~Other: Copies Date Description Action 1 March 28, Letter to Zoning Board of Appeals 2007 1 April 16, Follow up Letter to Zoning Board of Appeals 2007 Message: Enclosed please find correspondence that has been submitted previously, to the Zoning Board of Appeals, Especially note that on my last letter to the Board, I indicated the presence of a protected species (the Diamondback Terrapin) nesting on the site. This has never been acknowledged or identified in any of the applications, most seriously in terms of the setback variance requested and subsequently granted by The New York State Department of Environmental Protection. Since Southold does not have a process in which all the Boards engage in a coordinated review of these kinds of applications, my NEW YORK CITY> SARATOGA SPRINGS 299 Broadway, Suite 900, New York, NY 10007 T 212 260 0250, F 212 979 0758, www.saratogaassociates.com Trans of Letters to Heads of townn Boards and OEC 4-3OD7 SARATOGA ASSOCIATES Transmittal Insert Date Page 2 of 2 concern is that there have be a number of issues, not the least being, the matter of a protected species being threatened by this application, that are not therefore getting properly reviewed in the context of the entire project. The protected Diamondback Terrapin is the most glaring example. Copies To: Mr. Michael J. Verity- Chief Building Inspector Mr. James Dinizio, Chairperson- Mr. Albert J. Krupski- President ~ With Attachments ~ With Attachments ~ With Attachments D With Attachments D With Attachments Day File: Project File: SARATOGA ASSOCIATES Landscape Architects, Architects, Engineers, and Planners, P.C. March 28, 2007 Mr. James Dinizio, JR. Chairman Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, N.Y. 11971 Re: Edward Fergus #5941 Dear Chairman Dinizio: Unfortunately, because of prior commitments, I cannot attend tomorrows hearing concerning Mr. Fergus's request for a rear yard setback variance. I delegate authority to Mr. and Mrs. Dennis Lane to speak on my behalf, in my absence, and to ensure my concerns are entered into the record. As owners of 1790 North Bayview, which abuts the property in question, neither my wife nor I are opposed to a home of appropriate scale and sensitivity being constructed, as long as it is responsive to the existing site conditions.. However, the .current proposed size and layout causes us great concern for a number of reasons. The major concerns are as follows: · The fact that the existing grade has to be raised to accommodate the proposed septic field is a major issue. I am aware that the reason the grade is being raised is because of the presence of a clay strata located 4' below the existing grade, and approximately 8' of depth of pervious soil is needed for the septic field to function. However, simply raising the grade to provide the needed depth in this case, does not necessarily address several critical issues. The coarse, sandy nature of the existing soil may actually have a very high percolation rate. Perc rates of less than 5 minutes are considered to fast to provide adequate treatment. This will reduce the chance for the "natural" systems in the soil to properly remediate the effluent before it reaches the underlying clay layer. The clay will prevent the effluent from reaching the underground water table, but the effluent will then have to flow horiwntally into Goose Creek, adversely impacting the water quality. Has a percolation rate study been done? Are there calculations taking into consideration the worst case scenario of the potential load being generated that the septic system will have to handle from a house of approximately 5400 sJ.? NEW VORK CITY> SARATOGA SPRINGS 299 Broadway, Suite 900, New York, NY 10007 T 2122600250, F 212 979 0758, www.saratogaassociates.com ( SARATOGA ASSOCIATES Mr. James Dinizio, JR. Ins4/30/2007 Page 2 of 4 · I also have concerns about the accuracy of the existing contours being shown on the survey. It shows a contour of 9' as the high point. We had to obtain a survey of our own, related to obtaining flood insurance requested by our bank. We received a map of the flood zone, and the Fergus property was all below the grades on our property, which has its highest elevation at a little more than elevation 8'. I would like the information on the survey verified, as it has implications on storm water runoff and on the amount of fill needed for the septic field. . In addition to the concerns about the septic field and the potential pollution generated from it, the need to raise the existing grade has serious implications on both the existing vegetation and storm water runoff. Based on the survey and the very schematic grading shown to accommodate the fill needed, between the increased size of the house from its earlier approximately 2400 s.f. size, the site will be basically cleared of all vegetation outside the buffer area. This action will have a very negative impact on the sites overall aesthetic character, and more importantly, it will be a major negative impact on the abutting Lane property, and ours as well. More critically, it will significantly alter the existing drainage patterns. Compounding this problem is the reduced water front setback, for which a variance was granted. This means that the steeper grade will increase the velocity at which storm water runoff flows, and with a buffer are reduced by 50% and the removal of most, if not all existing vegetation beyond the buffer, there is a very real probability that there will be increased surface runoff entering the Creek, containing pollutants such as fertilizer, oil residues etc. Also, if the variance is granted forth 20' rear yard setback, it will provide insufficient space for the French drain to function. The proposed French drain will have limited, to no impact on controlling surface runoff. The raised elevation will cause water to runoff at a higher velocity, and it will flow right over the drain along the property line, into the Lane's property, before any water can have a chance to percolate down into the French drain system. Only a trench drain would have some major impact on controlling the runoff, based on the current layout and grading. However this would be aesthetically very unappealing. In addition, why is there no requirement for a rear yard buffer landscape treatment? There will be absolutely no visual impediment between the Lanes and the new house when it is constructed. · I would ask, have members of the Zoning Board physically gone to the site to site to see first hand, the potential impacts a proposed building of this size will have on the site itself, and the abutting properties? · Have the various Boards coordinated their actions/findings with each other to assure that there has been consistency in the materials being submitted for consideration to each Board, to confirm decisions are being rendered based on the same materials throughout the process for the various approvals being sought? . S^R^TOG^ ^SSOCI^TES Mr. James Dinizio, JR. Ins4/30/2007 Page 3 of4 · 1 would also like to go on record stating 1 don't believe my wife and 1 have been properly notified of all the meetings that have taken place regarding this application. · Has DEC been notified of the increased house size and the need to raise the existing grade to accommodate the septic field and its potential impact on the Creek? · Has the Cornell Extension Service been notified of this project, and the potentially adverse impact it could have on their scallop nursery located right around the corner from this property? . Have the visual impacts of the proposed new home been analyzed regarding potential obstruction of views? . Has a study been done to determine whether there are any endangered species nesting in the reduced setback area, such as the Piping Plover? Many birds have been observed by me personally, using this area for nesting. In closing, 1 would like to again restate my wife and 1 are not opposed to a new home being built on the Fergus property. However, the proposed structure under consideration is inappropriate in size and scale in relation to the existing characteristics of this site. To accommodate this application, the existing site has to totally manipulated, and as a result, potentially posing severe, adverse, environmental impact on the adjoining property owners ( the Lanes and the Kubis) and on Goose Creek itself. We adamantly oppose that any further variances be granted until the all the outstanding issues in this letter and the issues raised by Mr. And Mrs. Lane are adequately addressed, and we are assured that all the various Boards have rendered their decisions based on the same materials. Respectfully, a~wJV Senior PrincipaINice President SARATOGA ASSOCIATES Landscape Architects, Architects, Fngineers, and Plannen;, P.c. S^R^TOG^ ^SSOCI^TES Landscape Architects, Architects, Engineers, and Planners, p.e. April 16, 2007 Mr. James Dinizio, Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town Hall P.O. Box 1179 Southold, N.Y. 11971 Re: Fergus Application ( # 5941 ) 1854 North Bayview Road Town of Southold, New York SCTM #: 1000-70-12-39.3 Dear Mr. Dinizio: This letter is a follow up to Mr. William J. Lohn's response to my letter to you, dated March 28, 2007. My response to his comment's, plus some additional comments are as follows: . His answer to my concern about the viability of the proposed septic system does not address the fact that almost all , if not all the existing trees, will be lost as a result of the need to fill on the site in the confined area of the setback. Further, he did not respond to my question about the percolation rate of the soil. Granted the Suffolk County Department of Health Services granted an approval. However, the lower subsoil conditions are not conducive to better percolation, and just stating an excavation inspection requiring the removal of any unsuitable soils will thus allow the septic system to function, is not a solution. The character of the underlying soils, from the test hole data on the survey, illustrates that fact. This simplistic statement does not provide an explanation of what is going to happen if not enough soil can be properly removed to make the septic function. What are the options? More fill? A polluted creek? . Mr. Lohn did not respond to my comment about needing to clear most, if not all the trees and mature vegetation from the area outside the designated 50' buffer area, nor does it address the fact that most if not all trees will have t be removed between the filling and clearing needed to accommodate the new building foot print. This is further compounded by the fact that the trees abutting my property will have to be removed in order to install the driveway. NEW YORK CITY> SARATOGA SPRINGS 299 Broadway, Suite 900, New York, NY 10007 T 212 260 0250, F 212 979 0758, www.saratogaassociates.com SARATOGA ASSOCIATES Mr. James Dinizio April 16,2007 Page 2 of 4 What is the width af the driveway, as it appears to. be less than IO'? Haw are emergency vehicles and fire trucks going to gain access to. the site? The turning radius as shawn will nat accammodate a fire truck ar any large vehicle, and there is no. curb side access to the property. The 50' buffer setback is not maintained where it abuts my property. It has been reduced to. 45'in order to. incarporate the driveway. Was that approved? Mr. Lohn's reference to. no. buffering of the wetlands an my property has no. relevance. I have a bulkhead along my entire frontage on the creek, which is haw I purchased it. I dan't have any wetlands on my praperty. Hawever, as a landscape architect, who. has been in practice far more than forty (40) years, I have always practiced sustainable and environmentally sensitive design. I have intraduced native vegetation along my bulkhead, back to. my hame. Instead af lawn, I have kept the "unlandscaped" area in front of my home in its natural sandy condition, and incorporated stepping stones, and sedum between the joints, to avoid having to use fertilizer or pesticides. This has no. direct bearing on the Fergus applicatian, but I mentian it, to. illustrate my awn ';ancem far maintaining the quality af the waterfronts desirable canditions. It should also be nated, that the Fergus property has substantially mare frontage an Gaase Creek than mine. The patential negative impacts an the Fergus's extensive creek frontage, based an the propased new building, which is aut af scale far this particular site because af its environmentally fragile canditions, the propased filling needed for the septic system, revised grading resulting from the fill being installed far the septic system and raised first flaar elevatian af the propased new building, loss af tree caverage and existing vegetatian, and the patential far pollutian resulting from the septic system effluent, will all adversely affect the creek and aur abutting residences. · MLLohn'sresjJanse to lI1yco.ncems aDoUI the grading, are nal specific. My reference to. the existing buffer being reduced. relates to. the variance given by DEC requiring only a 50' buffer versus the usual 100'. With tile remaval af all the large vegetation autside the buffer area, there is real concern that there will not be sufficient natural vegetative systems in place to protect the creek from runaff. Additionally, from the grading shown, based on the very rough grading plan presented on the survey, it is both impossible to. understand the full impacts an the property, and to calculate the actual amaunt af fill being incarparated into the site plan. There are nat enough grade reference points to. calculate what is fill and its depth, and what is the existing grade. . I still state again, the French drain will nat functian where, and as drawn. The French drain has to. be at a law point, in arder far it to. callect the runaff thraugh percalatian, especially when the upper surface cansists of dense soil, as is the case an this property. The drain is shown alang the LanelFergus property line, yet no. grades are shawn along its entire length. The new 10' cantour is shawn, and an existing 8' contaur ends at two paints alang the SARATOGA ASSOCIATES Mr. James Dinizio April 16,2007 Page 3 of 4 property line. It would appear to me, that water is being pitched onto the Lanes property the way this is designed, as that is where the actual low point will be with the new grading, as shown. Further, the way this drain is designed, it will quickly fill in with sediment and fines, and/or the collapsed sides of the trench, and become useless in a very short time. The best case scenario, based on the current location and design of the so called French drain, is a ponding condition along the shared property line, with most of the ponding occurring on the Lanes property. Further, there is a real potential health issue. There is a high likely hood of standing water after heavy rain incidents, which would become breeding grounds for mosquitos. This is a real concern with spread of West Nile Virus and other diseases transmitted by mosquitos. The French drain design and location need to be reconsidered. The design as shown is not a true French drain design, but rather only a small ditch filled with gravel. . It is a shame no coordinated review is required. I served on an Architectural review Board for more than 10 years. Any projects with all the attendant issues associated with this project, would have triggered a coordinated review, to review in collaboration, the many issues that have been attendant to this application, and to avoid future problems which I fear will occur. . In response to my comment about not having received proper notification of all meetings regarding this application, I stand by that statement. I believe we have only been notified of two, possibly three meetings to date, including two ZBA meetings. I believe more than that have taken place. A review of any returned receipts from registered mail should bear that out. . In regards to the amount of fill being proposed, there is a conflict between the documents that have been submitted. The survey indicates 152cu. ft. of fill being required. Elsewhere, on prior submissions to the Board of Trustees, it indicates that there will be 15Oc.ys. of fill, a significant difference. Which is it and how can it be determined accurately from the very sketchy grading plan? . Finally, in spite of the claims that no endangered species were found on the site, the Diamondback Terrapin has been observed nesting on the beach area of the property. I don't know how many nest there, but babies have been observed emerging out of the sand, and each year we see the babies along the shoreline as well as adult turtles. Was the DEe aware of this fact? This a protected species and all the activity proposed for this project is bound to have an adverse impact on their nesting. In closing, my wife and I, again would like to state, we are not opposed to a new building of an appropriate scale being constructed. However, regardless of what the building code allows, this is an environmentally sensitive, site, which is one of the reasons why it is so attractive, and why it takes more than a standard approach to ensure whatever construction takes place is responsive to ., .' . SARATOGA ASSOCIATES Mr. James Dinizio April 16,2007 Page 4 of 4 the existing conditions. 1 do not believe the current design and building program reflects that needed sensitivity, and in fact ,has the potential to create a number of significant health and environmental. The fact that an endangered species nests on the site, and was not identified, only reinforces that feeling. Very truly yours, (/U&~J!U Senior PrincipaVV ice President SARATOGA ASSOCIATES Landscape Architects. Architects, Fngineers, and Planners, P.C. cc: Mr.& Mrs. D. Lane . . James F. King, President Jill M. Doherty, Vice-President Peggy A. Dickerson Dave Bergen Bob Ghosio, Jr. Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD February 14, 2007 Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. P.O. Box 2003 Bridgehampton, NY 11932 RE: EDWARD FERGUS 1854 NORTH BAYVIEW RD., SOUTHOLD SCTM# 70-12-39.3 Dear Mr. Anderson: The following action was taken by the Southold Town Board of Trustees at their Regular Meeting held on Wednesday, February 14, 2007: WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees held an additional hearing on February 14, 2007 for the above referenced proposal to allow for input from neighbors who were not notified of the correct time of the previous hearing, SO BE IT RESOLVED, that the South old Town Board of Trustees APPROVE the amendment to Permit #6302 of EDWARD FERGUS to include 152 sq. ft. of clean fill for the installation of the sanitary system, install two (2) drywells to be connected to sump pumps located within the proposed dwelling, and the installation of a 160' French drain located approx. 140' from the wetland boundary, along the northern property line, and all as depicted on the plan prepared by Peconic Surveyors last revised December 19, 2006. This is not a determination from any other agency. If you have any questions, please call our office at (631) 765-1892. SincerelY-r 07 ~ James F. King President, Board of Trustees J FK/hkc James F. King, President Jill M. Doherty, Vice-President Peggy A. Dickerson Dave Bergen Bob Ghosio, Ir. Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BOARD OF TRUSTEES: TOWN OF SOUTHOLD In the Matter of the Application of ___.. .Eli)1&'&:1:4?nf&ekK.L___________m_mm__ COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) STATE OF NEW YORK) AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING I, ~(!F_ AA/J'Hf..P-Q,,) . ,residing at .,2.~.2- MI/hN .~s:~'] l)I!.IJJ6LNlJfI4~ A"1 being duly sworn, depose and say: That on the~" day of~ 2007, I personally posted the property known as / is'! A/OIO'Jl ~UJew ~~/.(,7W()l.D N<1 5c:n-tH- /Ol>{)- 7D- It..- -,,~. 3 by placing the Board of rustees'official poster wnere it can easily be seen, and that I have checked to be sure the poster has remained in place for eight days prior to the date of the public hearing. Date of hearing noted thereon to be held /1 i:b9 ;f,::oIOlllltrJW 14~d(Jy) 'Oft fO'la -:tftJ,wfm. Dated: Sworn to before me this JJ/il day of~. 200'- L -- '~ ~ -, '" Matthew D. Ivans Notary Public of New York No. 011V6053859 Qualified in Suffolk County CommISSion Expires January 22, 2011 , N FRENCH DRAIN DETAIL o 00 c: 0 OJ()C>.. C' ~ J" p Cl 0 0 C 'J o 0 0 (' cQ 0 "0 c o '" 0 0 0 0 oC ('J <' COARSE <) 00 <n () GRAVEL~o ~ () - o 0 " ,," STONE 1:> " .() 0001'000,,00. .,e. 'J.o .... {J 10>- 18' PROPOSED CROSS SECTION FRENCH DRAIN ( 160'''1.5'''1.5' ) ( 360 cu If.) ,An"ct.- e>.,l weNo-nd. = 3~~2 5,f!- C;;3,302""'1fi- 3?>~'2-~ 5~9+o'S'1rr Lef cov('r-~~ = 5360 ~'7-rr "Ia CovC'r<:'1c ~ =:':'4,o/69,94-D ~ 37" ..@-, prop confov' ~opr"'p e(. ~ ~ O:~ywe,l/ NOTE' 'l- NOb C?":v S... .cr'?,~.. Os. v8';3 .c;r ?JS? ;S......... '" J'<. :;:?O"L- .If.A ~ Q. "s' '<8' <.: q or /?./'- . ., r":'~ ~>>- I I Q. "'>----....... r-- ~ Fo c: .... a.J'W () I I -< !il I V) 1,0 !Xl ~ ' -l ~ I' 0) ~:;:: ~ ~a ~ I ~ ~~ 32 1!Ii~ ~ ~ " ., I, ~ ~ I /JON ~ unuTY t'!, ::( I POLE ! ~ ~ -r; ,,~ ~~ r- ;;,:~ " ~ );: ~ " ~ r-- 4>04b I :;:: o -l 0) r--; o . ~ L 'J "" <:l "'" FLOOD ZONE LINES FROM FIRM 36103C0166 G MA Y 4, 1998 [LEVA T10NS REFERENCED TO N.G. V.D. I am familiar with the STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL AND CONSTRUCTION OF SUBSURFACE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS FOR SINGLE FAMIL Y RESIDENCES and will abide by the conditions set forth therein and on the permit to construct. The location of wells and cesspools shown hereon are from field observations and or from data obtained from others. ANY AL TERA TlON OR ADDITION TO THIS SURVEY IS A \I10LA TlON OF SECTION 7209 OF THE NEW YORK STA TE EDUCA TION LA W. EXCEPT AS PER SECTION 7209-SUBDIVISION 2. ALL CERTlFICA TlONS HEREON ARE VALID FOR THIS MAP AND COPIES THEREOF ONL Y IF SAID MAP OR COPIES BEAR THE IMPRESSED SEAL OF THE SURVEYOR WHOSE SIGNA TURE APPEARS HEREON. AREA=63,302 SQ. FT. TO TIE LINES X=LA TH SET A = WETLAND FLA G . C"~~ 'C'..f-" t.., lU >- o U 0:: c.. c.. -< SURVEY OF PROPERTY AT BA YVIEW TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY,N. Y 1000-70-12-39.3 SCALE: 1.-50' FEBRUARY 20, 2004 JANUARY 5. 2005 (Rev;sifJn.s) SEPTEMBER 9. 2005 (Lac. wetlands flags, revise prop. house) floll'. 9. 2.0'.05 (rt=Y'I.J;I_"'~) Feb. '2, l.Oo({. (~.f'D.,..../ 1<>4-/') /10.,- ZZ -200 ' , Mo-)' "18, zhov (r/;I,j~~rlC>'?J) SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM 5ept. 5, 260 v (r~V'JID1J) Od /31'2-00'," (rap!"" A.:Ji'''' HING POOLS WITH 3' SAND COLLAR DEC. 19, 2006 (~Rf:NCH DRAIN. GALLON SEPTIC TANK CONTOUR. FILL CALC.) T'- -,..' --'- ';--j : "i , , ~; ~~ i \' I ' ".1' () i~ ) :"----1 :>-- I <5 ~. ,T -_. c.: <{ :;: o 0 ,.:.J 1__ z SUBSURFACE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM DESIGN BY: JOSEPH FISCHETTI, PE HOBART ROAD SOUTHOLD. N. Y. 11971 (631) 765-2954 APPROXIMA TEL Y 152 cu. ft. OF FILL REQUIRED. GRADING PLAN f".r. n. ,#- .," APPROVED PIPE PROPosm GRADE n, II " '\ '\ \ \ ~T LOAMY SAND ---- 10. WATER ---- 4' MmlUM TO COARSE SAND SW SANDY Ct.A Y GRADING TO eLA YEr SAND SC EL,2.8' ---- 5.S' \ ,~O:;y\ ", 'iJ, , 1i~ ~ ) J... "I:'\~ \,J...r....., ..... .y /- ~!:' f\ ~'7.~ r-..-<:?c> d . ""~ / ~ " . (-1'..., "'/ /~ ~\,. JFI 0 ,} /ZON.E AE .. ""I'St3""""'7" r ~~ .. A/ 0<.. . ",.-r""" , N " 0 ,"I 8 V\ " 8 't t' "~-....'. '" 9""- ,;> 0 Col... ''v:\ / - t"/~-CI . DWf- "tit . 10 ~ \ 0... I ~:::::-~ --:::::; =--- 8' ~_...-.. IJrof S"" "'~ l~.3'c,~.--'----- 11.r",."""" .. ~- -----....... I ./ c ~ -___. _.' ~/'II ""=::~~:A:,"v "'N;r:; ~~;f~Ye,."Lo<~ -- _L.L,;,;"Lt' tl::.1l:..:.r:)-'"~T-'4.::.:;[')-. 60/,/ / I ~1-- EDCE or KETLANDS AS DEL/NEA rE:D BY SUFFOLK ENVIRONMENTAL CONSUL TING INC.j ON .AlL Y 22, 200' I ........ .. ... ....... ...... ~.. .... WA1!"R IN BROWN BOG ON WA TeR IN CLA)'t"Y SAND SC ---- 8' ---- '0' WA TER IN GREY eLA YE'r SAND SC CD ~ "" '-J" - n-II N82"S3SS"W 7lEUN'E-- __ 747,77' - N < 1lJl(} vr ~ .tItO,z, :-J.~ S8. . "T'J>q :>~ _ .0$", 8~~, b 9.fS:-' .1<.<.<O~ r.1 r,~ Ct.. "0$' . '8' y./'~,.... .., r""'" " I ,;;-1<;>--- r- ~ FF: c: -t I O...J'W () ~ I VI ; il; 1:3 . r Ol Ro:z: "< I ~ ~a ~ I ~ ~~ I !~ ~ e I, it I "ON unurY 01. I POLE I '"-'---"'-'" ...--_..~". ,-~'~ 4>04,b SURVEY OF PROPERTY AT BAYVIEW TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, N. y: 1000-70-12-39.3 SCALE: 1"-50' FEBRUARY 20, 2004- JANUARY 6, 2005 (Revisions) SEPTFMBER 9, 2005 (Loc. wetlands flags, ,vov. 9, 200S (r~YIj}.u,~) T.:b. 2, 'loOt{. (ac(c,;'r,a,,~/ 1M;') /10..,-. nz 'l.o . . ~, oG.(C'-Olout"'o,.>) PROPOSED SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM [6] LEACHING P'O'OLS WITH 3' SAND C'OLLAR (1) 1,200 GALLON SEPTIC TANK B'OTTOM 'OF LEACHING P'O'OLS TO BE 2' AB'OVE GR'OUND WA TER revise prop. house) APPROVED BY BOARD OF TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD DA TE ff-!3 /J- C) C; 9}?: :z: o ...I Ol ~ o , :e h_ '- ,AreeL 0+ weiro-no/- =' C;;:,,30Z~.fi - 3?>~ Z'" 3~G2 S'i.H 5 ~ 94-0 <.5'1' tI- :z: a ~ ~ \;)~ ~> r-.... ~r>r C) ~ );: ~ e :J: r- ~ ~ STK ~" I\lSET ~ "- ~ 1'1 '-.. o >' ......... 0). ~ ......... ;r:: ......... ~ 1\1,/'0...... ......... .... 'r Ii ......... Ct.. ?;! ~,y~S '-. ......... .9< C. li'c, -...... So IDr-...... ~.. 59t10a. OI1Q(/,yG' <COD I?, ............ ~ "'4:-.. '0 ~ i>I!/1y ;:-VOC ............ "-' . --....._ , pus(/c Ir. "ISt.~ -...... '" ~ ,Q~=.o 7'-. '47"", lJrUSr ~ ~: ----.:::::" 1 ,_:7 ~ _.. --. ,'- ~v<::/, ~,_ ,--...........: J; '2>\ ZON~;~<:://..;;II-'" '~:. - '- ;~sr^, '00.'00' ~ ' I'--- 0:_, ,~ 8.J'V c. \ :, I I' "- Ci:;,,--" c , ~, ....---.-_ \ oz. ~" Id'~' -- . <", " 1, I .!,lL, ( ~) ( ,0", . ~ " ,,~ 8.. 511"'E \. '. )>(" '1, C"'PK'@,n.. ~V'c !'C: -"_/ .6 r \SeT ~ ", \ , ~ '> .'''';;:'' \ ~i;..~) ~/\ \ 'v, .", \\,--"<;"''''~'.''''~ "e... , Z\ \ ';:, '\. ':;~'r'--?!-J" . .,;7 (I 't""If.. ...... \00, '\ '(S)~ ~..t -/' 'i'I),""... .7'c:t.,. I ) ~ '. 9ot'") er~\' :, ~ "" I" za.'2 Ii, 1.;~,-).9;5 ~~ ei, ~ "" . ~ ~ /' , , b "".oS -'$ I ... <"'\ ", ~ .yr. ,\.~ I~ '7_~ >-C>...o I U ~~ ..." ,,,j:-./ '(, ""'",,, /......,( -;r6 <'//2 /'/'''' (,.',,~.~ / o. '" ~. ~/ ZONE AE "><- 7: -. 7 """"/0.,,> " ?/_.' / 0 ~ .... EL. 8 ~", \~e,.~;.", os.;>),f! __=.9 --, ~.'" '0 0, ~ - - ~ ~ '00 ....... - ~e . ~..._- .... I _ __8 . S - u ,--- <:=:>.' /....., . '- . ....... -' N:rr.J. --- ...- -^I';'~ -- - - --~J) /6::;~~D/~.~~_~ IM;~ ~ EDGE rY' t'rf:Tl.ANOS AS DELINEA TED BY SUFFOl.K ENVlRONUENTAL CONSUL T7NG INC. ON .AlL Y 22, 200' SUBSURFACE SEWAGE DISP'OSAL SYSTEM DESIGN BY: J'OSEPH FISCHETTI, PE H'OBART R'OAD S'OUTH'OLD, N, Y. 11971 (631) 765-2954 Lof cover-a.L)~:: 53 <bO :>9.-fr Covero<J<2;:: e~&o 169,94-0 ;:: APPROXIMA TEL Y 150 cu. ft. OF FILL REQUIRED, GRADING PLAN ') (': " v 0/0 9i'0 F:F: EL 12'-8- ..- APPROVffJ PIPE '" " \ \ PROPOSED GRAOE EL g' '- TEST HOLE DA TA '989 EL. 8. J' LOAMY SAND 10. '" ...... <i ~ MEDIUM TO COARSE SAND SW r< \9 0 d.rywel! - - - - 4' SAND Y eLA Y GRADING TO CLA '/'TY SAND SC EU.8' - - - - 5.5' FLO'OD Z'ONE LINES FR'OM FIRM 3610JC0166 G MAY 4, 1998 [LEVA T1'ONS REFERENCED T'O N.G. V.D. I am familiar with the STANDARDS F'OR APPR'OVAL AND C'ONSTRUCTlON 'OF SUBSURFACE SEWAGE DiSPOSAL SYSTEMS FOR SiNGLE FAMiL Y RESIDENCES and will abide by the conditions set forth therein and on the permit to construct. The location of wells ond cesspools shown hereon are from field observations and or from data obtained from others. ANY AL TFRA T10N OR AOOITION TO THIS SURVEY IS A 1II0LA T10N OF SECTION 7209 OF THE NEW YORK STA TF EOUCA T10N LA W. EXCEPT AS PER SECTION 7209-SUBOIIIISION 2. ALL CERTlFlCA T10NS HEREON ARE VALlO FOR THIS MAP ANO COPIES THEREOF ONL Y IF SAIO MAP OR COPIES BEAR THE IMPRESSED SEAL OF THE SURVEYOR WflOSE SIGNA TURE APPEARS HEREON. WA TER IN CLA YEY SAND SC f----- 8' WA 1D? IN BROWN BOG OH c---- 10' c---- 'J' WA TER IN MED/U .... " ' ill... '". U""S' "'to; ~bQ as.". {S"~ " AREA=63,302 SQ. FT. TO TTE LINES c~~ ~~ CXl N ~ '!. ....... ...... ~ ,____. I F{EC'ONlC SU (631) 765-502 P. 'O. B'OX 909 1230 TRA VELER STREET S'OUTH'OLD, N. Y. 11971 04-108 X=LA TH SET It.=WETLAND FLAG N82"5J 55"W nE'TiNr--__ 141.11;-- ;><. . James F. King, President Jill M. Doherty, Vice-President Peggy A. Dickerson Dave Bergen Bob Ghosio, Jr. . Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD January 24, 2007 Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. P.O. Box 2003 Bridgehampton, NY 11932 RE: EDWARD FERGUS 1854 NORTH BAYVIEW RD., SOUTHOLD SCTM# 70-12-39.3 Dear Mr. Anderson: The following action was taken by the Southold Town Board of Trustees at their Regular Meeting held on Wednesday, January 24, 2007: RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Board of Trustees APPROVE the amendment to Permit #6302 of EDWARD FERGUS to include 152 sq. ft. of clean fill for the installation of the sanitary system, install two (2) drywells to be connected to sump pumps located within the proposed dwelling, and the installation of a 160' French drain located approx. 140' from the wetland boundary, along the northern property line, and all as depicted on the plan prepared by. . Peconic Surveyors last revised December 19, 2006. This is not a determination from any other agency. If you have any questions, please call our office at (631) 765-1892. SIO"ffil)lr- 0< 1r James F. King President, Board of Trustees JFKJhkc .. PECONIC SURVEYORS, jp,Co P.O. Box 909 1230 TRAVELER STREET SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971 631-765-5020' FAX 631-765-1797 John T. Metzger, L.S. RE: Fergus Property SCTM#1000-70-12-39.3 December 19, 2006 Drainage Runoff Calculations Vc = ARC Vc = Volume Capacity in Cubic Feet A = Tributary Drainage Area in Square Feet R = 2 inch Rainfall C = Coefficient for Runoff of Drainage Area House, Garage, Decks = 4409 Square Feet 4409 X 0.17 X 1 = 749.6 750/42.2 = 18 VF Provide 3 leaching pools 8' Diameter X 6' Depth French Drain 1.5 X 1.5 X 160' = 360 Cubic Feet Tributary Area = 7125 Square Feet 725 X 0.17 X 0.3 = 363 Cubic Feet DEe: .I.. D } " PERMIT AMENDMENT DESCRIPTION FOR THE FERGUS PROPERTY Situate: 1854 North Bayview Road; Town of Southold, NY SCTM#: 1000 - 70 - 12 - 39.3 Exlstina Southold Town Trustee ADDroval: DEe 26 2CCS Via Permit # 6302 dated February 15,2006, the South old Town Trustees approved a proposed single family dwelling served by three [3]drywells located 77' from the wetland boundary and an attendant sanitary system located 100' from the wetland boundary requiring 150 ft3 of clean fill for installation. Please refer to the partial survey copy below for easy reference: I !\! , ! ~ ! I ~ i z ~ ~ oJ 'I ~ , '" ~z ~~ ~ . """"....."", -.--~~.:.._)'.._.. -----.--..-- ~;:~ ~~(~:'I!and' /lag$, r.,.;5. prop_ h(n~ ~';:~, ~:;f~I::'~/la.h>) Mo.... 1l, .too(..(.~f"'~,-,) ~ PROPOSED 5l'WA<<" DISPOSAL Sl'S7EU [6J LEACHING POOLS 1tf1H J' SAND COLLAR [t] 1.200 GALLON SEPTIC TANK BOTTOM OF LEACHING POOLS TO BE 2' ABO\tF GROUND WA T[R SUBSURFACE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTFM DESIGN 8Y' JOSEPH F1SCHEm, PE HOBART ROAD SOUTHOLD, N. Y. 11971 (631) 755-2954 MAR 2 e 2005 APPROXIMA7FLY 150 cu_ ft OF FILL REQUIRED. GRADING PLAN '- '"- - TEST HOLE DA T A ". . 4, 1998 's 'ond on the L~._.....,.. ~__'w__,_"_._~.~ . . ProDosed Southold Town Trustee Permit Amendment: ~ " ", L: ' 1.. c! As a result of slight design changes to the proposed dwelling, Permit #6302 requires the following amendments: 1) The proposed sanitary system requires 152 ft3 of clean fill for installation. Please note that it is still located 100' from the wetland boundary; 2) Two [2] of the proposed drywells will be connected to sump pumps located within the proposed dwelling; 3) A 160' French drain located approximately 140' from the wetland boundary is proposed along the northern property line in order to protect the adjacent neighbor from any runoff from the subject parcel. Please note that the location of the proposed dwelling has not changed. Please refer to the partial survey copy for easy reference: 6 111;~ ~, ~ ~ I~- ~ "- I ..; ~ I 1 ~I " 1- !II: It./fY (Jo ~ 1"V f' , ~ .nr t:" ~an-~ "'- f'.j.... ""- o. "- i '" ~ "-,,- I, ~ "''''''-Off ......... i 1 v'....~......., 1 Se "- " l' , ,,~' ""9h. D"., ~r <h. '- '- ~JJ'" '\ .\~" ~.1:b..{("It;,'''VO ........... , \ '-''';;--. l: .", li'f'w... [l4.O',l '\".~.....,._ -,cr, 'VC'-'1,l>.'- ';;'.t1'" \, ~_./)A.,...<> -........),~_ ,....,('11-4 "l.l' % ........... . \\ '?\ '----.. '-""" ~ "'""".,.,k-.f' 'S,. ~ . ;"\ .--..'(.Y_---y.'-.....:~"" "'Ilo.'It" \ '. II -a\ ~x.-<-~~~~.'.> ~'~""'_, \ ~ ..... \ \ lI< \ : ~ '>z..-~<~fi~.,\Q~d:~'. .........,~, '\ "f>ED TO ~ I\~. \ '::>.. : ".~' (~)-::..' _____'__ " \ ~ \' \ -.. 1'1 '\ " \ I' ~W~i'" .......... '_,' {,. """ I '\, \'.' '.'. A'''(i"'r;;;~>'\'.,. "......".,~, *- -", '\ " - .,' );:-~'-'c';:R \ "'N.I:~ \... ",,- .' ,;';, ,.~..\ ''. 'ti!),' ':,J1:.v' .~.-.y;. ' )~~:( 'i.';;: 1-,,'" Q" .<..,..)\ \~ '.----/.... ......"-15'-" ... _ : VII <;.,', .. /./y.........' \'- "' -..:; A. "t-.; ,/"'" d <0 'I^'" ~,,'Y/ ~ 'f'.........' (-,-/"",,"J" "''k' " q. oj .~ A / ZONE AE ~"''lI: "'._ ,. ..... " 0_ '. - '" & 8 '\ "'l.iiF\......~7~ ~.~;.; l: .'.___ - ,;>., 8 , r~~.::= - 'I' .. '. ..; s <:~ --,.:-./ ~_"::____ --~~ /":P'... '::> ~,., ~.:-/" <:::':-::.'. . I 1::' ./ <I' /,~~.,~":'.-;.~ :~'I'M'L'''''') / ., '1~'-''-" " 6,~//"", ! ~.,~,,-,"-~~~UI.~,1iII,K, ~ ~ ,~ I I~ \; ,. ! '~ ! ~ ., "- ~~ ~ -;u,~ER' 9~~2005)L;". ':'thIndS "<>9S, rftvl~,. prop ;''';,.9. <-o<>S (~"",,,.l'."~) ,of: ,2.1no<-(~.{'P"""./a~) ~r~;: 0<'0 . PROPOsE. sew. '1 'fJ, '~(,/;,i~t-'o>>) 'D \l(~ DISPOSAL SYSTEA! 5~pl- 5, 100(". (r",",JiO_,., [6J LEACHING POOLS 'MTH J' SAND COLLAR ;;-; /J,,,oo<.(rOpl-t ;'.<, , [1J I.Z00 GAUON SEPTIC TANK .19, 2Q06 ~~~,~i^" BOTTOM or LEACHING POOLS TO BE 2' ABO~ GROUND WA TER SUBSURFACE SEWAGT DISPOSAL SYSTEM DES/GN BY: JOSEPH FlSCHEm, PE . HOBART ROAD SOUTHOW, N. r: 11971 (631) 765-2954 ;, i> ;, i> APPROXIMA TEL Y 152 cu. ft. OF A(L REOUIRED. GRADING PiAN " 1998 ~ '/' rIa... ".- :'l9 _,. '=---'~,.i""L ",,,:,. ~~"-iI ..~~ 'p' '.E ,~..... ,-: _~~&;~_~:~~~~r-1~':=~::., 7ESr HOlE DATA 1 - r a. u' '.... __ ":,,i _. ~-e -11.".- 5I\NPSl" ""' f I '" ,~,,- { j' :~o:,:::~ '. 'H..,-"","" .,<. au ===.j..:.'....r..""''''..'"''''''''''' l . ...""'''''''''''''' """'" j---- fQ" I .1 .'''''''''_fU'","""" ,d on Ihe ''''''"Iht>rs, ~---_., I;J i '/1/1 !,.<t~,loW~~'. '....'".. ~,~ ", .;t M/ j; ""'i_,,....._.__~.... ?fb.... Wednesday. January 24, 2007 140 WAGON WHEEL LANE CUTCHOGUE. NY 11935 PHONE: 631 252-5653 FAX 631 734.8176 e: dennis@propertyange/s.com The Trustees of The Town of Southold Southold, NY \;,',.' Statement for the Record of Joanna Lane Owner of adjoining property at 1852 North Bayview Road, Southold, SeTM# 1000-70-12-39.4 on the application by Edward Fergus Before the public for consideration at the hearing of January 24th 2007 At the Fergus's ZBA Hearing on Nov 28th last year, I raised a number of questions that were perhaps more within your purview than theirs, so after the hearing, I forwarded a copy of it to you, together with aerial photographs of the property. None of this information had been provided to you at the time of the original application and I apologize for that omission, but I was not aware of the scope of the project. Having raised my questions at the ZBA Hearing, there was a discussion about who was going to answer those questions and Mr. Anderson offered to do so, but I have not heard from him. Has anyone in the Trustees addressed the various issues and when can I expect a reply? As well, I provided both the Trustees and the ZBA with additional photographs of the Fergus property taken at High and Low Tide subsequent to that Hearing. Do they have any relevance? To paraphrase the questions I asked: 1. What is the lot coverage? It started at something like 2400 sq ft, expanded to 5,400, and now seems to be 4,400, yet the survey of the footprint hasn't changed. How can that be? 2. If the Fergus's were permitted to have a larger than normal single story house because they can't manage stairs, how come you permitted an 8ft basement which require stairs? Also a 2nd story above the garage, which again require 1/2 . stairs? Surely, a house built on slab would alleviate some of the water run off problems, as it would then dissipate underneath the house. As it is, the basement is going to be sitting in water, so there is nowhere for the water to disperse under the house. What happens when a second story is built? Does that add to the problem with extra bathrooms and water usage? 3. Where is the Vegetative Plan for the buffer zone? The last time I looked, there was nothing to prevent a pristine green lawn going right down to the water's edge. What part of the Trustees permit stipulates that it has to be left natural? 4. What is the final grade of this property to be on the boundary line with my property? It seems as if it's going to 6ft or more higher, is a wall going to be built? 5. What part of the plan addresses the mitigation of water run off onto my property? How are drywells situated in clay going to disperse water? Doesn't the French drain just move the water somewhere else? If so, then I guess the idea is for the French drain to move the water further away from my house, and to dissipate instead into the driveway that already floods? Is one part of my property less important than another? 6. What guarantees can the Trustees give me that there will not be a river running thru my property as a result of tearing down all the vegetation and trees that drink the rain water, a huge house with a full basement, possible second story addition to follow in due course, inefficient dry wells and a French drain that probably nobody will warranty for more than a year? This issue is not about our stewardship of the land for the fleeting moment of time that we will own it; it's about the long-term future of Goose Creek and not destroying the ecosystem. Thank you for your time today in hearing my views. 2/2 . James F. King, President Jill M. Doherty, Vice-President Peggy A. Dickerson Dave Bergen Bob Ghosio, Jr. . ~~ \)F SO/J~ ~.~' .. .. ~ ,.., ~ eo f!: fj ~ ^",-"::..f/ ;rCOUNT!~f Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765~lS92 Fax (631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOIVN OF SOUTHOLD Southold Town Board of Trustees Field Inspection/Work session Report Date/Time: Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of EDWARD FERGUS requests an Amendment to Permit #6302 to include 152 sq. ft. of clean fill for the installation of the sanitary system, install two (2) drywells to be connected to sump pumps located within the proposed dwelling, and the installation of a 160' French drain located approx. 140' from the wetland boundary, along the northern property line. Located: 1854 North Bayview Rd., Southold. SCTM#70-12-39.3 ;jfe of area to be impacted: _Saltwater Wetland _Freshwater Wetland _Sound Front _Bay Front Distance of proposed work to edge of above: pjt of Town Code proposed work falls under: _Chapt.275 _Chapt. III _other Type of Application: / W etland _Coastal Erosion _Amendment _Administrative _Emergency Info needed: Modifications: Conditions: Present Were: _J.King _J.Doherty _P.Dickerson _D. Bergen_ B. Ghosio, Jr H. Cusack D. Dzenkowski other - - Mailed/Faxed to: Date: Enviromnental Technician Review Gutri~ dn;"".".. v{) I "'" emj'h<lj -fc .%J",.. /l.O Aub~ for- ~k.. 1}.r- NA5h bsr . . Telephone (631) 765-1892 Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL TOWN OF SOUTH OLD At the meeting of the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council held Wed., January 10,2007, the following recommendation was made: Moved by Jack McGreevy, seconded by Don Wilder, it was RESOLVED to SUPPORT the Amendment application of EDWARD FERGUS to Amend Permit #6302 to include 152 sq. ft. of clean fill for the installation of the sanitary system, install two (2) drywells to be connected to sump pumps located within the proposed dwelling, and the installation of a 160' French drain located approx. 140' from the wetland boundary, along the northern property line. Located: 1854 North Bayview Rd., Southold. SCTM#70-12-39.3 Inspected by: Jack McGreevy, Don Wilder, Jacob Smith Vote of Council: Ayes: All Motion Carried WITH COMPLIMENTS /2/ P27 J 9 2006 property angels 140 WAGON WHEEL LANE ~ CUTCHOGUE, NY 11935 Bff(j I ,JOANNA L, LANE Broker ~ a/M (,f). es d1- a(j ~ iUp/::r!yftnA broker@propertyangels.com If i u fo U PHONE: 631 252-5653 doCWmefl,faf7tJYJ J 5wr/l~ 81-c, cfO FAX 631 734-8176 with ~ 5f&:rl-emt'1ck -IV f1rt 2811 rrJ~tU... www.propenyange/s.cam CVl Ilj30/0b. IJfso,ntt1 n~;jh<< ~mdJe., k'~ kriJd'fj- -I-Bok- SrJYnR. phofoS 1J --thl- mJh f7dt V'Y11hR- Je0C1.s rpe~ So -1:fJe 28Ft CrJl,tld W2.- h~ f;vr "vt-- c!JofS (RUIttJ ojiVeL v..;a,5 (tJnC/Zrned). J.e6- me klJP'IAJ if fJtm ~(f ~mli:3e1SR-. '. l5est, . cJ(J~ / . property angels'" 14() WAGON WHEEL LANE CUTCHOGUE. NY 11935 PHONE: 631 252-5653 FAX 631734-8176 www.propertyange/s.com November 29, 2006 The Zoning Board of Appeals The Town of Southold Southold, NY [; ::" 1 0 '-.\1 J Statement for the Record of Joanna Lane Owner of adjoining property at 1852 North Bayview Road, Southold, SCTM# 1000-70-12-39.4 - and- Licensed Real Estate Broker on the application by Edward Fergus Before the public for consideration at the hearing of November 30th 2006 I understand that the ZBA is here to consider only one part of this project, a variance for an attached garage pursuant to Article IliA, Section 100-30A.3, and I will address that issue specifically in a moment. At the same time, I am mindful that SEQRA encourages us not to dissect a project, rather to consider it as a whole, and when viewed from that perspective, I am troubled by what appears to be a lack of thorough review of this project from all involved agencies. Here's a non-exhaustive list of concems. 1. SCOPE OF PROJECT: When I compare documentation approved by the Trustees in February with more recent documentation presented for this hearing, I find significant differences and interesting contradictions. As such, I am having some difficulty understanding the nature and extent of the proposed development - of what I think we can all agree is an environmentally sensitive area. 2. DISCREPANCIES & CHANGES: The survey approved by the Trustees in ,.,~~!~~Jl~9~.equently been revised four times, in March, May, 1/5 e e September and October. Has the ZBA compared the current version with the version approved by the Trustees? A brief review reveals the following list of changes:- - GRADING PLAN - Going back to the beginning, question number 12 on the Trustees EAF asks, "As a result of proposed action will existing permiU approval require modification?" The answer given was "No", yet when I reviewed The Trustee Grading Plan, I see that what was stated as 9ft grading then is now stated as 11ft on the ZBA Grading Plan. So my questions are:- "What is the final grade of this property to be and where will the water run?" also, "What part of the plan addresses the mitigation of water run off onto my property?" and "Has the ZBA compared their EAF with the other EAFs submitted to other agencies?" On our adjoining boundary line, it's roughly 8ft elevation, whereas my neighbor's plan is to build his property up to at least 11ft elevation. To oversimplify the test hole data, it states the first 4ft is sand, and then it's clay, which is tough for water to filter through. I'm sure you've all seen the flood at the entrance to easement in North Bayview after it rains and trust me, it's no different on my driveway. It floods as it is. After the adjoining lot is developed, there will be significantly less land available to absorb the run off and all that additional water is going to go where exactly? How are the drywells going to disperse accumulated water if they are situated in clay? What guarantees can the Town give me that there will be not be a river running through my property as a direct result of the rise in the grading and an awfully big house with inefficient dry wells? Raising the building pan with fill raises significant flooding concerns and this issue needs to be addressed before approval or any construction begins. LOT SIZE: I have compared the submitted surveys with my own records. I have a survey by John Ehlers dated December 2000 which shows the Rear fit Side Yard lot line as 174.35ft, whereas Peconic Surveyors acting on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Fergus are showing now 182.47ft. How did it grow more than 8ft in 6 years? To add to the confusion, the original subdivision survey dating from circa 1975, shows the rear side lot line as 190ft, with the Fergus's lot as 53,000 sq ft, which is 10,000 sq ft less than what is now being claimed on the current survey. How can that be? If the land has eroded over time since the subdivision was first '7 done, then it would be understandable if lot line had reduced from 190ft to either 182ft or 174 ft, but surely there would have then been a commensurate reduction in the square footage of lot over the same period, not an increase of 10,000 sq ft. 2/5 I could be wrong, but I think there has to be an error factor in one these surveys, but it's not clear which one and this issue also needs further fact finding before a determination can be made. AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED: Addressing the question of exactly how much land is going to be affected by the proposed construction, the Trustees EAF states 0.11+-/ acres, which by my calculation is 479 sq ft. Perhaps this was a typographical error. It also states a 3.5% lot coverage, so I compared this with Mr. Fergus's Project Description f~ submitted to the Trustees. That states a single family dwelling with a 2,674 sq ft footprint, covered porch of 154 sq ft, wooden deck 700 sq ft, garage 900 sq ft, shed 240 sq ft, which is a total 4,668 sq ft. Put another way, more than double the 3.5% coverage of lot stated on the Trustee Application Data. Compare this with the notes of lot coverage presented to you today in the revised plans, and you will see the lot coverage has now grown to 5,360 sq. ft, so clearly the project has expanded. I do not want to take up any more of the Board's time with issues that may not be directly within it's purview, but respectfully request that a thorough review is undertaken of all submitted documentation to ensure consistency with all involved agencies prior to any final decisions being taken. 3. SELF-CREATED HARDSHIP: The Trustees EAF asks in question 8, "wille..... ... .. proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions". Answer, "Yes" and a 2,674 sq ft home was envisaged, all of which sounded perfectly reasonable to me at the time it was presented in February, although I wasn't privy to the details. One can't help wondering what hardship has developed in the intervening period to now warrant a variance. Reasonable people could agree that the variance is needed only because plans for the house have outgrown the property. Also, I gave careful consideration to the reasons offered for the area variance as described in Part A of the application and have the following comments. In e Paragraph (1) Detriment to nearby properties, and I quote "The lot line abuts an unbuildable portion of 39.4", which is my lot. With all due respect to my dnei~h.bors, andt the.y arehcertainrt'Yfentitled to their opinions, it is nbot tbh~lidr bl . .. eCISlon to de ermine w at pa 0 my property mayor may not e UI a e. Even if they are right, (which I do not accept given the proposal for the subject property), they cannot take the benefit from my property for their own enjoyment, simply because they now have an awfully big house in mind that unfortunately doesn't fit their building envelope any more. Instead of focusing on what portion of my property mayor may not be buildable, let's focus on the subject property and how much of that is buildable. Let's deduct 8,775 sq ft that constitutes the right of way that we both share, add to that the 50ft buffer zone (which has already been reduced from the normal 100ft to allow them to build at all), then there's the driveway 3/5 1'!+oTo> TM:..~N t'rZ.UV/ sgO (m1Jf" C~L.-N' 5cru4F /eJOO - )fJo -7'700 - 3~o L-O t.0 TI Dfi PEaiM 8/9l--.5"'"' ~ob It I b\-t -rJ J> e: I>EUM~~~Jlt'wob " " ~... ~;:. . ..... , ~ L ~. . .. . ~,:...' ,.. . _. ',T . I ~ ~ ~ I~ ~ ;l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~",I"'\!h'^ <'I ~ b ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .!('f~~ :fl ". ~ ..... c.... '" t ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ 0i "" ~ ~ '- ~ t ~ ~ \;} ~ ~ { ~ ~~ ~J ~ ~ ~ N UhlVl: SURVEY OF PROPERTY AT BA YVIEW TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, N. y: 1000-70-12-39.3 SCALE: 1"-50' FEBRUARY 20, 2004 JANUARY 6. 2005 (Revisions) SfPTE:M8ER 9. 2005 (Loc. wetlands flags, fJoy'. 9. 20,05 (rev/j}"""~) reI>. 2, 1.00':' (~/,o"",,1 1M,,) Mo..-. 1:2, 1.00(,. (CLdo':"-t;o,-,) PROPOSED SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM [6J LEACHING POOLS WITH 3' SAND COLLAR {1J 1,200 GALLON SEPnC TANK BOTTOM OF LEACHING POOLS TO BE 2' ABOVE GROUND '<- NOb Ci..r", S8, "'r'./'>q ?,J:' Cis),- 8'J?, h 9.,s:---. .:t<. .,<O-r- C4 Lor.. Q. '<'8' <0 .r rZ' 6:s, .., V'" ~>>- I I~;~r- ~ IT c: -< I f"w Q ~ I' 19 ~ ~ I...! "Ol ~ Z -< I ~ ~a ~ I ~ r~ I ~~ ~ c: I, ~ J?O.1.D APPROVED BY BOARD OF TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD DATE' #13 /J % z o ...! Ol t\i o . ::e z a ~ ~ "'~ ~)> r-.... '2:...- G) ~ F= ); ~ " c: :c r- APPROXIMA TEL Y 150 cu. ft. OF FILL REQUIRED. GRADING PLAN cu;; WATER OJ. ~ ~ STK 3:: "- t:3 SET ~ "- ~ t'1 '-... 0)> ......... 0), ~ ......... 3:: ......... ':2 I\I/o~ ......... ......... -t ';-4 t'Z. ~ ,yc-s......... ......... .S' c. Re; ......... o 1D'r ......... ltt(,oWC' <coo ......... IfrlJ,o RC-v-oc ......... '''vaile IV. "-48t..c- "" ......... '1 T"R ''1'Usr'' '\ ~ ~ -- '\ ,~ ~... /. - -::----.::: J: ZONEi X~~I -!' -, -'l'sr", 00.00' \ \ /, 0:-.....,[.... .... !!~..:!'Ot.? ~ ' c:. \ ' I t<-, C '" .------ \ ~ ~... \ ~ ~, \~ I','SL;,!:V(,) "" --.~. C'~" S\~E \P. ,..... \ " \ \ '" /(1"p{I-I@- "'~Y'''' ~ ---__;, .6'( SET ..>. """, 0 , ~'.l,LJ~ ~ . , 04. " '. \ . '\ '\ \ ~ '.~ '; :"""'/:.. 8};) :', :. \ ". ) '\./\ ~ \ \)19 Y~:5'c-,>' 'J, <3, t' z~. .C'L 0' /', ''[jo , "'i<i 0 . ., A ,0 <' ,,'a> 'j:. , .t i \~ !;,'4... J ~r I Vl) ~ >'.. 0_ " / Z VI I.i -.. ;?.r W I ~ ". n ~er))\' " ';0 ,,'J c!!.B ~J;o ~I>' e' <0 ?" . ~ ~ / , ' "0 to>"; A '5'-' (<\ ". <p ay ~\ ,\. {<'\ '" "'-fi, rC)::, t U ~'\ .. -:;, 'vJl~ / "0 "............... . (~6,...<!'//2 4'-1<:," ~.'\p'\J i ,/ ,0 (<' '\ 'f- It /' E' E ";l! ~~ 6 e~ > r / /. ci ~.~. A/ ZON A ,,'\ q'<~,~~" ~o",,)~' '__- '0. '. EL. 8 \, '_ t" ."" 5.S ',,- --Q,g '" # . ~ -~ ~,~ o ".. ....... _ ___ 8' .- . ". S",,' l::1:::~"" .......___ ,,-,-- ,../ . " -- - ---. (\/ 1J) A. . . J",rAk.~LJ L/-.JI! hI" _,(), _~~~YP'ALH_ ___............_,..............-t--~ '~ 60,/./ / /"'1- EDG( OF ~TLA.NDS AS DFLINE'" Tf:D BY ........ e< ,. /SUFFOLK mVTRONMENTAL CONSULnNG fNC.'-..... ................ ..~~/ ON .JJLY 22.2005 \ \ SYSTEM DESIGN BY: SUBSURFACE SEWAGE DISPOSAL JOSEPH FISCHETTI, P.E. HOBART ROAD SOUTHOLD, N.1. 11971 (631) 765-2954 r,,0 1 U[L, i ,AreCL 0.1 wello-noL := U;~, 30 Z ~.{i - 3;..::; 2--=- .3 :,~2 5~H 5 ~94-0 '59. (!- I..of cover-"4~:: 53 60 ~9,.(f' cpver4e;:: 5:04,0/;; 9,94-0 ::. __"" un,,__ Ji'o F.F. EL 12'-8- 4. APPROVf:O PIPE 0/0 TEST HOLE DA TA '989 EL.8.J' LOAMY SAND ---- 10' MEDIUM TO COARSE SAND SW ---- 4' SANDY eLA Y GRADING TO eLA YEY SAND SC EL.2.8' ---- 5.5' WATFR IN CLA l'FY SAND SC ---- 8' WA TER IN BROWN BOG OH ---- 10' ---- 13' WA TEl? IN MEOIU 3 0 C<'ywe-II LOOD ZONE LINES FROM FIRM 361OJC0166 G MA Y 4, 1998 ~[VA TlONS REFERENCED TO N. G. v. a. om familiar with the STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL IND CONSTRUCTION OF SUBSURFACE SEWAGE )ISPOSAL SYSTEMS FOR SINGLE FAMIL Y RESIDENCES 'nd will abide by the conditions set forth therein and an the lermit to construct, "he location of wells and cesspools shown hereon ore rom field observations and or from data obtained from others. WY AL TE:RA TlON OR ADDITION TO THIS SURVEY IS A VIOLA TION JF SECTION 7209 OF THE NEW YORK STA TE: EDUCA TlON LA W. OYN'PT ." PPR .<;peT/ON 7209-SUBOIVISION 2. ALL CERTlFlCA T/ONS e rBvise prop. house) MAR 2 8 2006 '" . ....... 1\16'/,.S' '-''''... GbO OS~ {S>,e ~ OJ tv -\>- "\. /lreGL c.f wel/o-nd. = G:',30Z 'y.fi - :he::; z.~ >, ~ .., <: ~ a ~ ...t 0> '"( /\:)' a G.I <: , a 6- ::e: :!1 ~ ~ ::0 -t " ~ ~ ~}. r-~ ~ ';;' C)~ -< r- r- :;;: ~ ~ 3~G2 s~...ft 5~94-059. 0 LDf covcr-~e = S360 :!>9..fr 0/0 Cover 0-..; <2 = 5~~oIG9,?4-0::. 9i'c &;. prop ct:-'>r"'Jlvvr ~<pr..p ef. I<!? :: a-ry w e-~ II fLOOD ZONE LINES FROM FIRM 36103C0166 G MA Y 4, 1998 E'iEVA nONS REFERENCED TO N.G. V.D. f am familiar with the STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL ND CONSTRUCTION OF SUBSURFACE SEWAGE ISPOSAL SYSTEMS FOR SINGLE FAMIL Y RESIDENCES nd wif{ abide by the conditions set forth therein and on the ermit to construct. he focation of' wells and cesspools shown hereon ore om field observations and or from data obtained from others. NY AL Tt:R A TlON OR ADDITION TO THIS SURVEY IS A IIIOLA TlON F SECTION 7209 OF THE NEW YORK STA Tt: EDUCA TlON LA W. CEPT AS PER SECTION 7209-SUBDIIITSION 2. ALL CERTlACA TlONS EREON ARE VALiD FOR THIS MAP AND COPIES THEREOF ONL Y IF 10 MAP OR COPIES BEAR THE IMPRESSED SEAL OF THE SURVEYOR OSE SIGNA TURE APPEARS HEREON. A 'EA=6J,J02 SQ, FT. TO TIE LINES X=LATH SET .. = WETLAND FLAG J.' "'..t:; I ;I~;~r- Fe c:: I tw Q I'~ Sll '...t 0> ~<: I ~ ~'d I r-,' ~~ II~ ~ [;j 2 I I ~ I !.ION unUTY tlt I POLE I , ~04.b tit '-. , . c~~ ~~ N8Z"5J55"W SUFFOLK COUNTY, N. Y: 1000-70-12-39.3 SCALE: 1"-50' FEBRUARY ZOo Z004 JANUARY 6, 2005 (Revisions) SEPTt:MBER 9, 2005 (Lac. wetlands flags, revise prop. ho, fJov. 9, 2005 (revlJ''''''~) Teb.2, 1.co({. (~-I,v".,...1 /a.fl,) Mo.-r. 'Zz. WOe.. I ~r;v/) ) tt'to-y /8, t..bc:1G (reYI.J-ton ~ ~ PROPOSED SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM Sept. 5, 200& (r~vIJ/v"'J) Od' /J, "200" (ra,tJl.,.,f ;,~~" [6J LEACHING POOLS WfTH 3' SAND COLLAR {lJ 1,200 GALLON SEPTIC TANK BOTTOM OF LEACHING POOLS TO BE 2' ABOVE GROUND WA TER SUBSURFACE SEWAGE DfSPOSAL SYSTEM DESIGN BY: JOSEPH FISCHETTI, P.E. HOBART ROAD SOUTHOLD, N. Y. 11971 (631) 765-2954 APPROXIMA TEL Y 150 cu. ft. OF FILL REQUIRED. GRADING PLAN RECEIVEr OCT 2 5 2006 ~~.*, ZONING BOARD OF APPEAl F.F. E1.. Iof.. ,," APPRO-..nJ PIPe LOAMY SAND 10. ---- ,,- MEDIUM TO COARse SAND SW DEe 1 9 2005 SANOY aA Y GRADING ro ClA m- SANa SC EL2.6' ---- 5.5' WA TFR IN a..A tFY SAND SC ---- 6' WA7rn IN BROWN BOG OH ---- '0' --- 'Mye,.,....0 -t-_1-l..:.:L -}. l1c-TiNr-___ 141.11;-- ~ Cll ~ .Jlo. '!. EL 3.9. REBAR ~T - E1-lf '-Y.. ""k 04-10 ,I ,'. __- If'':;;.L \ ;1 , , ,/ v' /:";;>,' ~/ ?"/r r.jL' / / / 5ou--tf..o {(., /' Cn:et. .c 000.5<:: "- ". llv.Q ;;:r - ~ ~ ;('> b ~ "'co -:5 <GB~ 3-t.26t: I IQO.C I~ r I I \~_~__ I~.- ~- ~ :> ~. :: ., t : v:dh '.;)01>.. ~ "~ 6l-'1V\€.VJ. _ 'u~, ~"-ro. , .....~''''.. ---. \ , , \ \ \ \ ~ \ \ \ . c -,,~ pE,u..- .:'":;...... I .... .!!t '1 &, ...i.~U'~~IO~ ()J,j.~',- ''''^V\OU'lTlOl'~1o.lt Of'~l~r'~ YOU" ~w~". .~Oll1V<\\1-lG ~~:i; c;.o/l'};."~'~ ""i.:l~I.iO",.A <ING 1~';'l\.."o~ ~;;. ci.~~1>IG I~~ !\IE ...ss~"~ ',.U.f'(01.1~~~~_...1l'I" :Ott.Gl1^U-" Ll1\~ot;~U>><>ol". ~fOIU'.ioll6m - 1>.'.. ~GDOSE: '<SGAfE.:@'.'" . ,'." '-'-",' ~.._-'......- ;;':- ~,,"~'m~_~J?~~_ ~-:=_":'.__ .':"~~:Ho- _to"': 're ae-- .FUJZ....Hti__:;?Q..~J/;V;.DFC "::A'-~" /q70 \ \ \ , , , , \ '",----.-/ CD . 7T,OCO-<5Q.1'T. , ~. .% .."..-' ~'\ .."~~ Ix " -< ,,-0 30:).00 340~1: ,..uGH- CREEK ~ ,.:.. -~. ~~~-~_=,..:,,_.,~:_o-~"':":~{::~ "OO'D ""rn ' .', .' :~n__V'J"" . - .'-.", '--- .~(~ ;.'"""', "j",,--,:1-.--.. ~. "V", .__--'....,...:.. UCE."lSIfQ 1:MYt> S . AM~~V~~ ~~C.~1~76 SURVEY OF PROPERTY SITUATE SOUTHOLD TOWN: SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY SURVEYED 0'2-13-0'2 NORTH ROAD TO Bh yVlliW SUFFO'LK CO'UNTY TAX' 10'0'0'-70'-12-3'1.4 CERTIFIED TO'. FRANCES E. REIDY AND .JAMES rI. REIDY AS TRUSTEES O'F THE .JAMES E REIDY REVO'CABLE TRUST DATED DECEMBER 18, 20'0'0' ~- ~ ~.d E. \j'J p."-- S -, Y O'F G R FO'RME\<;:: BO'00V1 LlANO NO'~I~ . PETER- LUG Y B 50'00' \, " Q \ ~'" \ " \ \ '\\\ \ \ ,,,, , " \ " " \ \ ;." I..S' 1>,.". ~ \ \ "" a ,<;,. \ '\... \ '-cr-, '\'~%~ \ -& ~ " \~, "",. \l I '~ ~'.(\\ .:$> I I ; ,"", 1oQ\" \.);:; " 0, \\})j (..,. 1.\J .;::-~,,"C i\ "00 (":i'" So"O()()'\N"~.__.,..__ \ \ \ ~. ~ a~ O.u ' _ \ ',-<<' '. N'.'''' ~ r-",...r,.---- " ...Q 10. ,..,_..rr--..r!'"',..,-'rv-,--- _ l\ \ ~ ,"'_r> . ._..J-'0J~-.-'_..:..__._--' "'~ \ " '( . ,-,~~'...A.J'J'-' __-;. _ ~ ,-,:.'J .J.J.-,-,.J"' _ - ...J'C-yV>-_ _ - u,,€-"'. __-Of2-~_- \ -J:. ~ ",_t> _ _ _ ;'-.Jf..O _ __ Q .A' ,~: - - - _ _ - - = = _ ~~~t>~ -- \ ~ 'Q.. --...' i\ ",,';; .' 5- ~=.o- \"zq \~:. \ ~ ~ ~ -Q "I.'" , C? , , , , , , \ I , 1\1t. ,%Q ",/- t~ f-o ~1' "b<:, \-1\ -> \"n 1's, f~ \ \('1) <:Y~ '\l ~ ~- r .oS: '1"': "t- () ~- ,~ ~ ~.) '" - ..- -~ S,=S-' ~ ;( ~,' " ., ""-", ,\ v ...... ~ "'i-9-)>i .,-Q ~ :~~ -.J ~ t.. f ~. '& ... I , , , , , , N69000'00"\v- ~ j",-, "" 300 00' ,-~-~- .... ~'.::"-:::- ......--0.:;- -:~ _: _.:~.:_.:_: _: _:_.:_::_:-::-::-::-::-- " , 325.58' ,,,--;,j>-~-'-- ""..---r'-' flA- ~. ','---."-...- "-., &.1 "-- ~O 69~' , .,/<1"<1'<~ '. ; ,_~,-/J--" , .".--------- '. '-'-.-' _=;p;r~;;;;~~~~~~~~- ,,\,Ii >>,-"" -------c- . D LAND NO'H CR rORMERL Y O'F OROTHY FERGU" , EDv-IARD FERGUS \s?; _ -- --- - - - -~~-- 'r~ ''''.:c" a, , (.; \""",......."...".,'--:--.0-__ \ ---- \'1~~, ''>--........, '" '" '" ',. '\' NO'TES, MO'NUMENT FO'UND AREA 0 14,'133 SF O'R 1.12 ACRES DEED REFERENCE L. 120''11 cp 436 FEMA FLO'O'D ZONE LINE AS ANNO'T A TED FRO'M FIRM MAP' 361O'3CO'I66 G DATED MAY 4, 1'1'18 ELEVATIO'NS REF. USGS NGVD '2'1 \<1 , '\ \" ~\0 \'" ~ ~ - '" (> >J' ~- '" '" :fj'~. ~~~ ~ l~fiiCO'':P / .1,' ~ -I< . .' ., '. \ . : '/ * :..'- .- - .- . ~ I.. .- . , Q:" 0"" \ ,,-0 ~:<, , ~'"',/ -'---'----::~,-:_- -<' --~,"-''',.~ <"''"'~''<'" <" ~""""""~ ~ ::;,,~.~;~~~.~,';~~~;~;~"':"~';,~~,:~~ ~ .~~ '",-, -'-0'" ~'o,. 0"""","" C~~ -:B;:Q:~LF,:;',~::~:;s:::':~:::~;,,~ ,~~'''". JOHN C. EHLERS LAND SURVEYOR 6 EAST MAIN STREET N, Y.S. LIe. NO. 50202 RIVERHEAD, N.Y, 11901 369 8288 Fax 369 8287 REF. \\Hp server\dIPROS\02 120a,pro ~J~f~~i~;J~~~o -'y> ~~ 0~ ' f5': \_ -::'-- ) ,:~ ~..+ .;- ':..i .~ -e, \J ~.~? ",..J' GRAPHIC SCp.,LE ~:- ~~. .-' ,,\( \>'- :-,,'\~' \0 .";,')e> ...... \--? \. -X~ r--- \ \~-\ '" " , '- .....-'" ~'i.. y ~ J \-t- 'C) c:) \c. ~..".".r'i \~ 0'\ ~ ~ ,~ ~ , <::; 'L .:.....; 1"= 50' - .ff"-.ff"-' % ?\::~"\ " " " \\\_~- - "- " dJ ", XIII q) fll '- ~IIIW () III <.( 1\,J11fW II'Z 1/10 //1 "v l' ,# . /1' v ..:: ------:;~, ~/} , '" ,d '" M /' <> .c-..~--,""0 r.....: ___ / '1x;-J'..,,>: ""t.. .~ -& 1"J;,.,",~' ~"~... 9~ c~ lO\.~ --e;--; <-, , ~ o ~~ ~, ~ = ~ ~ <) o 't, --"'t, 'S;,D "'"6 '1>'7- 'to '.5'1' ..'" o ~, '7-0' 71't <)^ "'9" '1> ~ <S --b - ,... ._~ Go Os ~ \ k. , .f, ~ "." 2 ,. .' , .' .; , r\ ",,,,=-~"=,,,""",......,,=n'^-_~'";.~ r-- .' p~~ ~ Fergus SCTM#: 1000-70-12-39.3 ApPLICANT PROPOSES TO: 1) CONSTRUCT A ONE STORY, 4 BEDROOM SINGLE" FAMILY DWELLING WITH A FOOTPRINT OF :t2674 FT2 AND ATTENDANT SANITARY SYSTEM. 2) CONSTRUCT A:t 14' x 11' COVERED PORCH WHICH WOULD ACT AS THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF PROPOSED DWELLING. 3) CONSTRUCT A :t 70' x 10' WOODEN DECK WHICH WOULD RUN CONTIGUOUS TO THE SOUTHERN SIDE OF THE PROPOSED DWELLING. PLEASE NOTE THAT THE LENGTH OF SAID DECK WOULD BE SPLIT BY THE :t 1 5' x 10' PROTRUSION OF THE PROPOSED DWELLING. 4) CONSTRUCT A 25' x 36' GARAGE WITH 2ND STORY LOFT. PLEASE NOTE THAT SAID GARAGE WOULD BE ATTACHED TO THE EASTERN SIDE OF THE PROPOSED DWELLING. 5) CONSTRUCT A 24' x 10' SHED LOCATED:t30' SOUTHEAST OF THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE PROPOSED DWELLING. ~ SEQRA PROJECT lD NUMBER 617.21 Appendix C State Environmental Quality Review SHORT ENVIRONMENT AL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only PART 1- PROJECT INFORMATION (To be completed by Applicant or Project sponsor) 2. PROJECT NAME FERGUS 1. APPLICANT/SPONSOR Suffolk Environmental Consultin ,Inc. 3. PROJECT LOCATION: Munici ali Southold COUll Suffolk 4. PRECISE LOCATION (Street address and road intersections, prominent landmarks, etc. or provide map) North Ba view Road; Town of South old, New York ( lease refer to the attached location mal 5. IS PROPOSED ACTION: New Ex ansion 0 Modification/alteration 6. DESCRIBE PROJECT BRlEFL Y; Please refer to the attached project description. 7. 9. WHAT IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT? OOther i !2:IResidential Olndustrial OCommercial OAgriculture DParklForest/Open space Describe; sin e fami! dwellin s with related a mienances 10. DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL, OR FUNDING, NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCY (FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL)? !2:1 Yes DNo If yes, list agency(s) and permit/approvals NYSDEC; SCDHS I I. DOES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLY V ALlD PERMIT OR APPROVAL? DYes !2:INo If yes, list agency(s) and permillapprovals I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDCiE Applicant/sponsor name: . .William J. Lohn- _S.yil'nlk Environmental COllsultin2.. Inc. Date: , J 2/ 12195 1 . ---- '". , t--.-------~ Si '1atme: If the actioll is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment FOI"m before proceeding with this assessment Part A. AREA VARIANCE REASONS (attach extra sheet needed): (1) An undesirable chelnge wllll'lot be pt'Oduoed In the CHARACTEFl 01 tf1e neighborhood or 8 detriment to nearby properties, If granted, because: The parcells a 63,302 SF flag lot the bulk of whIch Is bounded by Goose Cn~ek on the south, Cli')I,-1 lot 39.4 to the north and east. The proposed dwemng 'Nill not be vislble from the street hecClu:;r,;, It is blocked by two developed lots, nor will it be highly visible from Goose Creek tJS 0 rc,)sult 01 exlsHng vegetation (whIch wllf be maIntained os an ndfnf buffer os per Trustee Permit # 6302) Therefore, the granting of this variance wHl not cause on undesirable crKJn{J8 In the choraC'ler of !he neit~hbortlOod. The variance requested Is l'rnm the required rear yard . tbock, ~n till:; instance. the rear yard setback Is measured from the ea3femmost lot" Une (2) The beneflt sought by the applloant CANNOT be achieved by some method feaslbte for the appUcant to pursue, other then an area vsrt8Me, because: The benefH' sought by the applicant is to hove a slngle fam1!y dwelling wiHl ottached garage, Because of fhe lot dImensions, moving the proposed dwelling with o1tochecl goroge approximately 25' to the west would cause the proposal to not meet the required setback from the wetlands. Encroaching on situate wetlands is not a f'easible alternative to an aroo variance. Please note that If the garage were detaC~'led, it could be located as close as 10' 10 the rear lot line, However, detaching the garage would not result in ille desired benefit_ (3) The amount of relief requested is not substantial beceuae: No, Relief requesled from ~ HJO - 3OA3 is not subs1antlaL tf the proposed dwelllng and !:;lOr<1(~O were detached, fue dwelling could remain OS Is and the garage could be moved approxlmafely 15' cJooor to the rear 101- line. Therefore, the relief requested if, not subsfonliol (4) The variance will NOT have an adverM effect or impact on the physicsl or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district: beceuse: The granting of the variance will have no adverse effect or impact on the physlcol or 81wlr nmenfol c ns It: the affected areas of the nel hborhood b sutJstantta! vegetation on the eastem parlior. of lot 39.4. These vegeiotHd (110m; ,,,,i't sepora e tt1e proposal from situate wetlands in a manner consls1ent with local and StoIEc) environmental regulation. The proposal will therefore not hove an adverse Impoct on the physical or environmental condHk,'fls In the neighborhood. (5) Has the variance been self created'? ( ) Yes, or ( X ) No, If not, Is the construction existfng, as built? ( ) Yes, or ( X ) No. The hardship is nol self-Gfeot(~d, but rcrther created by the nec9SSlty of the proJecl to maintain setbacks from the situate wetlands. (6) AddftlonallnformaUon about the :!urroundlng topography amI building: areas that relate 10 the dffflwlty In meeting the code recttrlrementlJ: (affach extrs sheet as n6eded} The dimAnsiQllS of this lot and the presence of wetlands require that any dW{:llllng be constructed in the oraD contolning the proposed dwellrng. n,e desire of Mr. & Mrs, . to have on atlacl:eci varage stem, fra_~ tl1e fa:t that tl1ey arlr~~:::~~~a;~' ~~~0e! - - fhat this variance Is worranted and is not substantial. This is the MINIMUM that Is ~$SIIf)' and adequate, end at the nme t1m9 preserves and protects the eharacter of the neighborhood end the health, safaty. arrd \T0Hare of the community. ( ) Check this box and complete PART a, $1 ANDAROS. (Please cOl'lSun your attorney.) notary area below, pply USE VARIANCE n!l.l!!U!!<! Sworn to before e this J?~~ df.lyof o::r.' ,2t)O-'--, Signature i t (Agent must submit Au'l:horizat!on from Owner) - -_h_~_......... "'-. Notary Publlc) M'ffhewO,l'I1lns Notary Public of New York No,01iV60S3859 Quelffle<lln SuNo!k County Commission Expires January 22. ~07 leA App 9130/02 Page 2 of 3 - AppeBI AppUcatlon bJ e . Pert B: REASONS FOR USE Y ARIANCE (ff reaull6led): N/A For Each and Every Permttted Use under the Zoning Regulations for the Particular District where the Project Is Located (ple8.. oonsu~ your lIIornlY belore completfng): 1. Applicant cannot realize 8 reasonabte return for each and every pennltted U8e under the zonIng regullllons for the portlcullr dletrlct whete the property Is loclled, demonstrated by competent flnanclaf evtdence. The appticant CANNOT realize a REASONABLE RETURN becauSI: (dllCl'lbe on I _rete sheet). 2. The alleged hardship relating to the property Is unique because: 3. The alleged hardship does not apply to 8 substantial portion of the district or neighborhood because: 4. The request will not after the essent,al charactGr of the neighborhood because: 5. The IlIeged hlrdlhlp hes not been ..If..,reeted because: 6. This Is the minimum relief neoesse:ry! while at the same time preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood, and the health, Mfety and weJfare 01 the community (Please explain on a separate sheet If necessary.' 7. The splnt 01 the ordlnlnco will be obeerved, public sefety Ind weffero will be secured, and substantiallusUcl will be done becauI.: (PI.... explain on a seplrete sheet ff necessary.) ( ) Check this box Ind complete P ART A, Queetlons on previous pege to apply .ABiA VARIANCE STANDARDS. (Please oonsult your ettomey.) Otherwise. Dlea.. DroCeed to the signature and notary area below. Signature of Appenant or Authorized Agent (Agent must submtt AuthorizatIon from Sworn to before me this OWner) day of ,200_ (Nolet'{ Public) ZBA APP 9,130102 SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FERGUS HEARING DRAFT 11/30/2006 1 2 3 4 (Time start: 1 :51 p.m.) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Now, Mr. Anderson. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Okay, this is on-- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: This is on Fergus. RECEIVED DEe 4 2006 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 5 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: The tape is 6 recording. 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Anderson, just 8 before you start, may I say that this is certainly 9 a magnificent house, and not the opportune plot 10 for it. It should be on a five acre plot. This 11 house is much too big for this sensitive piece of 12 property. I would suggest that you cut this in 13 half and move it back more than 20 foot from the 14 rear yard setback or whatever it is. It's not 15 acceptable. It's too big. It's 100 foot almost 16 in length, 60 foot in width. It's only a 50 foot 17 buffer to a wetlands. What's going to happen 18 there, they're going to move in, then they're 19 going to want a dock, and then all of a sudden 20 they're going to be eroded, and then they're going 21 to want a bulkhead, and we're involved. It's just 22 too close to a wetlands. And it's too big for 23 that -- what? 24 MR. ANDERSON: We have a permit for that 25 already. 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You're just -- I'm 3 sorry, you're not going to get the 20 foot. It's 4 too big a house. 5 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: May I comment? 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, you can. 7 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Ruth, I think you 8 need to hear the application before you make a 9 determination. 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I walked the property. 11 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Just let him have 12 his say. 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I just want to tell him 14 right from the beginning, so he can address 15 anything he wants. 16 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You can address it 17 during the application. The man hasn't said a 18 word yet. Let him have his say. Then, you are 19 strong enough to go with convictions, if it passes 20 it passes, we'll vote on it. 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All right, go ahead 22 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: He made an 23 application, he paid a few bucks, let him have his 24 say, and then you can have your say after. 25 MR. ANDERSON: Okay? 2 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Go ahead. 3 MR. ANDERSON: I'm going to ask everybody 4 to keep an open mind. 5 This is a proposal that to construct a 6 5,000 square foot single-family dwelling on a lot 7 that contains 63,000 square feet. It is a flag 8 lot. It's zoned R40. The lot is oversized in the 9 neighborhood it sits in. The coverage proposed in 10 this application is 8.4 percent. It's well within 11 the coverage descriptions that pertain to this lot 12 in this residential zone. Therefore, the house is 13 not too big in the sense of zoning. 14 The dwelling also benefits from receipt of 15 a permit from the Town Trustees and the DEC and 16 the Health Department. The relief requested in 17 this application is to permit the construction of 18 an attached garage 25.2 feet from the easterly lot 19 line, defined as the rear lot line in this 20 application, where 50 feet is required. It is 21 important to note that but for the garage's 22 connection to the dwelling by heated space, we 23 would not be before this Board. 24 The dwelling size is what it is because 25 it's a one-story dwelling. Mr. and Mrs. Fergus 3 1 2 are here tonight -- I mean today, and their desire 3 is to have a one-story house because they have 4 moved on in age. Mr. Fergus has difficulty 5 climbing stairs. 6 We submitted applications before, the 7 Board has read the application and has reviewed 8 the criteria by which zoning variances are 9 demanded. I will briefly highlight them today. 10 So that we don't believe this house will have an 11 undesirable change to the neighborhood because it 12 will be -- it is a flag lot that sits off the 13 road. The house will not be visible from the 14 street. It is also substantially screened in 15 other directions by a 50 foot buffer that was 16 required in this application in connection with 17 the wetland permits. So on that basis we believe 18 that there will be no undesirable change to the 19 neighborhood. 20 We submit that the benefit sought by the 21 applicant cannot be achieved by some other method 22 because this dwelling was shifted to the east as a 23 result in an effort to maximize wetland setbacks. 24 If we were to shift the dwelling back 25 feet to 25 the west, we would not be before this Board, but 4 2 what we would want are setbacks closer to the 3 wetlands than what's proposed now, and that is 4 because the lot relative to the wetlands 5 boundaries narrows as you move from east to 6 west. 7 We submit that the variance request is not 8 substantial because again, we're here only because 9 of the attachment to the house. In the event that 10 this was a detached structure, we would not be 11 before this Board because that setback would be 10 12 feet from the rear yard, but we are less than 25 13 feet, we're an attached structure, whereas a 14 detached structure could be built 10 feet from the 15 eastern lot line without the need to come before 16 this Board. 17 Again, we submit that this will have no 18 impact to the physical and environmental 19 conditions with the properties in the 20 neighborhood. It does benefit from a DEe 21 permit. It is does benefit from a Trustee permit. 22 It benefits from a Health Department perm it. It 23 provides a 50 foot nonturf buffer, which is more 24 than what's found in the neighborhood because most 25 lots in the neighborhood, developed lots, preexist 5 1 2 these types of environmental codes and conditions 3 that stem from it. 4 We submit it's not self-created from the 5 standpoint that it is the placement of the house 6 that has been dictated by maximizing the wetlands 7 that has caused us to come here. 8 I want to also mention to you that I spoke 9 with Mark Terry, he's your LWRP coordinator, the 10 Town was kind enough to fax over his statement, 11 his memorandum written on November 26th, 12 apparently, and I would say -- 13 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: It was already 14 faxed to your office yesterday, I did it. 15 MR. ANDERSON: You did it? Thank you. 16 And that he used the sources of com ments that were 17 made in connection with the LWRP that was 18 undertaken by the Trustees, and that the 6.3 which 19 deals with the proposed setback from the wetlands 20 of 77 feet is realiy not germane here. What we're 21 asking for is the setback from the property 22 line. So the first page of this memo doesn't 23 really fit, what we're here today to talk about 24 today is zoning. However, when you do get to the 25 conditions that begin at the bottom of the first 6 2 page and extend into the second page, those are 3 the same conditions that are imposed by the 4 Trustees and are built into this appiication. 5 As a final matter, I was just aware that 6 Heather Cusack is here on behalf of the Trustees 7 with that, they noticed a grade change, 8 specifically coverage that goes over the septic 9 tank. The concern being a potential for flood, 10 the change in property, it was suggested to me 11 that perhaps a French drain be installed along the 12 northern property line and that's perfectly 13 acceptable. 14 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: May I ask a question? 15 Do I understand that the 8.4 percent or nine 16 percent, that's the coverage of the non-wetland 17 portion of the lot; is that correct? 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No. 19 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No, it's total lot 20 coverage. 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Total lot coverage. 22 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: According to what I 23 have here, it looks as though it is. 63,000 24 minus -- according to this it says it's only 3,300 25 are wetlands. 7 2 MR. ANDERSON: That's correct. 3 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So it's 5,000 square 4 feet approximately of 59, which is about eight or 5 nine percent? 6 MR. ANDERSON: Right. 7 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So the question then 8 is there somewhere on this piece of land where the 9 effective building area is an acre and a haif, 10 whether there's room for a 5,000 square foot house 11 that is all on one floor. In other words, the 12 wetland issue, if things are working the way 13 they're supposed to, the wetlands and the wetland 14 setbacks are supposed to take care of themselves 15 under setback laws. So the idea is that somehow 16 or other, it would seem to you probably or your 17 client that on a lot that has an acre and a half 18 of buildable property there ought to be someplace 19 on there where they can build a house, which 20 apparently seems to be what the code allows. And 21 the problem, as you say, the reason you're before 22 here is because of the question of the setback of 23 the garage, which is not on the side that's near 24 the wetlands; am I correct? 25 MR. ANDERSON: That's correct. 8 2 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So this is I guess a 3 remark, if you find what I say consistent with 4 what you're arguing? 5 MR. ANDERSON: What we're trying to say is 6 that this house is sited towards the eastern 7 portion of the lot, where it is widest and where 8 the greatest wetland setbacks can be achieved. In 9 doing so, it has triggered a variance application 10 with regards to the setbacks off the rear lot 11 line, that portion of the house with an attached 1 2 garage. 13 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Right. 14 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So your understanding 15 that is what is before us has nothing to do with 16 the wetlands but it has to do with where the 17 garage can -- 18 MR. ANDERSON: It does relate because your 19 criterion for zoning variance delves into the 20 environmental regulations that came to this lot 21 and how those regulations in this instance has 22 caused a practical difficulty. The practical 23 difficulty being to place the house where the lot 24 is widest and in doing so triggering a variance 25 off the rear lot line. 9 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie? 3 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I think the issues 4 are quite clear, I have no questions. 5 MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Fergus is here, I think 6 he would like to say a few words. 7 MR. FERGUS: I just hope that the Board's 8 thought process on the approval or disapproval of 9 this is not finalized in terms of you should come 10 and visit. My wife and I bought this land in 11 1982, we also planned to reside in it as a 12 permanent home. We already had, years gone by, 13 DEC approval, Town Trustee, whatever other 14 approvals were required for a house that was 15 higher, in other words like a colonial, this is a 16 one-story house. We didn't care at that time. In 17 1999 I lost a son-in-law, who was a lawyer, 1990, 18 1991: I lost my son in the Twin Towers and those 19 permits were down the tubes. So now, a couple of 20 years later -- and we went through this two years, 21 it's the last permit we need. I ask you, the lot 22 it is an acre and a half, you're right, but the 23 flag piece is open, it's 225 foot long and 30 foot 24 wide. 65 some-odd thousand square feet. Then you 25 have your wetlands, then you have the setbacks. I 10 1 2 don't think there's any other place we can put 3 that house. It may look like it's 5,000 square 4 feet, you chuck that garage, it's a main room, 5 like a living room, there's a kitchen, there's 6 three bedrooms, and there's four bathrooms, that's 7 it. The garage area may be a little bigger than 8 what it would be, I wanted it bigger, as Bruce 9 said, we wouldn't be here asking for a permit, I'm 10 told, if we would disconnect it and it became 11 alone. In other words, there's no requirement 12 that it has to be 50 foot back under those 13 circumstances. I'm getting older, I needed a 14 place to retire. I know you're smiling -- 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No. I admire you for 16 doing a one-story house because it just fits into 17 the land better. Is there any way you could live 18 with a smaller garage? 19 MR FERGUS: I've already made it 20 smaller. You know what I mean? We put a lot of 21 stuff together. I put the dock in the '90s. All 22 the prior permits are fine, it just happened that 23 it went down the tubes. A two-story house is not 24 something we could live with, one-story that's I 25 believe for older people. One step in the house, 11 2 it damn near killed me. I just had my knee 3 replaced, I'm going to have a hip replacement. My 4 wife has had a hip replacement, and she's got a 5 shoulder replacement -- a what do you call it? 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes. 7 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Rotator cup. 8 MR. FERGUS: And knees. So I'm asking you 9 to consider, if you can. I can't put the house 10 any other place on the property as proposed and we 11 put in so much time with the permits. I'm asking 12 personally, we would like to live here in 13 Southold, and we've owned the home for 25 years, 14 and that's alii have to say. Thank you very 15 much. 16 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I have a few 17 questions. If I might, please. 18 MRS. FERGUS: My husband and I think we 19 reached a point in our lives where an detached 20 garage just doesn't work. Just pull the car in 21 and go into the house. 22 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It is a three-car 23 garage with a loft above it. 24 MRS. FERGUS: We made it smaller. 25 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Because the plans 12 2 we have are the three-car garage with the loft 3 above it. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The plans are 4 the three-car garage. 5 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Three-car garage 6 with the loft above it. So the information we 7 have -- so we don't have accurate -- 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Information. You may 9 have reduced -- 10 MR. ANDERSON: What you have before you is 11 what the application was. 12 MR. FERGUS: In other words, there were 13 three garage doors because there will be three 14 cars. We cut it down. 15 MRS. FERGUS: We cut it down when we 16 attached it to the house, we made it smaller, so 17 it could only hold two doors right now. 18 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: We don't have 19 updated plans. 20 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: It still has a loft 21 over it or not? 22 MR. FERGUS: It does, just for storage. 23 MRS. FERGUS: The loft. We needed it, I 24 don't want to give away every1hing that lawn. 25 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Well, you're 13 1 2 building a basement too. 3 MRS. FERGUS: Building a basement but 4 considering where the property is, we have been 5 advised that's going to be -- 6 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You're going to 7 have going to have a very bad situation. You're 8 going to be right on the water tabie. It's going 9 to be very difficult. 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: To be honest, Mrs. 11 Fergus, I would be very careful, just for your own 12 sake, you're so near the water building a 13 basement. Once the high tide comes in, you may 14 have water in that basement. 15 MRS. FERGUS: This is really-- 16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Because it happens 17 on -- I'm 600 feet from Orient Harbor, and when it 18 comes up, I get it. 19 MRS. FERGUS: That's the reason we were 20 trying to cover our bases and put the loft, make 21 the garage higher for storage, but thank you for 22 your time. 23 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Is it possible to 24 submit to the office the most current plans? 25 MRS. FERGUS: I can tell you. 14 1 2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I just ask 3 one question? 4 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Why is it called 5 out as a three-car garage? 6 MRS. FERGUS: It wasn't attached to the 7 house. 8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Could I just ask 9 a question? 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure. 11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Since this is 12 again my application. The notice of disapproval, 13 Bruce, reads 25 feet, you're addressing it at 25 14 feet. The plans that we have are 21 feet, and 15 this is the garage we're referring to, the 16 setbacks, and that is the reason why we have this 17 little inconsistency, Mr. Fergus, that we were 18 just discussing. 19 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: It's right here, 20 Jerry, 25.2. 21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I apologize, 22 25.2. 23 MR ANDERSON: 25.2 is the rear yard, the 24 21 is the side yard. 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Sorry, I 15 2 apologize. 3 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's the only 4 variance you really are requiring. 5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's right, I 6 did see that last time, I missed it this time, I'm 7 sorry. 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Heather? 9 MS. CUSACK: Hi, I'm Heather Cusack, I 10 work for the Trustees. 11 I spoke with one of the Trustees and with 12 Mark Terry, who asked me to come over here and 13 give you some information on this. The Trustees 14 approved a permit for this house February 15th, 15 and I have the plans here that were approved, and 16 what Mark Terry in reviewing it for LWRP brought 17 to the Trustees attention that the survey that's 18 before you today is just slightly different, and 19 we have some concerns. The one that was approved 20 by the Trustees has the septic system at a nine 21 foot elevation and the one that's before you has 22 it at 11, which I'm guessing is something that was 23 imposed by the Health Department possibly. And 24 the proposed finished grade will now be different 25 in the left-hand side, it says proposed contour 16 1 2 and proposed elevation. So the Trustees just 3 wanted you to know that what they approved is -- 4 this is slightly different than what's before you 5 The concerns are that the water with it higher 6 will shed onto the neighboring property and what 7 could be done about that is putting in some kind 8 of French drain along this property line or even 9 right into that gravel driveway, and there's also 10 water quality concerns there with Goose Creek. So 11 just wanted you to be aware, you know, bring this 12 forward to all of you that this would have to come 13 back to Trustees if this was approved. 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: If this one is 15 approved, it has to come back to the Trustees? 16 MS. CUSACK: Yes. I just wanted to bring 17 it up to you if you wanted to look at it 18 (handing). This is approved by Trustees and I 19 just highiighted that difference here and here 20 where it says proposed contour and proposed 21 elevation that's not on the plan, that was 22 approved by Trustees. Just concerns about how 23 that will be addressed. So, if you have any other 24 questions. 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So, if we approve this, 17 2 it still has to come back to you? 3 MS. CUSACK: Yes, because the plan you 4 have is not the plan for an amendment just so the 5 Trustees can address that different grade. This 6 was approved March 22nd, and since then there's 7 May, September and October, there have been three 8 revisions. Mark brought that to our attention. 9 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: We probably should 10 mark those. 11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Bruce, do you 12 understand? 13 MR. ANDERSON: Yes, the difference is very 14 minor. 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anybody else have 16 any questions of Mr. Anderson? Does anybody in 17 the audience wish to speak? 18 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Could I just-- 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure, Jim, I'm sorry. 20 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Heather? Can I 21 just ask you a question? 22 MS. CUSACK: Yes, sure 23 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I really appreciate 24 the fact that the Trustees sent somebody here to 25 tell us what their concerns were. It's really 18 2 very helpful, but I am wondering if you're aware 3 if this property has ever been filled with dredge 4 material and is that a concern of the Trustees? 5 MS. CUSACK: It is a concern. 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It was all dredged, 7 dumped. 8 MS. CUSACK: It's dredge spoil. And 9 that's part of the concern with the drainage, what 10 will actually happen with drainage. 11 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Would there be a 12 reason for us to turn it down? I can't ask you to 13 make a decision. 14 MS. CUSACK: Right. 15 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It seems to me like 16 you did the an approval on this piece of property 17 based on the facts. And you contended and you 18 came to a conclusion -- Trustees did -- that it 19 was okay to put a house on this piece of property 20 even though it's been dredged spoil; is that 21 correct? 22 MS. CUSACK: Yes. 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. and Mrs. Fergus, 24 are you aware of that? 25 MR. FERGUS: Yes. 19 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay. 3 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That's alii have. 4 I want to thank you for coming. 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, that's great. 6 MS. CUSACK: Oh, you're welcome. It may 7 effect, because of the elevation of that septic 8 and how the Trustees may look at that, it may 9 affect your decision today because of the location 10 there of the garage and where they're going to 11 put -- where they may ask for a French drain, it 12 may not. Just wanted to make you aware of that 13 little change. 14 MR. ANDERSON: Grade we're talking about 15 deals with sort of the opposite side of the 16 building, you understand. 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anybody else wish 18 to speak on this application? Yes. 19 MS. LANE: Good afternoon, 20 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: State your name, 21 please. 22 MS. LANE: My name is Johanna Lane. I am 23 the owner of the adjoining property, 1852 North 24 Bayview, and I'm a licensed real estate broker. 25 I understand that the ZBA is here to 20 2 consider only one part of this project, which is a 3 variance for an attached garage pursuant to 4 Article 3 Section 100-38.3, and I will address 5 that issue specifically in a moment. 6 At the same time I am mindful that SEQRA 7 encourages us not to dissect a project, rather to 8 consider it as a whole and when viewed from that 9 perspective, I'm troubled by what appears to be to 10 me to be a lack of thorough review of this 11 proposal from all involved agencies. I have 12 prepared a short statement here which I appreciate 13 you just hearing me out and then come back with a 14 rebuttal or any questions after that, but I would 15 like to stay on point and get my points across. 16 And I have a few to make. 17 The first thing is the scope of the 18 project. When I compare the documentation 19 approved by the Trustees in February with the more 20 recent documentation presented for this hearing, 21 that's just been pointed out by the Trustees, I 22 find significant differences and interesting 23 contradictions. As such, I'm having some 24 difficulty understanding the nature and the extent 25 of the proposed development. And I think we all 21 2 the agree that it's in an environmentally 3 sensitive area and we need to understand what it 4 is that's trying to be done here. So in terms of 5 the discrepancies and changes that I'm finding, 6 the survey approved by the Trustees in February 7 has subsequently been revised four times, in 8 March, May, September and October. Has the ZBA 9 compared the current version with the version 10 approved by the Trustees. It appears to me that 11 today is the first time that you have had an 12 opportunity to see that. i have had an 13 opportunity to review that very briefly, I haven't 14 had very long but I've had probabiy 24 hours 15 longer than you. And a brief review that I have 16 had reveals the following list of changes. The 17 grading plans were mentioned. If I go back to the 18 beginning and I look at question Number 12 on the 19 Trustees EAF, it asks as a result of the proposed 20 action will existing permit approval require 21 modification and the answer given was "no." Yet, 22 when I reviewed the Trustee grading plan, I see 23 that was that what was stated as nine foot grading 24 plan then has now been stated as 11 foot on the 25 ZBA grading plan. So my questions are: What is 22 2 the final grade of this property to be and where 3 will the water run? Also, what part of the plan 4 addresses the mitigation of water runoff onto my 5 property? What steps are being taken to mitigate 6 that? Has the ZBA com pared their EAF with other 7 EAFs submitted to other agencies. Has that review 8 of the documentation been undertaken? On our 9 adjoining boundary line it's roughly an eight foot 10 elevation on my survey, whereas my neighbor's plan 11 is to build his property out to at least 11 foot 12 elevation. 13 To over simplify the test hole data that 14 you see on that survey, it states that the first 15 four foot is sand, and then it's clay, which is 16 tough for water to filter through; so where is 17 that water going to run? It's going to run 18 laterally. I'm sure you have all seen the flood 19 at the entrance to the easement on North Bayview 20 after it rains. At the entrance to that easement, 21 it floods, even in the light rain, and trust me, 22 it's no different on my driveway. I have a 23 flooding problem on my driveway as it is across 24 the whole lawn. After the adjoining lot is 25 developed, there will be significantly less land 23 2 available to absorb the runoff and all that 3 additional water is going to go where 4 exactly? It's going to go downhill. And how are 5 the dries going to disperse accumulated water if 6 they're situated in clay? So it's going to end up 7 with 11 foot here and eight foot here and that 8 water's going to go up three feet, and I'm on a 9 slab three feet below this house, and my house 10 could flood three feet. So I have serious 11 concerns about this aspect of this property. What 12 guarantees can the T own give me that there will 13 not be a river running through this property as a 14 direct result of the rise in the grading and an 15 awfully big house with inefficient dry 16 wells. Raising the building pan with fill raises 17 the significant flooding concerns for me. And 18 this issue needs to be addressed before any kind 19 of approval or construction begins. 20 I have also concerns about lot size. 21 have compared the submitted survey with my own 22 records. I have a survey by John Ehlers dated 23 December, 2000, which shows the rear side yard lot 24 line as 174.35 feet whereas Peconic Surveyors 25 acting on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Fergus, are 24 2 showing now 182 feet. How did it grow more than 3 eight feet in six years? To add to the confusion, 4 the original subdivision survey dating from around 5 1975 shows the rear side lot line as 190 feet, 6 with the Fergus's lot at 53,000 square feet, which 7 is 10,000 square feet less than what is now being 8 claimed on the current survey. How can that be? 9 If the lands has eroded over time since the 10 subdivision was first done, then it would be 11 understandable if the lot line had reduced from 12 the 190 foot to either 182 foot or 174 foot, but 13 surely there would then have been a commensurate 14 reduction in the square footage of the lot over 15 the same period, not an increase of 10,000 square 16 feet. And I'm also thinking, if have got two 17 lots, one here and another one in front of it, and 18 the one in front of it, erodes back, is that 19 person taking their lot line back into my 20 property? I mean, these are just issues and 21 questions I have. I'm not making allegations or 22 claims. I'm just saying, I'm very confused by the 23 whole project. I have lots of bits of paper here 24 that I'm supposed to be walking around for you to 25 show, with surveys and this sort of thing, but I'm 25 2 going to move on and give all that to you later. 3 I could be wrong, but I think there's been 4 an error factor in one of these surveys, but it's 5 not clear to me which one, and the issue also 6 needs further fact finding before a determination 7 can be made. 8 Then comes the amount of land affected. 9 Addressing the question of exactly how much land 10 is going to be affected by the proposed 11 construction. The Trustees' EAF states not quite 12 .11 plus/minus, which by my calculations is 479 13 square feet, that must be a typographical error. 14 It also states that three and a half percent lot 15 coverage, so I compared this with Mr. Fergus's 16 project development submitted to the Trustees, i 17 don't know if you have a copy of that, I have a 18 copy of that here I can give you. That states a 19 single family dwelling with a 2,674 square foot 20 footprint, covered porch of 154 square foot, 21 wooden deck 700 square foot, garage 900 square 22 foot, shed, 240 square foot, which is a total of 23 4,668 square foot. Put another way, that's more 24 than double the three and a half percent lot 25 coverage stated on the Trustee application data. 26 2 Compare this with the notes of lot coverage 3 presented to you today and the revised plan, and 4 you'll see that the lot coverage has now grown to 5 5,360 square feet. So clearly the project has 6 expanded over the courses of going through the 7 various agencies. And I'm not at all clear that 8 all the other agencies are understanding exactly 9 what's been going on. 10 So I don't want to take up any more of 11 your time with issues that may not be directly 12 within your purview today, but respectfully 13 request that a thorough review is undertaken of 14 all submitted documentation to insure consistency 15 with all the involved agencies prior to any final 16 decision. 17 I'd also like to address a couple of other 18 issues. One is the self-created hardship issue. 19 The Trustees asked in EAF the question, Will the 20 proposed action comply with existing zoning and 21 other existing land use restrictions. The answer 22 was yes. And a 2,674 square foot home was 23 envisioned, all of which sounded perfectly 24 reasonable to me at the time it was presented in 25 February, although I wasn't privy to the details 27 2 at that time. One can't help wondering what 3 hardship has developed in the intervening period 4 to now warrant a variance. Reasonable people 5 could agree that the variance is needed only 6 because plans for the house have outgrown the 7 property; that's what's happened since February. 8 Also, I gave very careful consideration to 9 the reason offered for the area variance as 10 described in Part A of the application to the ZBA, 11 and I have the following comments. In Paragraph 12 1, detriment to nearby properties, and I quote 13 from that, Mr. Anderson's response to that 14 question -- "The lot line abuts an unbuildable 15 portion of lots 39.4" -- my lot. With all due 16 respect to my neighbors, and they're certainly 17 entitled to their opinion, it's not their decision 18 to determine what part of my property mayor may 19 not be buildable. Even if they're right, which I 20 do not accept given the proposal for the subject 21 property, they cannot take the benefit from my 22 property for their own enjoyment simply because 23 now they have an awfully big house in mind that 24 unfortunately doesn't fit their building envelope 25 any more. So instead of focusing on what portion 28 2 of my property mayor may not be buildable, let's 3 focus on the subject property and how much of that 4 is buildable. Let's deduct 8,775 square feet that 5 constitutes the right of way that we both share, 6 add to that the 50 foot buffer zone, which has 7 already been reduced from the normal 1 00 foot to 8 allow them to build anything at all, then there's 9 the driveway needed for egress and ingress to and 10 from the property and garage, plus parking for 11 residents, their invitees and guests, as well as 12 allowing for normal access into a flag lot for 13 emergency vehicles; is there enough room for 14 everyone without using the driveway as a parking 15 lot, and where is the turn-around? I don't see 16 that on a plan. 17 Then come to adverse effects on the 18 physical and the environmental conditions in the 19 neighborhood. As we all know, the ecosystem in 20 Goose Creek is very sensitive not least because of 21 the Cornell Institute feed beds, which are very 22 close to my property and the subject property. 23 For this reason and the abundant of wildlife, 24 flora and fauna including numerous birds, nesting 25 geese, turtles, horseshoe crabs, clams, prickiy 29 2 cactus, deer, rabbits and so on, we maintain our 3 property, or my property in a very natural 4 state. We do not have the kind of water quality 5 problems that are being experienced further into 6 the creek and the water is currently crystal 7 clear, the best kind of beach on the north fork. 8 Maintaining this pristine state is my number one 9 priority. And I try to do as little tampering as 10 possible. We may not have a pristine lawn by 11 other people's standards but we do have the 12 pleasure of seeing a family of geese bring their 13 goslings twice a day to feed on the wild plants 14 that grow in the spring within a few feet of my 15 house. 16 In Paragraph 4 of Part A, the Ferguses are 17 claiming no adverse effect on the physical 18 environment and environmental conditions based on 19 their maintenance of a 50 foot buffer. Without 20 saying how they propose to pull actually maintain 21 that, as well affecting my maintenance of the 22 natural vegetation on my side of the property line 23 as a reason why they don't need to maintain any on 24 the subject lot. Again, this is muddying the 25 waters by taking a benefit of a neighboring 30 2 property and applying it to their own, when the 3 real issue here is are they willing to maintain a 4 50 foot buffer as it is now natural vegetation on 5 their own property, a vegetated buffer. That's 6 not stipulated in the Trustee permit. There's 7 nothing that the Trustees have done that binds 8 them and their successors in title to maintaining 9 that buffer as a vegetated buffer. Anything 10 anything less is detrimental to the environment, 11 and it's simply nonsense to say that it's not. To 12 not require a vegetated buffer could lead to 13 misunderstandings over the course of years. A 14 cleared buffer and glowing green lawn leading down 15 to the water line all maintained with pesticides 16 running off into the creek. Did I miss the 17 vegetative plan in the file? Where is it? This 18 is not spelled out in the Trustee permit. 19 I understand that Mr. and Mrs. Fergus are 20 getting on in age, and I am certainly not 21 unsympathetic to anyone's desire to have an 22 attached garage in the winter regardless of age, 23 and I do understand that it becomes more of a 24 priority in advancing years, but there's no reason 25 in my mind why they could not have the attached 31 1 2 garage and comply with the required setbacks if 3 only they were willing to reduce the size of their 4 awfully large house. Interestingly when the 5 project was presented at the Trustees hearing back 6 in February, a similar argument was used for a 7 larger than normal footprint for the house because 8 they wanted to avoid having stairs and keeping to 9 a single story. But now we find that the house 10 has grown a full basement with stairs down and 11 sufficient height to finish it off unless it 12 floods, and I agree with the comment that was 13 being made about flooding earlier because all the 14 houses on the other side of the creek, they all 15 flooded when we had that nine day rain two years 16 ago, all of them, they all flooded. So I really 17 think they're going to end up with a swimming pool 18 in their basement, but anyway, there is a basement 19 with stairs down and sufficient height to finish 20 it off, as if it were a second story, as well the 21 garage has a second story with a 9 foot six 22 ceiling height and a picture window that directly 23 overlooks my property and directly faces my master 24 bedroom window at more or less the same height. 25 Why do storage boxes need a view at the expense of 32 2 my privacy? Or could it be that the garage is 3 destined to become an accessory apartment over 4 time? The house itself appears like a two-story 5 Cape, the garage elevation height is 22.6 feet or 6 something like that, I'm not even sure of the 7 house height. But that's two dormers short of a 8 two-story Cape and there is no covenant being 9 added to the deed to restrict a second story being 10 added to this property over time if not by the 11 Ferguses, by their successors. 12 So when I'm looking at the plans for the 13 house, try as I may, I can't envisage this home 14 nestled on the property in a way that respects the 15 wetlands and the integrity of the surrounding 16 ecosystem. When I look at the elevations in the 17 floor plan, try as I may, alii can see is a lot 18 that is all but cleared of vegetation com pletely 19 except for a 50 foot wide green lawn at the 20 water's edge that could be leading to a 7,000 21 square foot home, two-story home, with an 22 accessory apartment, a 3,000 square foot basement 23 and triple car garage -- I'm saying triple car 24 garage because that's what it says on the plans -- 25 towering maybe 10 foot above the surrounding 33 2 vegetation. There is no vegetation on 3 that property that exceeds 22 and a half feet that 4 is not going to be cleared as a process of 5 this development. 6 So finally, I wish to stress that I did 7 not take the decision to speak on this issue 8 lightly. There is nothing personal in my 9 comments. I wish Mr. and Mrs. Fergus, a long and 10 happy retirement in Southold, and I certainly 11 don't want to be the one to spoil it for them by 12 making difficulties unnecessarily. The issue here 13 is not about our stewardship of the land, which is 14 for a fleeting moment of time that we own it; it's 15 about the long term future of Goose Creek, and I'm 16 not convinced that the ZBA is on sufficiently 17 solid ground to make a good decision one way or 18 the other on the variance issue without a thorough 19 review of this project, including the fundamental 20 issue of whether or not the subject property 21 offers the Ferguses what they need for their 22 retirement without destroying the delicate balance 23 in the area that currently exists today. Thank 24 you for your time. I have all the things that I 25 am supposed to have wafted around here to show 34 2 them if you would like to see them. One thing I 3 would like to do, I have copies of the surveys 4 here to demonstrate the 90 foot going back to the 5 '97 survey. I have the project description from 6 the Trustees. I have the environmental EAS 7 form. I have the photographs here, and these are 8 particularly good. This is my husband Dennis. 9 MR. LANE: Can I approach? 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure. 11 MR. LANE: If you haven't been down to the 12 property I think this is going to add something to 13 to it. You're looking at the vegetative state. 14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We have all been 15 there. 16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But not from the air. 17 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: We've all walked 18 it. 19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But not from the 20 air. 21 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: We haven't flown 22 it. 23 MR. LANE: Also, I'm going, if I can 24 talk. Just a little bit of an aside for a second. 25 All the other stuff is very im portant, but here's 35 2 another indication of what's been going on since 3 the beginning, and I've asked Mr. Fergus about 4 trespassing on our property to gain access to 5 his. We have a perfect example here, and I don't 6 know who took these pictures, but it's got 7 indications of Fergus's property, and it shows 8 that it's been cut paths through, they cut them 9 through our property to get to his property. And 10 the person who was a real rocket scientist here 11 took the pictures of the access trail, they're 12 standing on our property taking the pictures, if 13 you would like to take a look at that, all the 14 trespassing that's gone on. We have had vans, 15 trucks, all parked on our lawn. And a gate to try 16 and keep it from coming onto our property. 17 MS. LANE: I think what we're requesting 18 here is a more collaborative process to work with 19 us because we do feel that we have been kept a 20 little in the dark in this and that the 21 inconsistencies have not been explained to us. 22 saw the elevations and the plans yesterday for the 23 first time, I didn't even know it was going to be 24 two story. I'm not blaming all that on anybody 25 else, I'm heavily committed elsewhere, and it's 36 2 taken me some time to realize and do my due 3 diligence of what this project is all about. As 4 I'm reiterating here, I still don't know what it's 5 all about, but my major concern I think out of all 6 this is the inconsistency in the plan. The dots 7 don't seem to line up for me at all. It doesn't 8 make sense what's going on. And my major concern 9 is this flooding. I don't know where this water's 10 going to go except into my house because it's 11 clay. I mean it's sand, you walk on it. 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I sympathize with that. 13 Back in the '70s when some of the homes were built 14 in our area, there's homes that shouldn't have 15 been built in the first place, but anyway, they 16 have -- the Department of Health had people mound 17 cesspools, which changed the whole direction of 18 the water coming, because we live right across 19 from a marsh and it just made it that it floods 20 our property so much easier, I know. 21 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I would like to raise 22 a question, a procedural one. I think that you 23 have raised -- what is your name, please? 24 MS. LANE: Johanna Lane. 25 BOARD MEMBER SIMON -- has raised a 37 2 number of questions, the merits of which I am in 3 no position to evaluate, I don't know whether the 4 Board is at the meeting and I wonder whether we 5 should keep the meeting open, I'm just saying this 6 to the Board -- in order to get more input on 7 these -- these are very important questions. 8 think we're all sympathetic -- I'm sorry, I didn't 9 hear you, Bruce. 10 MR. ANDERSON: I would like to respond to 11 all of this. 12 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Okay, fine. But I'm 13 saying whether we need to review this closely, I 14 think you're onto a very general issue, which I 15 think we're all concerned about, is the agencies 16 are not sufficiently interconnected with regards 17 to the information and the assessment. No, no one 18 is keeping any of this information from you, no 19 one is keeping you in the dark. 20 MS. LANE: No, I appreciate that. 21 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: But one has to be 22 very diligent in order to have the whole big 23 picture, and we often do not either. So I 24 certainly think we have to keep our minds open and 25 our desks clear for a time so we can think this 38 1 2 through and for the sake of future decisions, 3 regardless of how this one works out. 4 MR. LANE: I would just say, don't feel 5 bad, Homeland security has the same problem. 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr Anderson, do you 7 have anything else to say? 8 MR. ANDERSON: Yes, I would like to 9 respond. 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Go ahead. 11 MR. ANDERSON I'm going to take you 12 through pretty much all these comments. First 13 comment I want to make is start off with a 14 dissertation on the State Environmental Quality 15 Review Act, and you should be aware that this is a 16 building of a single-family dwelling, which is a 17 Type 2 Action and the State Environmental Quality 18 Review Act does not apply. You also probably know 19 that the granting of an individual lot line 20 variances are also Type 2 actions and they are 21 likewise not subject to State Environmental 22 Quality Review Act. There is no issue of 23 separation -- I think she meant to say 24 segmentation -- which is discouraged in the 25 statute because the statute doesn't apply. And 39 2 finally that there is no agency coordination 3 provided in SEQRA with regards to this project 4 because the project is not subject to the State 5 Environmental Quality Review Act because it is a 6 Type 2 Action. 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Type 2 Action, right. 8 MR. ANDERSON: And we all know Type 2 9 Actions by law are not capable of causing 10 significant environmental impacts. That's what it 11 says. 12 So the question pertaining to the 13 discrepancies of the Trustee approval deal with a 14 slight elevation change in the vicinity of the 15 septic system, specifically the septic tank and 16 you will get that amendment, and adding a French 17 drain, we are happy to do that. 18 The third thing, drainage generally, 19 you'll notice on your survey, you will see we have 20 placed various dry wells which is standard and 21 best management practice for controlling runoff. 22 Shown on your survey, if the Trustees require or 23 if this Board requires additional drainage, we're 24 happy to accommodate. 25 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Bruce, can I ask a 40 1 2 question about that? The drain, are you capable 3 of keeping that, proving that you can keep that 4 water on the property that comes off the house; is 5 there some calculation that allows you? 6 MR. ANDERSON: Yes. For a two inch 7 rainfall we can comply. 8 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: And you can supply 9 that? 10 MR. ANDERSON: Yes, I would be happy to 11 provide you with that drainage calculation. 12 MR. ANDERSON: Now, as to the lot size, 13 what Mrs. Lane is referring to property line in 14 our survey shows 183.47 feet, which is the 15 measurement from the northeast property corner to 16 the water, that is to the water is marked by mean 17 high water, which changes. it's a variabie and in 18 fact, looking at this description and I would 19 presume also the Lanes' deed description, they 20 would go to a written meets and bounds description 21 of the property extending to mean high water. So 22 that number can change depending on whether 23 erosion happens accretion happens. It is also a 24 function of interpretation on the part of the 25 surveyor. And the surveyor is speCifically 41 1 2 licensed to make those sources of interpretations, 3 and that's what he has done and he has put his 4 seal upon the survey, and he has put his license 5 on the line. And we must rely on what the 6 licensed surveyor tells us in terms of the 7 distance from that point to the high water mark as 8 well as the area of the lot, as well as the 9 coverage over the lot because that's what 10 surveyors do. 11 Next we move to the question of the 12 environmental integrity of Goose Creek, we already 13 have a Trustee permit for that. By the way the 14 Trustee permit also includes that footprint of 15 that house of that garage, being that setback from 16 that wetlands. So there is no change. The change 17 referred to here, as Heather Cusack just told us, 18 is that slight elevation change. There is there 19 is not a smoke and mirror show going on here. 20 Now, as far as the creek goes there is a 21 50 foot buffer, and it shows on the survey and it 22 is required in the Trustee permit. That is an 23 enforcement issue that the Trustees make. It is 24 their job to insure that it is protected. I will 25 say in contrast, when you look at the adjacent 42 2 property as shown in the aerial photographs that 3 these people just handed up, it was their lawn 4 extends right to the creek, and that if you look 5 at that property you will notice that the high 6 mark has in fact been cleared from the adjacent 7 property now owned by Lane. So when you compare 8 the two properties -- 9 MS. LANE: I refute that. 10 MR. ANDERSON: So, when you compare the 11 two properties from the standpoint of 12 environmental protection, you'll find that this 13 has a 50 foot natural buffer, the other has 14 lawn. This has an extensive tide mark, the other 15 one doesn't. Now, whether they cut down the 16 marsh, I don't know, I don't care, but to say that 17 somehow that this is more of a detriment than 18 what's next door is patently absurd, and if there 19 is this overriding concern, let them remove the 20 lawn and plant native vegetation and get the 21 appropriate permit authorizations to do that. 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: May I just ask, when 23 were these aerial photographs taken? 24 MS. LANE: In August, 2005, so not this 25 past summer the previous summer. I believe 43 2 actually corroborated by regularly weeding the 3 dock. 4 (Audience discussion.) 5 MR. FERGUS: I have a permit for that. 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'm sure you do. 1 MR. FERGUS: The Town before I put anybody 8 on the property to cut a path in there, we went 9 through I wouldn't touch anything but only 10 vegetation until I got that done. 11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No. 12 MR. FERGUS: Many, many years I never cut 13 one native grass down on that property. 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: i think I'm going to 15 make a motion to keep the hearing open until all 16 these questions that have been raised by Heather, 17 the Trustees, and these folks, what have you, have 18 been answered to our satisfaction. There's too 19 many discrepancies. 20 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I have a 21 comment on that? 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure, Jim. 23 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I just have a 24 question. One of the things that this lady 25 mentioned was to use driveway in lot coverage 44 1 2 calculations, I think I heard that. 3 MR. ANDERSON: They're not. 4 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: They're not. How 5 about the right of way? 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The right of way? 7 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The right of way, 8 does that include the lot calculations? 9 MR. ANDERSON: For purposes of zoning 10 you're supposed to be exclude it. For purposes of 11 coverage of the adjacent area, you do include it. 12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: And it has been, 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It has been? 14 MR. ANDERSON: We're all under the 15 coverage restrictions, 16 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I just wanted to 17 get it on the record, 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you, Jim, 19 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: There's a couple 20 more things here that I heard from this lady that 21 don't jive with -- either she's misinformed or 22 she's accusing an agency of this Town of changing 23 something, and -- 24 MS, LANE: I have made no allegations 25 against any agency of this Town, absolutely 45 2 not. I'm sorry, I think you're misunderstanding 3 what I have said. I'll be very happy to give you 4 a copy of the statement to review at your leisure. 5 I will give that to you today. 6 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I suppose you've 7 raised so many things, I'm trying to figure out 8 where we go -- 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: From here? 10 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: From here. 11 MS. LANE: A full review is I think what 12 we're asking for. 13 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: How do we obtain 14 these answers? What is to our satisfaction? 15 Because quite honestly, what I heard, I could look 16 in the code book and find the answer to those 17 questions. Is that -- are we talking to somebody? 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: If there's 19 discrepancies in the different site plans that 20 we're given, as Heather said, they will have to go 21 back to the Trustees. I'd like to see the 22 Trustees address that. 23 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I thought that he 24 would remedy that. What is the other-- 25 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: I guess the French 46 2 drain, whether they need one, the applicant's 3 engineer. 4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I would like to confer 5 with the Town attorney too. 6 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I actually have a 7 question about the buildings, I don't know if you 8 and your aircrafts and engineer have consulted 9 about the inclusion of your basement, knowing 10 fully well that it is likely going to flood, of 11 water proofing, which is essentially creating -- 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Can't do it. 13 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: -- Creating a 14 channel along the cove where the slab and the 15 walls meet, and then using sump pumps in order to 16 channel out the water back onto the 17 property. That's very standard, you know 18 especially when there's clay around the core 19 percolation, one of the things that people often 20 do after the fact when their basements do start to 21 flood is at great expense, go in there because 22 it's so unhealthy for your house, forget about all 23 the stuff you want to store. 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All the mold. 25 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's unhealthy for 47 1 2 occupants and it's unhealthy for the actually air 3 quality in the house and the structure of the 4 house, go in and do what I had to do in my house, 5 which is to go in and put in an entire system with 6 sump pumps, that would make a difference in terms 7 of groundwater runoff. And since you're close to 8 the creek, where is that water going to eventually 9 wind up going, it has to go someplace that's 10 contained on your property, you put dry wells in, 11 so it's not going to either wind up either on 12 their property or back in the creek. So, have you 13 thought about those issues? 14 MRS. FERGUS: I believe that the Courtney 15 represents the gentleman that will be -- 16 MS. GALLAGHER I am actually the quasi 17 contractor. I've been working on the plans for 18 the Ferguses over the past three years. I'm 19 designing and maintaining this house. We have 20 talked about foundation, a foundation plan. I do 21 work with Joe Fischetti, and we do design the sump 22 pump system to connect to a lowering system to 23 connect with the dry well system. We actually 24 built the house two doors down in the area where 25 we did have to remove a lot of lawn. We did have 48 2 to bring material in to make the house sit 3 properly, and you know the property goes down. 4 It's the garage doors on the -- 5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We granted that 6 house. 7 MS. GALLAGHER: Right. That was only a 8 few years ago. And their runoff, they do not have 9 issues. We complied and their dry wells are 10 holding up nicely. And now they have a crawl 11 space there and we don't have any issues with that 12 crawl space for utilities and what not. 13 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Are the dry wells 14 that are on this survey a part of that plan or are 15 they for -- is that simply for rain? 16 MS. GALLAGHER: The dry wells are for 17 rain, anything that's any kind of in areas that we 18 do have access to the basement via outside, we do 19 connect dry well system in front of the stairs to 20 catch any runoff. We do take the drains very 21 seriously because, you know, the last thing you 22 want is the customer coming back to us screaming 23 and yelling with an issue with the house. We put 24 appropriate venting windows in to allow to 25 alleviate all the problems. We put a cement bank 49 1 2 systems in so any issues that we have with the 3 basement we do look at, Fischetti's been around 4 for a long time. 5 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Do you have a 6 foundation plan that indicates location of sump 7 pumps and various discharge? 8 MS. GALLAGHER: No. I don't actually draw 9 the foundation plans, we have Joe Fischetti. The 10 foundation plan should be attached to the plans 11 that you have in front of you, that we are going 12 off of. 13 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: We do have a-- 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What is your full name? 15 MS. GALLAGHER: Courtney Gallagher. 16 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Bruce, while 17 this nice iady is looking for that, Bruce, my 18 concern is the issue that this lady to my right 19 and to your left, that's the issue of this 20 change. We are dealing with the standard septic 21 system in this house? 22 MR. ANDERSON: Yes. 23 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So there are no 24 elevated systems that require, no walls around 25 them? 50 2 MR. ANDERSON: No. 3 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay, the French 4 drain that you would be building would be towards 5 their property? 6 MR. ANDERSON: It would be on the line. 7 It would have it 20 feet from the septic system. 8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How much of this 9 property is going to be devegetated? 10 MR. ANDERSON: Landward of the 50 foot. 11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. What 12 actually is going to happen between the Ferguses' 13 property and the people that are speaking now to 14 my right and to your left? 15 MR. ANDERSON: What is going to happen; 16 what do you mean? 17 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Between the two, 18 is there going to be a vegetation buffer; is there 19 anything that is going to be proposed? 20 MS. FERGUS: They're threatening a fence. 21 MR. LANE: The fence that she's speaking 22 of I put it because of trespassing, and that runs 23 along the right of way. There is no fence 24 between. We have all the phragmites. 25 MS. FERGUS: It's a wetland. 51 1 2 MR. LANE: We got to clear the phragmites 3 to put the French drain in, and our phragmites, 4 which were supposedly not touched are going to 5 shield them. It's going to give them the buffer 6 or whatever you want to call it. So actually, 7 they're not doing anything, they're just taking 8 all of their property and using it, and using our 9 property as their buffer. Let me just say 10 something. I had a conversation with Bruce one 11 time when we were standing there, and we were 12 going through this permit process, his 13 credibility I'm sorry, is in the gutter. He 14 turned around to me and he said -- 15 MS. LANE: No, you can't do this. 16 MR. LANE: I will do this. 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Uh-uh. 18 MR. LANE: He said to me, if you want to 1 g clear anything, because he made statements about 20 what we have been clearing or what have you, if 21 you want to clear anything, do it now. 22 MR. ANDERSON: I deny that. 23 MR. FERGUS: He did not say that. 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don't want to hear 25 personal stuff, please, please, nothing. Stick to 52 2 the facts. 3 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I ask you a 4 question? Are you saying that somewhere in our 5 code it requires a buffer between your property 6 and his? 7 MR. LANE: No, what I'm saying is you can 8 put all the French drains you want, and I'm not a 9 water scientist, but water is going to run to the 10 lowest point. if you put in 150 cubic yards of 11 fill and where is the excavation for the basement 12 going? And where is the excavation for the rock? 13 On the surveys their survey and our survey, 14 together, it shows an eight foot elevation on both 15 sides. -- No, actually on our side it shows eight 16 foot, and on their side it shows 8.6. How 17 could the surveyors have been so screwed up, they 18 have the boundary lines different and the high 19 water mark. We could remedy that. There's an 20 area where we have an indication on the survey 21 that shows from the Volkavich property where the 22 line is. So it's not susceptible to erosion. 23 They could be showing where that true boundary 24 line is. We think it's a floating boundary iine 25 because we have three different numbers where it 53 2 is on three different surveys. 3 MS. LANE: Yes, and is it was pointed out 4 that it's a matter of interpretation for 5 surveyors. So maybe our surveyor got something 6 different. 7 MR. LANE: If you take anyone of those 8 numbers and move it back, what's that going to do, 9 we don't know. What is our property and what is 10 their? 11 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm concerned about 12 you said something about a 50 foot buffer. 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That's from the 14 wetlands. 15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: All the way the 16 French, on the waterfront. 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: On the waterfront. 18 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Not on your 19 property. You're concerned about their French 20 drain taking away your buffer? 21 MR. LANE: No, no. My point being, if all 22 the people who are paid to do this are wrong, 23 where is the water going to go? If you have clay 24 at four feet, and you have lateral water movement, 25 that's the only way it could go, where does it end 54 1 2 up? We're on slabs. It's going to end up in our 3 house. It's going to end up -- 4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: In the creek. 5 MR. LANE: We're saying, there's a problem 6 that you can't just change. It's part of the 7 system. Maybe if they're going to tear up all the 8 subsurface and take away all the clay and put in 9 sand, you're still going to have the water table. 10 They can't change that. You've got a problem in 11 the area and they're going to exacerbate that. 12 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I have to say that 13 that our intent here is to really do the best job 14 we possibly can to respect the rights of property 15 owners, both neighbors and builders, and those who 16 want on build, development by right can happen, 17 but we want to make sure that it happens in the 18 most responsible way possible, and I'm sure that's 19 what everyone wants. You don't want a flooded 20 basement if you can avoid it. 21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: He doesn't have 22 a basement, he lives on a slab. 23 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You don't want a 24 flooded house, and I for one want to make sure 25 that when I sit down to deliberate with my 55 2 colleagues I have benefit of as much information 3 as possible so we can make the most informed 4 judgment for everyone's benefit. That's why I 5 asked about the architectural plans because it did 6 confuse me because even just the set of drawings 7 that we've got here, at one point it says the 8 section calls it out at three car, the floor plan 9 calls it out as two and a half car, you're saying 10 it's a matter of the doors being changed, and I'm 11 saying, much as I guess you're saying, we have 12 lots of information. The Trustees came in and now 13 they said, there's inconsistent information. All 14 I care about -- I realize we are very limited in 15 what you are asking us to do in terms of one 16 simple setback variance, that is why you're before 17 us, but when these issues are raised, I want to be 18 able to sleep at night. I want to be able to say 19 that I've done my job as a public official, the 20 best of my ability to incorporate a total picture, 21 of and to work with other agencies if need be, to 22 make sure that we're all on the same page here. 23 do have a problem with Trustees having one bit of 24 information and we having another bit of 25 information. 56 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And they have another 3 bit of information. 4 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Because there are 5 so many runoff and drainage problems in the whole 6 area, it's not just your piece of property, or 7 your piece of property, all the along there 8 are issues that all of us need to be concerned. 9 just looked at the foundation plan is and in the 10 corners I see called out F D, French 11 drains. There is nothing that shows in the 12 section or in other plans, on the electrical 13 foundation plan, how they're tied into anything. 14 They're noted -- 15 MR. ANDERSON: What do you want us to 16 provide exactly? 17 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Two things. A 18 survey that has consistent information on it. 19 When you go back to the Trustees and you get the 20 change and in grade and so on, that's the survey 21 I'd like to look at in terms of making a final 22 deliberation. 23 MR. ANDERSON: That survey. 24 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Right, I mean, 25 you're going to do it anyway. The other thing 57 2 that I would like to do is see how below grade 3 water in basement areas is going to tie in to 4 about any kind of onsite cistern, dry wells, 5 drain, whatever. I want to see how water 6 management on the site is going to be controlled. 7 Mr. Fischetti can provide it, Mr. Saetta can 8 provide it. 9 MR. ANDERSON: On the sump pumps, is that 10 what you're asking? 11 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The pumps and how 12 the discharge tubes are tied in to create controi 13 of groundwater runoff. You need to understand it 14 as homeowners, as property owners, because I don't 15 want to see what happened to me happen to you. It 16 cost me $10,000 to fix a problem that I didn't 17 create. I moved into a situation that's on solid 18 clay, and I'm at the end of a hill, on the 19 bottom. It's just im portant that people be 20 informed about what they're getting into, that's 21 all 22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Not only that, 23 Leslie, you have to deal with the fact of what 24 it's going into. 25 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's what I 58 1 2 mean. 3 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You can pump 4 anything out, but what is it going into? 5 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's what I want 6 to see. Water discharge is accounted for in the 7 corners of the foundation plan, but not how it 8 will be removed, and where it will wind up. 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Ask you I question, 10 when we have had these extremely high tides -- 11 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes, in a 12 containment system. 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: -- have you ever walked 14 down to the edge of their property; is there any 15 flooding on their property? 16 MS. LANE: There's certainly no sand on 17 their property. It goes right up to the 18 grasses. 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But the tide has not 20 come up over? 21 MS. LANE: Possibly it does, yeah, a 22 little bit. 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Because I'm just seeing 24 the past few years, I'm not saying anything 25 against the Ferguses, but the past few years, we 59 2 have had more and more of these really bad 3 storms. The tide is really coming up. I see it 4 when it comes up, it pushes the whole freshwater 5 lens up, so that the water is bubbling on at the 6 ground. Of course they with the clay, if it comes 7 in under that clay, it's going to come bubbling up 8 too, and there's not much you can do about it, I 9 think they should be aware of it. There are 10 problems with waterfront plots, as nice as they 11 are. 12 MR. LANE: I haven't seen any, we have had 13 heavy downpours. On the surface it's all sand so 14 it goes right through, but we took a water line in 15 there, and yeah, the clay is there. So once it 16 hits the clay, yeah, over time it may permeate 17 through it, but if it's a fast rain, where's it 18 going to go? If you put that interruption in 19 higher than normal, now you've raised the 20 groundwater, you got less places to go, I've seen 21 it where the grass is actually under water. Or 22 where it's soggy under the feet even though it's 23 sand. 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I just want the 25 Ferguses to be aware of these problems that you do 60 1 2 have, and it's very difficult -- 3 MS. LANE: The tide line is definitely 4 getting higher. 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: To mitigate those. 6 MS. LANE: If it's a heavy storm it comes 7 halfway up the path, it never used to do that. 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I know. Global 9 warming. 10 MS. LANE: I've lost about a foot of the 11 eastern side. 12 MR. ANDERSON: Perhaps the Lanes should 13 install drains. They don't have any drainage. 14 MS. LANE: We welcome all suggestions to 15 try and fix the environmental problem. What we're 16 trying to do here is mitigate the impact on the 17 environment. 18 MR. ANDERSON: Are you offering to assist 19 your drainage? 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No. 21 MS. LANE: Possibly. You're welcome to do 22 it. 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA No. 24 MS. LANE: What I would like to say is 25 this LWRP form that I have here, you know, the 61 1 2 argument that's being used as well on the visual 3 aspect is that the proposed dwelling will not 4 impede the line of sight through the subject lot 5 any more than it is impeded now as the said lot is 6 highly vegetated. But he's clearing all that 7 vegetation but most of the vegetation would only 8 be up to the heights of the phragmites and yet the 9 roof height is only 20 something feet. So that 10 beautiful view is impeded. I mean, I'm not saying 11 that he doesn't have the right to build but I'm 12 saying the arguments that are being used. 13 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: I was wondering if 14 we could have a copy of your questions, please. 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Statement and your 16 questions, would be very helpful. 17 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: What did you say, 18 you just did what? 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You said something? 20 MR. ANDERSON: Trees, they're trees. 21 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I didn't hear you. 22 I didn't hear you. I have great empathy. You 23 bought property some time ago, and at the time you 24 have become more and more aware of how development 25 has impacted collectively. You've had it for 62 2 years, you're entitled to -- this has always been 3 declared a building site, and you're entitled to 4 build your home on it. I do have a lot of empathy 5 for you. It's an expensive process to go 6 through. 7 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's time 8 consuming. 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Frustrating. 10 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: But I do hope you 11 understand that this is not about attempting to 12 take away your right to build your house, to make 13 sure that when you do it's in the best interest of 14 all concerned. 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And in the safest way 16 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And the environment 17 too, and for your sake too. 18 MRS. FERGUS: I understand that and as my 19 husband said, we owned this property since 1982. 20 We have never touched a phragm ite on that 21 property, ever. Mr. Tuthill, got permission, like 22 he said, got permission after 11 months to cut a 23 path to our job, and I mean, we have abided by 24 DEC, we have abided by the Town Trustees, I mean, 25 as far as dry wells and things like that, that's 63 2 fine by us, we don't want water any more than the 3 Lanes want water. 4 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The issue is what 5 goes forward. There's no indication, I think that 6 anything that you have done or anybody else has 7 done is defective. It's just a question of where 8 do we go from here. It's a lot easier to be 9 preventive than it is to be corrective. 10 MRS. FERGUS: I agree. That's why we have 11 no problem putting in extra dry wells and sump 12 pumps. 13 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Good. 14 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The point is I 15 don't want to have the Trustees telling you one 16 thing and us telling us another thing, that's 17 unfair to you. We should collaborate, get the 18 same information, make sure we all understand what 19 all the implications are and then make our best 20 decision. I don't want to see anyone feeling like 21 they're confuse, or jerked around, or how come 22 this one says this or that one says that. 23 Sometimes you know you can do everything right and 24 follow everything everybody tells you -- 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And be wrong. 64 2 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And it still 3 doesn't come out as clearly as it should. Our 4 task is to try and make sure it comes out clearly 5 and well. 6 MR. FERGUS: My wife and the architects, 7 the size of the house aside from cutting down the 8 size of the garage, I mean, it would be asking to 9 put the garage at the original size, and push down 10 this for a larger variance, we cut that down, the 11 main portion of the house, I think it's under 12 3,000 square feet, Courtney, I think somebody 13 measured it, which is still a sizable house, 14 granted, we haven't changed anything in terms of 15 the dimension. There was a reference here that 16 something was changed in terms of the house 17 getting bigger and smaller, and bigger and 18 smaller, we haven't changed that. As far as any 19 surveys that you have, they have all been 20 certified by the local surveyor. 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I know. 22 MR. FERGUS: We did what we had to do. 23 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You just have to 24 understand one thing, Mr. Fergus, sometimes when 25 they're submitted, there are different dates on 65 2 those surveys, and there may be one little thing 3 left off and or one little issue, and when you 4 review them and you lay them all out as this nice 5 lady did in the back, they may not be exactly the 6 same, and those are the problems that you run into 7 with submissions of other agencies, and that's an 8 issue that she's raising, and that's an issue that 9 we have a particular concern about. And not that 10 there's anything -- it may be so diminimus, that 11 it doesn't have a real effect upon anything but we 12 certainly want to be aware of it. If there was a 13 different submission to a different board with 14 some particular issue that we're not dealing with. 15 That's the reason why I asked Bruce regarding the 16 cesspool system, if it was going to be a raised 17 system or a flat system, and that's a concern, 18 why, because your neighbor in the back, doesn't 19 its sediment, they don't want anything moving 20 toward their property, and I don't blame them, I 21 wouldn't either. Those are all issues that we're 22 trying to on deal with here based upon this 23 particular hearing, and I just want you to be 24 aware of that. 25 MR. FERGUS: Where do we go from here? 66 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'd like to make a 3 motion to keep the hearing open until such time 4 that the Trustees have reviewed it and that we 5 have gotten the questions answered from this nice 6 lady to my right out here, and then we will 7 schedule it for another date. 8 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Question, question. 9 What are the answers from this nice lady, quite 10 honestly? 11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We have them in 12 writing. 13 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: She created some 14 questions; am I correct? Now, who is going to 15 give us those answers? 16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We will submit them to 17 Mr. Anderson. 18 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Could you write a 19 letter addressing those? Is that what's going to 20 happen? And then we can review that? 21 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: We'll include them 22 in a letter to him and he'll respond. 23 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm concerned. 24 MR. ANDERSON: I'd be happy to address 25 whatever questions you have. 67 2 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We're closing a 3 hearing -- 4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We're not closing it. 5 We're keeping it open. 6 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: All right. We're 7 leaving a hearing open; where are we going to get 8 those answers from? Who are we going to ask those 9 questions? If you have a question, alii want to 10 know is where you're going to get the answer 11 because you're heaving it open. It doesn't seem 12 to me like you have any place where you're going 13 to go and get the answer. 14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That is the 15 reason why I wanted to discuss that. 16 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: With who? Let's 17 get it on the record, that's all. 18 MR ANDERSON: Here's what I don't 19 understand. 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It's up to 21 Mr. Anderson. 22 MR ANDERSON: We requested a Trustees 23 permit amendment, we will get that permit 24 amendment submitted to you and that will be the 25 survey. That will take care of that. 68 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right. 3 MR. ANDERSON: You have asked that the 4 drainage sump pump design and how it will tie into 5 the drainage to make it provided to you. 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Correct. 7 MR. ANDERSON: That will be provided to 8 you. 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right. 10 MR. ANDERSON: This woman put in a letter 11 which raises questions, I'm happy to take those 12 questions and respond to them. 13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Good, thank 14 you. 15 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So then we're going 16 to talk to counsel next. 17 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right. 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right. 19 MR. ANDERSON: Then you can decide whether 20 you agree with my answers or not. 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sounds good. 22 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I will second that 23 motion. 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor? 25 (All Ayes.) 69 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you all very much 3 for your time, patience, courtesy, et cetera. 4 (Time ended: 3:10 p.m.) 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 70 , !)-I~ I~a'u.~,.. 0Zr fu-t u,-.J- ~~f~ ~:t tt/?,% (. UApiJ Ito' 1~ ~CYv>.- t--trS ~ property angels 140 WAGON WHEEL LANE CUTCHOGUE, NY 11935 PHONE: 63 1 252-5653 FAX 631 734-8176 www.propertyangels.com November 29, 2006 The Zoning Board of Appeals The Town of Southold Southold. NY Statement for the Record of Joanna Lane Owner of adjoining property at 1852 North Bayview Road, Southold, SeTM# 1000-70-12-39.3 - and- Licensed Real Estate Broker on the application by Edward Fergus Before the public for consideration at the hearing of November 30" 2006 I understand that the ZBA is here to consider only one part of this project, a variance for an attached garage pursuant to Article iliA, Section 100-30A.3, and I will address that issue specifically in a moment. At the same time, I am mindful that SEQRA encourages us not to dissect a project, rather to consider it as a whole, and when viewed from that perspective, I ~ troU~ed by what appears to be a lack of thorough review of this project from all.atf ..wt'~gencies. Here's a non-exhaustive list of concerns. 1. SCOPE OF PROJECT: When I compare documentation approved by the - -----Trustees In February With more recent docuri'ientatlonpresentea-fbr this hearing, I find significant differ-onccs and interesting cOAtradiciions. I\s such, I am having some difficulty understanding the nature and extent of the proposed development of what I think we can all agree is an environmentally sensitive area. 2. DISCREPANCIES & CHANGES: The survey approved by the Trustees in February has subsequently been revised four times, in March, May, 1/5 , September and October. Has the ZBA compared the current version with the version approved by the Trustees? A brief review reveals the following list of changes:- - GRADING PLAN - Going back to the beginning, question number 12 on the Trustees EAF asks, "As a result of proposed action will existing permiV approval require modification?" The answer given was "No", yet when I reviewed The Trustee Grading Plan, I see that what was stated as 9ft grading then is now stated as 11ft on the ZBA Grading Plan. So my questions are:- "What is the final grade of this property to be and where will the water run?" also, "What part of the plan addresses the mitigation of water run off onto my property?" and "Has the ZBA compared their EAF with the other EAFs submitted to other agencies?" On our adjoining boundary line, it's roughly 8ft elevation, whereas my neighbor's plan is to build his property up to at least 11ft elevation. To oversimplify the test hole data, it states the first 4ft is sand, and then it's clay, which is tough for water to filter through. I'm sure you've all seen the flood at the entrance to easement in North Bayview after it rains and trust me, it's no different on my driveway. It floods as it is. After the adjoining lot is developed, there will be significantly less land available to absorb the run off and all that additional water is going to go where exactly? How are the drywells going to disperse accumulated water if they are situated in clay? What guarantees can the Town give me that there will be not be a river running through my property as a direct result of the rise in the grading and an awfully big house with inefficient dry wells? Raising the building pan with fill raises significant flooding concerns and this issue needs to be addressed before approval or any construction begins. LOT SIZE: I have compared the submitted surveys with my own records. I have a survey by John Ehlers dated December 2000 which shows the Rear Side Yard lot line as 174.35ft, whereas Peconic Surveyors acting on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Fergus are showing now 182.47ft. How did it grow more than 8ft in 6 years? To add to the confusion, the original subdivision survey dating from circa 1975, shows the rear side lot line as 190ft, with the Fergus's lot as 53,000 sq ft, which is 10,000 sq ft less than what is now being claimed on the current survey. How can that be? If the land has eroded over time since the subdivision was first done, then it would be understandable if lot line had reduced from 190ft to either 182ft or 174ft, but surely there would have then been a commensurate reduction in the square footage of lot over the same period, not an increase of 10,000 sq ft. 2/5 , I could be wrong, but I think there has to be an error factor in one these surveys, but it's not clear which one and this issue also needs further fact finding before a determination can be made. AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED: Addressing the question of exactly how much land is going to be affected by the proposed construction, the Trustees EAF states 0.11 +-/ acres, which by my calculation is 479 sq ft. Perhaps this was a typographical error. It also states a 3.5% lot coverage, so I compared this with Mr. Fergus's Project Description submitted to the Trustees. That states a single family dwelling with a 2,674 sq ft footprint, covered porch of 154 sq ft, wooden deck 700 sq ft, garage 900 sq ft, shed 240 sq ft, which is a total 4,668 sq ft. Put another way, more than double the 3.5% coverage of lot stated on the Trustee Application Data. Compare this with the notes of lot coverage presented to you today in the revised plans, and you will see the lot coverage has now grown to 5,360 sq. ft, so clearly the project has expanded. I do not want to take up any more of the Board's time with issues that may not be directly within it's purview, but respectfully request that a thorough review is undertaken of all submitted documentation to ensure consistency with all affected agencies prior to any final decisions being taken. 3. SELF-CREATED HARDSHIP: The Trustees EAF asks in question 8, "Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions". Answer, "Yes" and a 2,674 sq ft home was envisaged, all of which sounded perfectly reasonable to me at the time it was presented in February, although I wasn't privy to the details. One can't help wondering what hardship has developed in the intervening period to now warrant a variance. Reasonable people could agree that the variance is needed only because plans for the house have outgrown the property. Also, I gave careful consideration to the reasons offered for the area variance as described in Part A of the application and have the following comments. In Paragraph (1) Detriment to nearby properties, and I quote ''The lot line abuts an unbuildable portion of 39.4", which is my lot. With all due respect to my neighbors, and they are certainly entitled to their opinions, it is not their decision to determine what part of my property mayor may not be buildable. Even if they are right, (which I do not accept given the proposal for the subject property), they cannot take the benefit from my property for their own enjoyment, simply because they now have an awfully big house in mind that unfornmately dGesfl't fit tl'leir buiId~eRVelepe aAy f'l'lef&.--- .... Instead of focusing on what portion of my property mayor may not be buildable, let's focus on the subject property and how much of that is buildable. Let's deduct 8,775 sq ft that constitutes the right of way that we both share, add to that the 50ft buffer zone (which has already been reduced from the normal 100ft to allow them to build at all), then there's the driveway 3/5 , needed for ingress and egress to and from the property and garage, plus parking for the residents, their invitees and guess, as well allowing for normal access for emergency vehicles. Is there is enough room for everyone without using the driveway as a parking lot? Frv1C/ p/';It4'< r /iIv -IvvmMrWld :: 4. ADVERSE EFFECTS ON THE PHYSICAL & ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD: As we all know, the ecosystem in Goose Creek is very sensitive, not least because of the Cornell Institute Seed beds, which are very close to my property, and the subject property. For this reason and the abundance of wildlife, flora and fauna, inclUding numerous birds, nesting geese, turtles, horseshoe crabs, clams, prickly cactus, deer, rabbits and so on, we maintain our property in a very natural state. We do not have the kind of water quality problems that is being experienced further into the creek and the water is crystal clear, the best of the North Fork. Maintaining this pristine state is our number 1 priority, and we try to do as little tampering as possible. We may not have a pristine lawn by other's standards, but we do have the pleasure of seeing our family of geese bring their gOSlings twice a day to feed on the wild plants that grow in the Spring within a few feet of the house. In paragraph 4 of Part A, the Fergus's are claiming no adverse affects on the physical and environmental conditions based on their maintenance of the 50 ft buffer (without saying how they propose to do that), as well citing my maintenance of the natural vegetation on my side of the property line as a reason why they don't need to maintain any on the subject lot. Again, this is muddying the waters by taking a benefit of a neighboringJ[.operty and applying it to their own, when the real issue here is d;l~' 'h I, are trirWilling to maintain a 50 ft buffer01s It' e-/IIIT n/M) tiMe of natural vegetation on their own property, on all sides and in accordance with a plan agreed with the Trustees that binds them and their successors in title. Anything less is detrimental to the environment and it's simply nonsense to say that it is not. To not require a veaetative buffer could lead to misunderstandings over the course of many years, a cleared buffer and glowing green lawn leading down to the waterline, all maintained with pesticides running off into the creek. Did I miss the Vegetative Plan in the file, or where is it? -rwls is ndt!;~ ~,'" rnt IYW)ee rei.... 5. DIFFICUL TV IN MEETING THE CODE REQUIREMENRS: I am not unsympathetic to anyone's desire to have an attached garage in the winter, regardless of age, and understand this becomes more of a priority in advancing years. There's no reason in my mind why they could not have the desired attached -{/alageafld-oomply-with the required setbacks if only they were '."'illing to reduce the size of their awfullv large house. Interestingly. when the project was presented at the Trustees hearing back in February, a similar argument was used for a larger than normal footprint for the house, because they wanted to avoid having stairs and keep it as a single story. In the intervening period, the house has grown a full basement with stairs down and sufficient height to finish it off as if it were a second story, as well the garage has a second story with a 9ft 6" ceiling height and picture window 4/5 directly overlooking my property and directly facing my master bedroom window at more or less the same height. Why do storage boxes need a view at the expense of my privacy? Or could it be that the garage is destined to become an accessory apartment over time. The house itself is two dormers short of a 2 story cape and there is no covenant being added to the deed to restrict a second story over time, if not by the Fergus's, by their successors. When looking at the plans for the house, try as I may, I can't envisage this home nestled on the property in a way that respects the wetlands and integrity of the surrounding ecosystem. When I look at the elevations and the floor plans, try as I may, alii can see is a lot that is all but cleared of vegetation cS'L11pletely except for a 50ft wide green lawn at the water's edge leading to a, 7,00cfpYslory cape with accessory apartment, 3,000 sq ft basement and triple car garage, towering maybe 10ft above surrounding vegetation. Finally, I wish to stress that I did not take the decision to speak on this issue lightly and that there is nothing personal in my comments. I wish Mr. and Mrs. Fergus a long and happy retirement and certainly don't want to be the one to spoil it for them by making difficulties unnecessarily. This issue is not about our stewardship of the land for the fleeting moment of time that we will own it, it's about the long term future of Goose Creek and I'm not convinced that the ZBA is on sufficiently solid ground to make a good decision one way or the other on the variance issue without a thorough view of the project, including the fundamental issue of whether the subject property offers the Fergus's what they need for their retirement without destroying the delicate balance in the area that currently exists there today. Thank you for your very time today in hearing my views. 5/5 . . James F. King, President Jill M. Doherty, Vice-President Peggy A. Dickerson Dave Bergen John Holzapfel Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE OFFICE OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES 72 HOURS PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE WORK, TO MAKE AN APPOINTMENT FOR A PRE-CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION. FAILURE TO DO SO SHALL BE CONSIDERED A VIOLATION AND POSSIBLE REVOCATION OF THE PERMIT. INSPECTION SCHEDULE ~ Pre-construction, hay bale line 15t day of construction % constructed v Project complete, compliance inspection. . Board Of SoutholdTown Trustees SOUTHOLD, NEW YO,RK sCTMI17.o-12-39.3 PERMIT NO. ,t>30~ DATE: ...r:.!'J:>...)?..fQ..o6 ISSUED TO...........~?~~~n..F..E.JC;lJ.s........................ ..... ..-...................... .......... J\utf1orilutiott Pursuant to tho provisions of Chapter 615 of the Laws of the State of New York, 1893i and Chapter 404 of the Laws of the . State of New York 1952: and the Southold Town Ordlnonce en- titled-"REGULA TINGANDTHEPLACING OF .QBSrRUCrlQ~S IN AND ON TOWN WATERS AND PUBLIC lANDS ~ndthe REMOVAL OF SAND, GRAVEL OR OTHER MATERIALS..f-iOM LANDS UNDER TOWN WATERSi~~. and in accordance wifh .the Resolution of The Board adopted at a meeting held on .....f.e.p.,...l.5... . 2.o.o.6m. and in consideration of the sum of $...2.5.0...0..0.. .... paid by .E..<i,,":JO.<l..F.".JO. &t1.~..m.....'" . ....................................................... of.m Di."..II.~.~~smm...... N. Y. and subJect to the Terms ond Conditions listed on the reverse side hereof, of Southold Town Trustees authorizes and permits the following: vyeUand Permit to construct a single-family dwelling, covered porch, attached deck, attached garage, sanitary system. and shed, with the condition drywells and gutters are installed to contain the roof run-off, and a line of staked hay bales is installed along the 50' non-disturbance buffer during construction, as all depicted on the survey prepared by John Metzger last revised March 22, 2006. all in accordance with the detoiled specifications as presented in_ . the originotinq opplication. IN WITNESS WHEREOF. The soid Board of Trustees here- by causes its Corf>Orot~ S~ol to be offiJted, and these p~esents to be subscribed by 0 malority of the said Board as of thiS dot.e. . . Peggy Di e,son(Absent) Trwsi... . . . "':- TERMS end CONDI11QNS ne Petmtttcc Edward Fergus. dcllbg at 5 Ijaig Dr., Dix Hills ". N. y:'.. . . . n.. iI!f .", " -.~ t:.:: the coaslderatl.oo (pc the iSso,.~ of che Petmit does ~ .:00 pte$Crlbe to the foI-' 1. That the said Jloud of Trustees .M the Town of Sowhold om rd.~ ll'OOl any and . all clamages, oe da/.ms for ".clamages, of suits ul$ing. cfuecdy or 1adiRGdy as - ~ of any opec- ~p:tfoaned.pu.autO.t:1O..1blq>r.l;(OJt, .~i!>~ pJ4. ~~'!"!I..~~c><bet' ~ ~ . cIelend &t1y and all $UCb sWt(lnl(/.te<lby tIPtd f'atdes. and the said ~ _f$O_ full u.blllty . . wilh te$~ cheteto. tQ-th~plete 'esdusloo of the. &ud of Trasttef of the TO'l'Ill of ~ 2. That this (1etlblt ~"~d loc a pecU>d of . 24' .'IQOS. 'Wbidl. Js ~ to be cbe estimated tlme.ttquiced to o>inplete the 'WOrk loyol\'ed, but should ~ wuraot,~. loe au ~oo .....y he made to the >>oard at a htu 4te: . . . 5. That this Pellllit should be retaloed Iodef'UJildy, or as long as the said Peunlctee wlsbCs '. to . ...oln..ln <<he stcuctuCe or ptQJect loYolved, to provide evldenoe to anyoD<> o:>ooecD<>d that auth. ~oo was orfBioally obtained. 4. That the work loYolved will be IUbJect to the la$pedioa. and appto'tRl ol the Board oc Ia aj:CL1ts, and QOQ-<IOIDp\Jaooe with lhe pcovisions of the orlgl....tl"& application, maybe CRlISl! loe mocauon of this Petmit by """l\llion of the said Board. s. n.u there will be 00 uoreasooable lotedeceooe with ....vlgatloo. as a resolt of the wad< betdn au'dlorlz.ed. 6. That there shall be 00 lotedeceooe wilh the dght of the publk to pass .M repass doag the beach between bJshand low watee ma.r4 . 7. That if future opecatlons of the Town of Soulh9ld ~ die. --'- UJIl/or altendolH ltl. the lQcatlon.olcbe wod< bereloautl>od>~, or 1f.1o the opIoIoo of-6eJloud of n-. die, wod:sba11 cause uorwooable obsttucbot1 to free ....vlgatloo, the II1d Pe-I- ...m be requ&ecI. lIJ.'Otldue oodce, to _ or alter this work oc project herelo stated ~ ~I to the Town. . of SoItthold. . '. . '. . 8. That the said Baud will be DOtifled by the 1'ermltue ot die CaiupWl.....: Of the 'WOrk Ad>.- od%td. 9. That the.l'eanIttee win dIWn all other petmlu and ((IIIMHI';'.diIt mq be required .~ . ..._~I to tbIs perm1t ~ maybe subject to RVo!<e apoa fallare to obcIln -. ~ .' ., . . James F. King, President Jill M. Doherty, Vice-President Peggy A. Dickerson Dave Bergen John Holzapfel Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD February 15, 2006 Mr. Bruce Anderson Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. P.O. Box 2003 Bridgehampton, NY 11932-2003 RE: EDWARD FERGUS 1854 NORTH BAYVIEW RD" SOUTHOLD SCTM#70-12-39.3 Dear Mr. Anderson: The Board of Town Trustees took the following action during its regular meeting held on February 15, 2006 regarding the above matter: WHEREAS, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of EDWARD FERGUS applied to the Southold Town Trustees for a permit under the provisions of Chapter 97 of the Southold Town Code, the Wetland Ordinance of the Town of Southold, application dated December 13, 2005, and, WHEREAS, said application was referred to the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council and to the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program Coordinator for their findings and recommendations, and, WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held by the Town Trustees with respect to said application on February 15, 2006, at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard, and, WHEREAS, the Board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question and the surrounding area, and, WHEREAS, the Board has considered all the testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application, and, 2 . . WHEREAS, the structure complies with the standards set forth in Chapter 97 of the Southold Town Code, WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the project as proposed will not affect the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the town, NOW THEREFORE BE IT, RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees approve the application of EDWARD FERGUS to construct a single-family dwelling, covered porch, attached deck, attached garage, sanitary system, and shed, with the condition drywells and gutters are installed to contain the roof run-off, and a line of staked hay bales is installed along the 50' non- disturbance buffer during construction, as all depicted on the survey prepared by John Metzger last revised March 22, 2006. Permit to construct and complete project will expire two years from the date the permit is signed. Fees must be paid, if applicable, and permit issued within six months of the date of this notification. Inspections are required at a fee of $50.00 per inspection. (See attached schedule.) Fees: $100.00 Very truly yours, Jam" C G< "7 President, Board of Trustees JFK/lms . . James F. King, President Jill M. Doherty, Vice-President Peggy A. Dickerson Dave Bergen John Holzapfel Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: rd..J..u Mol --+..R.J1 guo Please be advised that your application dated Id-/IJ JO~ reviewed by this Board at the regular meeting of t9-11 ~ar. following action was taken: has been and the ( ./') Application Approved (see below) L-) Application Denied (see below) L-) Application Tabled (see below) If your application is approved as noted above, a permit fee is now due. Make check or money order payable to the Southold Town Trustees. The fee is computed below according to the schedule of rates as set forth in Chapter 97 of the Southold Town Code. The following fee must be paid within 90 days or re-application fees will be necessary. COMPUTATION OF PERMIT FEES: __ AvJ.u:u;CL f La n -- 'j-_v..Xlli.Jj / c/J!J.; (J$. (lJJ '>J Iu.t.J DaJ-L lull. _ '-- hCl.4 bo.lt Lt rU L M~t-u.el ~ tJ-f\OJ l rt.DpR c tL6I -..y :J)J__'JJ J?Ct12 k. dI = ~/DO'(J{) TOTAL FEES DUE: $ 100,01) .~ BY: James F. King, President Board of Trustees . . James F. King, President Jill M. Doherty, Vice.President Peggy A. Dickerson Dave Bergen John Holzapfel Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971.0959 Telephone (631) 765.1892 Fax (631) 765.6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Southold Town Board of Trustees Field InspectionlWorksession Report Date/Time: -:2/5/0{, , Name of Applicant: [;dV'lM ICr(;~'lf ~ Name of Agent: J~, fr~ Ii. <!: f-J-' e,. 'No v. I-(-,:J 10 - } ~ J Y P !5c''-1v.e~ h Dc.fJf' .I 70 -(::2. -Jr, 3 Property Location: SCTM# & Street Brief Description of proposed action: Typ,;: of area to be impacted: 'kSaltwater W etland _Freshwater Wetland _Sound Front _Bay Front Distance of proposed work to edge of above: ~fTown Code proposed work falls under: _Chap!.97 _Chap!. 37 _other Type of Application: ~tland _Coastal Erosion _Amendment _Administrative _Emergency Info needed: LiJ'C-II,;-,h wW.I 5ic:klh ,n, .J~ , i\ti<.UC * :J. - S,: !\D' ~ /, i? v.-{ ',..ut- I I ,'<..t L..J, Modifications: Conditions: h'-1fkr Present Were: ~.King _J.Dohertyl/i..Dickerson _D. Bergen0Holzapfel c/Other: fk .,flv., (l.",u~ MailedIFaxed to: Date: I . . . . I ~ , d , 0 .... .... . .11.-; - <~ '~l::~"- JOiu J" ""~.,:>S N ". '''~ ,- ,1f\1 _ !-:.:~ : .... .....u ~"i.'f'~'"~'~ '",,;Jl,_ "".' '~.. 8"" ~."" " 'I ~'''i~ .' ',' '11".. "~8' 'tj. '~'''' .. -;r,=i , 0 ' ;or. . u,,,~~, z..,. '?~;,E~ ".,;:c. "Jr""lI'" "'Ii . ~,;~", '-, ~ .. , ..' _ --~- ,t ~j.......- ,~..c . '~. 1" ".'~;~"'..~" r"~'i, 'I j.' ';"1,;1~' }f!!~; , " , ~;~. .. : ~~:,~ - - . "f- ',':~ nf1;:~: . . Dec.14, 2005 Field Inspection. . r- ~'^( . . . . - . ---=- KANK A. KUJAWSKI, JR., President ALBERT J. KRUPSKI, JR., Vice-President JOHN M. BREDEMEYER, III JOHN L. BEDNOSKI, JR. . HENRY P. SMITH . BOARD OF TOWN TRlISTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 October 16, 1989 En Consultants 1329 North Sea Road Southampton, N.Y. 11968 RE: SCTM 1000-70-12-39.3 Dear Mr. Haje: The Trustees reviewed your application submitted on behalf of Edward Fergus to construct a single family dwelling with associated sanitary system, deck and pool outside of 75' from wetlands on property located on Goose Creek, Southold, NY. After an on site inspection by the Board of Trustees it was determined that this project is out of Trustees jurisdiction. All other approvals that may be applicable should be secured prior to the commencement of the project. FAK:jas cc: Bldg. Dept. file C-i<!. Very truly yours, , ~;!. ~~4)<- , Fran~ A. Kujawski, Jr. ~ PresJ.dent Board of Town Trust~es OCT TELEPHONE (516) 765-1892 ~l l!t<f. = i '- I=- ..1.. ~. - ....~....:- _. 'l~ :~ b- - ... ;=:; F' ." X l.l. I- 0 -" <( w J: .1' i;f' n' / (, / hc../ ~)., j J] , ::~: / , "'.' ijA. '-,':'" -.-..-----....---- ~, "'.' ~ 1 ~: OJ 1:"j(,; ;r,:<: "':"-:":',~\L.::. ...-';'~T -.-.._-- .... ..' .' . I .. I 'IN .J '\: [ .: 'Q't m w f'J -" r 0 ,-j J: I;; Q w w I- ," " ~ '. - VI .... _..... 2 .... ...,i n' ':'t l.'I 01, iiI IS.! );P.:l; 2' ,"'j /.', .~ 1 Z,::t ,.') l"'\f\ IJlj:11...., _',f, ""'&"'1' -<~'Ur:) >,. . IJQ. (.I:J 1/ ,Vl1rl'i!n! <..;. '1:":~"1i I~~li!.'~' !.i;i:ililthl/I:'~:I-!, ~ ~r"~H.{'~ ,,~ w c ~ IZ~~. '(lil r iq 'r . f' ~, r r ~~.~~~~111l _ t, , ._----------~ ~--_..- 1..-... '---..._____../_.. --.~-_._--- II " i ..i"'! I ~ i[,'f.1 i~ i )"', t ~ x: ItUi ~ l,gN;! !S" II:~ cr! .. 1L:I'i I~ m! J ~ it: f :Iil"[~, · ~u:J . I..: lu ,J 1II tn, ~'~. \:' ..J._ It w > I... ~ 0 0: o > tit/j lr. 0 ~ ~ 8 w '0 l.l. It.z I- vi g= i." 0 __ Zm ~ tHo 4;" . a: JJ: III ii? 'n U Q J:" '1_ ____,,____..__ ---------... - .1 '. , ~L~\ , .;;:\, I ""y'.~,:,i / '~' I /' "~,-I _.I ./" .t<'l'l ,., .-/ \ / y.,.;! \J '+/ ! \,I~, \\ ~ If) ~ ~?f) (. \~\\\:\ \ ,?'(, . ; ,-\ '! "'~'< "-:'>\.\ \ /"r., '\ :~~ 0! " '. op.v ,~,.' . ." \ " ' -,~ '. "l<i,-/J" ,.' t,'] ., '. ), . _.W ..r to ~ '>\>;~ .> - '~~,- a\ n ~;;:I\. .1] 1 :\.1';\ 'i~' -r,\\ lli . ',.' I-,~,i '" \ \ " U1 \'. '^ \':1\\ tn~" 1I ., , "'{' (j l~, (}, '" 1)-: :',1 ~ \ ,'. ,.,. ,\ I, '" c;: , \, .; i ":~~ ~-':~" .'~;~.J::' b- J,,;, 'i". ~.. 'Y'" " , .-;j:;:';,; ',';'-' "-!'~ l' . ;',,' .::' · ; J ) j . .!) , ':'!J ',; ~...' ~., j/ ,')11. ,.j/ /.. f'--- ': II.. ~', i r" ,~ "~ ,< ~.. . ,I;" '(~"r .':", ! rl' '/~}'~ I .:>,~'i 1'-';"0::/ 4 , '(~ :~ r",,,./ "", . <--'''~:'r t\i, /-:.~.:;- ~'-: I - '" ~. ,'I .IX' -I ..{,J vs> r. -."'J V t' ,', :-' ~'l :' '.l ~:\ 1'\ i :r ~.~ ) ?, \' , . 'Cl'r " \{' "'1 .,' , \ , ',' ......... ", :' .c, , ." -~'...- J >1 ':;'/_:\ , r1\, ?:, G) u ? 'j. \~ ,. ,y .' , ,',. " '>(> rr.' '0' , ") f.t' ., :~:14 f'la.;....,l. r": .W' ~I~ i '1'1::t ..'~. "'"'Ii Z}.: '" (}J~I IU.-). <~IQ:: i'<li~,...i '0;OI.~ L.,tt:: [;\j ~?I ~': t,F t,: ( ~ ~ ,.. iJ,' \1;j " , ,. c' .. [1 I) .. f ~"l, "I ~' ;""'~.I. 'I 'l't IT-j l'i..".1 ~I ' ,,,,., \ .i'c,. '1:1::; " [j):, \ ': I J ' :L1 :i;< ,~~/ /' ~', ~ ,I. '.'. /1 .) } '::, ! ' , .L' 'lI' j : n'''i- "11 ' iJ t 11 } j;.:~j ,~, f ',';:!I I .'.'!_J;~ :'J, '.t. , =,-=-1) II ~ 1: Ill", "'", 00 ~> >iI: "'w ;>z III o z 0(... ~o: s~ III " 2:", "'w Va: :;~ ., ~ o i iQ [' , , .~ ~o " /~ , ~"" / I ~~. ~ r,% , .Ifff'. i 7" '~>:,:::'/'9i ~. /:'r,;,.. "'::';i ~f l '0 39 ,. \ is ~ ijat:;; ~ 'as ;: led ~ Ie SL " 115 sh ),Tuyl lons , l!plac' 1~ Q,f; .. .. istur. life !d by t in befe ) . . Telephone (631) 765-1892 Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL TOWN OF SOUTHOLD At the meeting of the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council held Wed., January 11, 2006, the following recommendation was made: Moved by Don Wilder, seconded by Jennifer Mannino, it was RESOLVED to recommend to,the Southold Town Board of Trustees APPROVAL WITH A CONDITION of the Wetland Permit application of EDWARD FERGUS construct a single-family dwelling, covered porch, attached deck, attached garage, sanitary system, and shed. Located: 1854 North Bayview Rd., Southold. SCTM#70-12-39.3 The CAC recommends Approval of the application with the Condition of a 50' non- disturbance buffer from the edge of the wetlands and drywells and gutters are installed to contain the run-off. Vote of Council: Ayes: All Motion Carried . . FRANK A. KUJAWSKI, JR., President ALBERT J. KRUPSKI, JR., Vice-President JOHN M. BREDEMEYER, III JOHN L. BEDNOSKI, JR. HENRY P. SMITH TELEPHONE (516) 765-1892 JAN " 2005 BOARD OF TOWN TRlISTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road PO Box 728 Southo!d, New Yark 11971 October 16, 1989 En Consultants 1329 North Sea Road Southampton, N.Y. 11968 RE: SCTM 1000-70-12-39.3 Dear Mr. Haje: The Trustees reviewed your application submitted on behalf of Edward Fergus to construct a single family dwelling with associated sanitary system, deck and pool outside of 75' from wetlands on property located on Goose Creek, Southold, NY. After an on site inspection by the Board of Trustees it was determined that this project is out of Trustees jurisdiction. All other approvals that may be applicable should be secured prior to the commencement of the project. Very truly yours, ~;/, ~~h0J- ' Fran~ A. Kujawski, Jr. ~ presldent Board of Town Trustees FAK:jas cc: Bldg. Dept. file c.,e .~ OCT . . Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. Newman Village, Suite E, 2322 Main Street, P.O. Box 2003, Bridgehampton, New York 11932-2003 (631) 537-5160 Fax: (631) 537-5291 Bruce Audersou. M.S., President January 11'" 2006 Mr. James King, President Southold Town Trustees Town Hall P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Situate: SCTM#: Fergus Application Nortb Bayview Road; Town of Sontbold, NY 1000-70-12 -39.3 Dear Mr. King, As you know, this Firm represents Mr. Fergus who is seeking approval from your Board to construct a single family dwelling with related appurtenances thereon. It has come to our attention that the Southold Town Board of Trustees has made a previous ruling concerning this matter. Please find enclosed herewith: Letter of Non-jurisdiction from then Trustee President Frank J. Kujawski, Jr. dated October 16th, 1989. Kindly review the enclosed item and add it to your files. If you have any questions, or require additional information please feel free to contact this office at any time. Thank you in advance for your attention and consideration. ~;j}. ---- William J. Lohn encl. cc: E. Fergus JAN i L 2006 .'. Fergus Property Situate: North Bayview Road; Town of Southold, NY SCTM #: 1000-70-12-39.3 Proposed Construction Access Route _N . . Fergus Property Situate: North Bayview Road; Town of Southold, NY SCTM #: 1000-70-12-39.3 Proposed Construction Access Route N , ) 0 r,,,.. '.. \1.. ,,"~I}' ~ ./, r,~';:' ", i. ), 4~,~~,~~:c;:f\ ,I '. ~ \~J/,.1..", il~ ~II ! "', '-., '...._~.'~ .,'.'. ',C-" 4.", ., 7 """ .~..",' '. <<', ., ' "."q(J/("',"\ '\1 . , " --''4' " , ~", '---,'1 l" "\' , '" .' "@ ,0 ''.''''t,'~ 'i, ',':j', '0",i It~, '., J .,', " '\ ',"'j '1 " ' , I " '. .'. '.., , I ,., . " ",. , " .." . , , I " ~' , \, . " ';;'1 ~ 1! ','" 'i'. 'i "-.; ~ ~ I =-'! ., I "" " ...;) . " ", ~ .' " . ., " 9. '- I ~ ,; , "'. 0 ,', '. " , < ~!}\ I:;! ::s;:, ~ilt::;L:l~~, (,;'""',, .'<.:c',,;. ',:.\ '" ';::: '/~~ll,~',,\ WI' ' '. '~}"'li',,,, '( ",\ '<~ . "" ' "'\., ",! ~ ... '" ~~ ~ ~ "-. QoI, '", ~ . t ~. >l ~ '-f ' 'V" I ' i,.,""., .f ,', ,i; .',', "~"li 'i~, ." ..' , . , ' "'. ' . \ ''', ',', " ,. ' .. 'I' . , C"", " . " ..... /.;~.~~; 'V \ ',~ '~, ...~'-' Y'r"'~' " . '" ''(f~.~_\,,, ," >,,'" ",' " - "~" (T:'~ ", 'I " II, " "":~ ~ .~ '" ~ 'l'. II ~~ vii ' , , " . , '\ ,. ~~' '~ !l~ ~~. "C, e, """.. " .. ," ',,_~ ,'" ;N" - ',.. _ _., . , . .,n." ' '. <.- -, "~',:,. "',,:, ...' :', 'L", "'i .,.., "'J" . .', ,'. C.,." _._ I, , " .,. , ., \C 'c'. "',.. ~ . ~,~', 'ff):.' , ,-" ,,,, " " ,"" '~', 'II .; ii.;, ':k;'~ ", ,;;"";>,";, ,". :~: .";n:i;!~: Ii; , ,;\" !,'.-I;,' ',' ',,,, .,le "~{\' '."~'J:; ~ iii" ;~ ,~' ~: "\ ,,~ '\'i~'~ " ~'~,::.~ ':~~' ~r&1 ;:111 j' . 'f> '~', 1,.om- C",.\ ,\'1~/,~ ,111 de . t' ~ 6,' . "l' ,,'" h', '\o.~":r'.' NJ M,,, It:(" , ,.", ! P-" 'm' , '~ N" , --;c1 .' , "', ' ., .....,!.." c. .." "".' . " " ,'. .,' ~". d \;!~, .. ,,:, EffiH-'".''' '" ',..' "'1 '. "" ~"""" ~ , , " " .' .'-, ,,', '. '" ';',,,/~. 'I' J r" '\', ".:] ',~ '~,1..;,:; ;';.J.Ir,n lPl' ~ &.' . y , , .j \"" , ,'1 ,I '1,: '. "-'f\ " #<',', " '". ,," I " " ,.."C'" ,',' L','., " ti '.'" ~"''\':..:-~'.'..'"..'~', I;: . ''@.~ '-,j,,~ ~~ ~"", ""1,, ~" ,.,!':. III 'j =.. ~ ", ~li>h"" " ~ -:l~ J/"", ~"'f.""",,,,,., i,ll' 'I' j. (!c'., , , , ", . 1 :;. ~~~ IL", u" '~~ ~.;-, "::1;-. ':: ,l~;, .~ ~ 1 ~ I ': ,,',', " " "" h;..., ..L :', , I., !I 'i., I" k, -,' ;";j; "'J.. '...... ,,' · , , ,.', ,...P . ,. ',. ":, "J' , i! , .;. F:' ,'LJ ";"' . , ,".,'" ,", 'I ~',:.-\ l.j,Y h P:f, @ '" 1.,.,r"'M ,., ' ~ .. . , . ';'.J.: ., 11 ' " H "j',"r.j.,., d ~~? . ,bJ1:f.1 '~ r Jt-'i ~::~~l~H; ,,-' . 'III:: I ' . 1.' _ c .,,( .,. .It-.J'\,\ ,\ , ~" .. .r;,:t:.!. ~ : \ ~'I' T ~\: ",1\'" ;" e J.... ,:: . '." CJ.,: '" '''1 ':'" , '. '", '6 "~l;' m, ,...., ., " S '. "I .21' ~W; I;;'; ~ -h. ::IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlIII'11I1111 !iIIIIL'" 'O""!,,';;;,, I! II UlIIIIIIIIILUIIUllITIIIIIIIIILL LU 1!1':'lil':~Ii:!I~:;!IIIII!I!I!IiIlliI;:!I!lllllllllllll L111fI"" 00. . ! I I Ii I' I I I . . Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. Newman Village, Suite E, 2322 Main Street, P.O. Box 2003, Bridgehampton, New York 11932-2003 (631) 537-5160 Bruce Anderson, M.S., President Fax: (631) 537-5291 March 27, 2006 Mr. James King, President Southold Town Trustees Town Hall P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 MAR 2 8 2006 Re: Situate: SCTM#: Fergus Application North Bayview Road; Town of Sonthold, NY 1000 - 70 - 12 - 39.3 Dear Mr. King, As you know, this Firm represents Mr. Fergus who is seeking approval from your Board to construct a single family dwelling with related appurtenances thereon. In order to finalize said approval, amended surveys and a final inspection fee are required. To that end, please find enclosed herewith: 1) Amended Survey of subject parcel prepared by Peconic Surveyors last dated March 22"", 2006 showing proposed drywells and staked hay bales; 2) Check in the amount of $1 00.00 to cover the requisite fee. Kindly review the enclosed survey and forward the requested approval directly to this office at your earliest opportunity. If you have any questions or require additional information, please feel free to contact me. Thank you as always for your attention and consideration. Sincerely, c ,/p --.. ~ William J. Lohn encl. cc: E. Fergus . . Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. Newman Village, Suite E, 2322 Main Street, P.O. Box 2003, Bridgehampton, New York 11932-2003 (631) 537-5160 Bruce Anderson, M.S., President Fax: (631) 537-5291 March 24, 2006 Mr. James King, President Southold Town Trustees Town Hall P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 MAR 2 7 2006 Re: Situate: SCTM#: Fergus Applicatiou North Bayview Road; Town of Southold, NY 1000 - 70 - 12 - 39.3 Dear Mr. King, As you know, this Firm represents Mr. Fergus who has received approval for improvements to the property referenced above. Accordingly, please find enclosed the a check payable to your order to cover requisite fees. Should you have any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to contact this office at any time. Thank you in advance for your attention and consideration. Sincerely, O~- I{ y--? Diane K. Wassick encl. cc: E. Fergus ILG BOARD MEMO'., JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE Chair . MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Sauthald, NY 1197I KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN H. SIDOR GEORGE D. SOLOMON JOSEPH L. TOWNSEND OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Sauthald, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD To: Town of South old Board of Trustees From: Mark Terry, Senior Environmental Planner L WRP Coordinator ,.... . ~ 1- '.: , L"Li Date: February 8, 2006 Re: Proposed Wetland Permit for Edward Fergus SCTM#1000-70.-12-39.3 EDWARD FERGUS requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling, covered porch, attached deck, attached garage, sanitary system, and shed. Located: 1854 North Bayview Rd., Southold. SCTM#70-12-39.3 The proposed action has been reviewed to Chapter 95, Waterfront Consistency Review of the Town of South old Town Code and the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) Policy Standards. Based upon the information provided on the L WRP Consistency Assessment Form submitted to this department, as well as the records available to me, it is my recommendation that the proposed action is INCONSISTENT with the denoted following Policy Standards and therefore is INCONSISTENT with the LWRP. Policy 6 Protect and restore the quality and function of the Town of Sonthold ecosystem. 6.3 Protect and restore tidal and freshwater wetlands. A. Comply with statutory and regulatory requirements of the Southold Town Board of Trustees laws and regulations for all Andros Patent and other lands under their jurisdiction 1. Comply with Trustee regulations and recommendations as set forth in Trustee permit conditions. The proposed setback from the wetland svstem is 77 feet: a minimum separation distance of 100' is reQuired pursuant to Chapter 97. Please reQuire that the applicant amend the application to meet the above policv to the ereatest extent possible. Additionallv. if the action is approved and to further Policv 5: Protect and Improve Water Ouality in the Town of South old 1. ReQuire erosion and sediment controls (havbales. silt fendne) to protect the wetland system to the north of the property. , . . 2. Require native disease-resistant and droueht-tolerant landscapine to minimize irrieation and fertilizer applications. 3. Require eutters, downspouts and sub-surface drvweIls to control stormwater runoff. Pursuant to Chapter 95, the Board of Trustees shall consider this recommendation in preparing its written determination r\)garding the consistency of the proposed action. . . Albert J. Krupski, President Peggy A. Dickerson, Vice President James F. King Kenneth D. Poliwoda Arthur P. Foster Town Hall 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1892 Fax (516) 765-1823 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Office Use only Coastal Erosion Permit Application X Wetland Permit Application Grandfather Permit Application Waiver/Amendment/Changes / Received Application: I ;}JI3/0 ~ .....-Received Fee: $ a~" -./" Completed Application 1~11140' Incomplete SEQRA Classification: Type I Type II Unlisted n,.-:f' . - l,j . Coordination: (date sent) .-CAC Referral Sent:~ ..,,-Date of Inspection: I/"bld Receipt of CAC Report: Lead Agency Determination: Technical Review: .,....-public Hearing Held: !JJ1/DiJ Rpsolution: L tUep ..- Name of Applicant: Edward Fergus Address 5 Haig Drive Dix Hills, NY 11746-6104 Phone Number(631) 940-5726 Suffolk County Tax Map Number: 1000-70-12-39.3 Property Location: North Bayview Road; Town of Southold (see (provide LILCO Pole #, distance to cross streets, and location) cor()\ . ~~\ \r\o-~\) location map) . AGENT: Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. . . Address: P.O. Box 2003 Bridqehampton, NY 11932 Phone Number: (516) 537-5160 Fax: #(516) 537-5291 Board of Trustees Application GENERAL DATA Land Area ( in square feet) : 63,302 ft2 Area Zoning: R-40 Previous use of property: Vacant Intended use of property: Single Family Dwelling Prior permits/approvals for site improvements: Agency Date NYS DEC Pending SCDHS pendinq 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) See attached prolect desciption. 2 p~~ ~ Fergus SCTM#: 1000-70-12-39.3 ApPLICANT PROPOSES TO: 1) CONSTRUCT A ONE STORY, 4 BEDROOM SINGLE - FAMILY DWELLING WITH A FOOTPRINT OF :t2674 FT2 AND ATTENDANT SANITARY SYSTEM. 2) CONSTRUCT A:t 14' x 11' COVERED PORCH WHICH WOULD ACT AS THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF PROPOSED DWELLING. 3) CONSTRUCT A :t 70' x 10' WOODEN DECK WHICH WOULD RUN CONTIGUOUS TO THE SOUTHERN SIDE OF THE PROPOSED DWELLING. PLEASE NOTE THAT THE LENGTH OF SAID DECK WOULD BE SPLIT BY THE :t 1 5' x 10' PROTRUSION OF THE PROPOSED DWELLING. 4) CONSTRUCT A 25' x 36' GARAGE WITH 2ND STORY LOFT. PLEASE NOTE THAT SAID GARAGE WOULD BE ATTACHED TO THE EASTERN SIDE OF THE PROPOSED DWELLING. 5) CONSTRUCT A 24' x 10' SHED LOCATED :t30' SOUTHEAST OF THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE PROPOSED DWELLING. . . Board of Trustees Application WETLAND/TRUSTEE LANDS APPLICATION DATA Purpose of the proposed operations: Provision of livable space. Area of wetlands on lot: 2175I square feet Percent coverage of lot: 3.5 ~ o Closest distance between nearest existing structure and upland edge of wetlands: N/A; vacant lot. feet Closest distance between nearest proposed structure and upland edge of wetlands: I77 feet Does the project involve excavation or filling: No X Yes If yes, how much material will be excavated? I7106.67 cubic yards How much material will be filled? 150 cubic yards Depth of which material will be removed or deposited: 8I feet Proposed slope throughout the area of operations: 0 Manner in which material will be removed or deposited: Material will be removed using standard backhoe and shovels. 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): Situate wetland degredation will be minimized by use of siltation fencing and hay bails during construction. 3 . . Board of Trustees Application COASTAL EROSION APPLICATION DATA **N/A** Purpose of Proposed Activity: Are wetlands present within 75 feet of the proposed activity? No Yes If Yes, how much material will be excavated? (cubic yards) How much material will be filled? (cubic yards) Manner in which material will be removed or deposited: Describe the nature and extent of the environmental impacts reasonably anticipated resulting from the implementation of the project as proposed. (Use attachments if necessary) 4 . . Albert J. Krupski, President James King, Vice-President Artie Foster Ken Poliwoda Peggy A. Dickerson Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-~tNYI BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BOARD OF TRUSTEES: TOWN OF SOUTHOLD In the Matter of the Application of ____cs-cJ[_~Cl_1l(J___~~~~~------------------------- COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) STATE OF NEW YORK) AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING I, WILLIAM LOHN ,residing at ?,?? M,,;n ~t Npwm"n Vill"gp ste. E Rrin~gh~mprnn. NV 11q~? being duly sworn, depose and say: That on the 9tl\lay of January 2006, I personally posted the property known as t>lorth BayuieYJ '9oan. Tt""lt..7n o-F SOl1....hnln NV by placing the Board of Trustees official poster where it can easily be seen, and that I have checked to be sure the poster has remained in place for eight days prior to the date of the public hearing. Date of hearing noted thereon to be held Wod. -fan (II(, OlC)')!" ' , on Dl a 6Q.l t '7;CO fJi'1. Dated: c?-tJ;( --) ~ ( signature) /'31'0rn to before me this 115"" day 02t; _ 200 0 & ~ Matthew D. Ivans Notary Public ot New York No. 011V6053859 O,t:l:f:~r' in S!,Halk County COl1lrrJlSSIOil blJi1t:t, JdJlua;y ':::2, 206] ." . . PROOF OF MAILING OF NOTICE ATTACH CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPTS Name: Address: STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK DIANE K. WASSICK-Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., residing at 2322 Main Street; Newman Village, Suite E; Bridgehampton, NY 11932 , being duly sworn deposes and says that on the 9TH day of JANUARY, 2006, 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 Bridgehampton, that said Notices were mailed to each of said persons by (certified) (registered) mail. ~{j~ ((. 3;;.-J DI E K. WASSICK before me this 200 {, 9f( Matthew D. Ivans Notarv Public of New York r~u ()',,\'(>JS:jt59 Qualified in outtulk County Commission Expires January 22, 2l1l1 6 . :..0 ':r .", ru U.S. Postal Service", CERTIFIED MAIL" RECEIPT (Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided) " ," , I so(}Tllot11i tlY 11971 ,_...J Postage . 0.39 'mi~_~ -_.--- Certified Fee 2.40 '.</ ~ ,. ( po~if,(Jik Z. Return ReceIpt Fee 1.85 i' - \ litera ...( (Endorsement Required) m't: kW5KQ/ ,;' , Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) >'. ,! ,. "-,' " ,', 4.64 O1IQ92u6 / Total Postage & Fees $ .tr tr ,Ul :0 M o o o o tr rn o Ul CI en!of) . o s..n"A...n.!::7YJI<'.tW7ifcnl{L~JJ'Cj L.L ['- ~~~~!{~~:;___fd_~.n______.{.fjQ_7_._--------_._--_.__.. City, 5tate?ZIP+~ ? o ..0 '" ru tr tr Ul o U.S. Postal Service", CERTIFIED MAIL", RECEIPT (Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage ProvIded) sollTAOLll, Iff 11971 OOIT m: 0932 ;,:.~ <.'z- , . j ..~. 0.39 Postage $ M o c:J Return Receipt Fee a (Endorsement Required) 2.40 Certified Fee Postmflrk HefQ ~---------_._.- 1.85 \ C~erk: KBl1:iI(Q o Restricted Delivery Fee [J"'" (EndorsemenlRequiredl rn o $ 4.64 01l09!06 Tolal Postage & Fee!! :11 . U.S. Postal Service,,, CERTIFIED MAIL.. RECEIPT (Domestic Mall Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided) f'- f'- ~ t:::~;=:"~H"~:~;'H'. ",r"""'" ..""."...." Ul -- 0 postAge . M Certified Fee 0 0 Return Receipt Fee 0 (Endorsement Required) 0 Reslrlcted Delivery Fee tr (Endorsement Required) rn 0 Tolal Postage & Fees $ 0.3Q 2.40 1.85 .J 4.64 Ul o ent 0 ~ Sii..,_/::Jfo.;___..ZMtx:v.Jf:._-_._~_..n..__..n._n..n.___... ~iI7S~:'~~;~'4:.y~--~:~t.L;;~-;".JI!"_._---- U.S. Postal Service". CERTIFIED MAIL.. RECEIPT (Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided) rn Ul '" ru 0- r:r.rIOr:lhj~...ml'I.,I,U"II~:i.':,f,~..I::t..,,,;mI~' , . . '::":',,~t.~.... 01", tr l_ GARDENCn'f, 'Nt 11530 i " .' . Ul o Postllge $ 0.39 M o o o Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Certified Fee o Reslricted Delivery Fee a- (EmJors€!menl Rpquired) lTl o Total PO!:ltaQc & Fees $ J 2.40 I.B5 UNIT Ylt'r~~! ;:;;. :/:.;~:~:.~J;r; O--r,. i ; Hllre ',' ;z cierkl. K~Q -< "-. <;'. .:- 01/0"!06 ;-..' :,<' ~ ~'. ,.-'/ 4.64 Ul o Salltra ~ r;:;~tf,L~t:f~~:l:~!!:-~~~r-:::::=:::::::::::::---: ( NJ30 . . Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. Newman Village, Suite E, 2322 Main Street, P.O. Box 2003, Bridgehampton, New York 11932-2003 (631) 537-5160 Fax: (631) 537-5291 Bruce Anderson, M.S., President January 11,2006 Mr. Albert 1. Krupski, President Southold Town Hall P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Situate: FERGUS Property North Bayview Road Town of Southold, New York 1000-70-12 - 39.3 SCTM #: Dear Mr, Krupski, As you know, this Firm represents Mr. Fergus, who is scheduled to appear before your Board at a public hearing on Wednesday, January 18, 2006, therefore enclosed herewith: 1) Original Affidavit of Mailing, notarized on January 9, 2006; and 2) Original Certified Return Receipts, date stamped on January 9,2006. The green return cards will follow as they are returned to us. Please do not hesitate to contact this office if you have any questions or concerns, Very Truly Yours, fl !j>~ Diane K. Wassick J A:ji L 2006 encl. cc: E. Fergus . . Board of Trustees Application County of Suffolk State of New York William J. Lohn BEING DULY SWORN DEPOSES AND AFFIRMS THAT HE/SHE IS THE APPLICANT FOR THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PERMIT(S) AND THAT ALL STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE TRUE TO THE BEST OF HIS/HER KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF, AND THAT ALL WORK WILL BE DONE IN THE MANNER SET FORTH IN THIS APPLICATION AND AS MAY BE APPROVED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF TRUSTEES. THE APPLICANT AGREES TO HOLD THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD AND THE TOWN TRUSTEES HARMLESS AND FREE FROM ANY AND ALL DAMAGES AND CLAIMS ARISING UNDER OR BY VIRTUE OF SAID PERMIT(S), IF GRANTED. IN COMPLETING THIS APPLICATION, I HEREBY AUTHORIZE THE TRUSTEES, THEIR AGENT(S) OR REPRESENTATIVE(S), TO ENTER ONTO MY PROPERTY TO INSPECT THE PREMISES IN CONJUNCTION WITH REVIEW OF THIS APPLICATION. ~. Signature SWORN BEFORE ME THIS A~c +J.. ---;--.. /2 DAY OF -1-tc~t...~. 20 oS-- -------- Matthew D. Ivans Notary Public 01 New Yorll No 011V6053859 Qualilied in SuHolk County Commission Expires January 22, 2ll::17 7 . . OWNER'S ENDORSEMENT (TO BE SIGNED IF APPLICANT IS NOT OWNER) STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) 55: Edward Ferl!:us. being duly sworn, deposes and says; I reside at: 5 Hail!: Drive; Dix Hills, New York 11746-6104 In the County of Suffolk and the state of New York, and I am the (owner in fee) (officer of the Corporation which is owner in fee) of the premises described in the foregoing application and that I have authorized Suffolk Environmental Consultinf' Inc. to make the foregoing application as described herein. ~~I 4J Signature If Corporation, name of corporation and Officer Officer's Title Before me, this ~ day of ~,,< . 'wl3 . \ --:'\ \. ~~..~ r \ ~ >- \ Notary Public 101'.l<.l:S GAIW ' "'ew Va(\( IC Slate 0' " tl01MW PU~; 0~5032730 #', tlo\\<. Cou~ Qualified InSIl 'unust 29, 2Oll6 , 'on <-nlreS" . commlsSI """ . . PROJECT ID NUMBER 617.21 Appendix C State Environmental Quality Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only SEQRA PART 1- PROJECT INFORMATION (To be completed by Applicant or Project sponsor) 1. APPLICANT/SPONSOR 2. PROJECT NAME Suffolk Environmental Consultin ,Inc. FERGUS 3. PROJECT LOCATION: Murrici ali Southold Coun Suffolk 4. PRECISE LOCATION (Street address and road intersections, prominent landmarks, etc. or provide map) North Ba iew Road; Town of South old, New York lease refer to the attached location ma 5. IS PROPOSED ACTION: 1:8:] New D Ex ansion D Modification/alteration 6. DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY: Please refer to the attached project description. 7. AMOUNT OF LAND EFFECTED: Initial! 0.1 He acres Ultimatel 0.11," acres 8. WILL PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER EXISTING LAND USE RESTRICTIONS? 1:8:] Yes D No If No, describe briefly 9. WHAT IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT? I:8:]Residential Dlndustrial DCommercial DAgriculture DParklForest/Open space DOther Describe: sin Ie fami! dwellin s with related a urlenances 10. DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL, OR FUNDING, NOW OR ULTIMA TEL Y FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCY (FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL)? 1:8:] Yes DNo If yes, list agency(s) and permit/approvals NYSDEC; SCDHS 11. DOES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID PERMIT OR APPROVAL? DYes 1:8:] No If yes, list agency(s) and permit/approvals 12. AS A RESULT OF PROPOSED ACTION WILL EXISTING PERMIT/APPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATION? DYes 1:8:] No I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE William J. Lohn- Suffolk Environmental Consultin,. Inc. Date: 12/12105 If the action is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment . . PART 11- ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (To be completed by Agency) I A. DOES ACTION EXCEED ANY TYPE I THRESHOLD IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617.12? tfyes, coordinate the review process and use the FULL EAF. DYes DNo B. WILL ACTION RECEIVE COORDINATED REVIEW AS PROVIDED FOR UNLISTED ACTIONS IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617.67 If No, a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency. DYes DNo C. COULD ACTION RESULT IN ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FOLLOWING: (Answers may be handwritten, iflegibJe) Cl. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? Explain briefly: C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archeological, historical or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character? Explain briefly: C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitat, or threatened or endangered species? Explain briefly: C4. A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or change in use or intensity of use ofland or natural resources? Explain briefly: C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? Explain briefly: C6. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in CI-C5? Explain briefly: C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy)? Explain briefly: D. IS THERE, OR IS THERE LIKELY TO BE, CONTROVERSY RELATED TO POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS' DYes DNo If yes, explain briefly PART III - DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be completed by Agency) INSTRUCTIONS: For each adverse effect identified above, determine whether it is substantial, large, important, or otherwise significant. Each effect should be assessed in connection with its (a) setting (i.e. urban or rural); (b) probability of occurring; (c) duration; (d) irreversibility; (e) geographic scope; and (f) magnitude. Ifnecessary, add attachments or reference supporting materials. Ensure that explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse impacts have been identified and adequately addressed. o Check this box if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY occur. Then proceed directly to the FULL EAF and/or prepare a positive declaration. D 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 AND provide on attachments as necessary, the reasons supporting this determination: Name of Lead Agency Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer Title of Responsible Officer Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Pre parer (if different From responsible officer) Date . . Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. Newman Village, Suite E, 2322 Main Street, P.O. Box 2003, Bridgehampton, New York 11932-2003 (631) 537-5160 Fax: (631) 537-5291 Bruce Anderson, M.S., President December 12th, 2005 Mr. Albert J. Krupski, President Town Hall P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Situate: SCTM #: FERGUS Property NorthBayviewRoad I~~ Town of South old, New York 1000 - 70 - 12 - 39.3 r',"'f' .J Dear Mr. Krupski, This Firm represents Mr. Fergus, owner ofthe above referenced property, who is seeking all required regulatory approval to construct a new single family dwelling with related appurtenances thereon. Accordingly, approval from your Board is required. To that end, please find enclosed herewith: (I) Town of South old Trustees Wetlands Permit Application (original and one [I] copy); (2) Project Description (two [2] copies); (3) Owner's Endorsement (original and one [I] copy); (4) Short Environmental Assessment Form (original and one [I] copy); (5) Local Waterfront Revitalization Program Consistency Assessment Form (two [2] copies); (6) Location Map for easy reference (two [2] copies); (7) Survey of subject property, prepared by Peconic Surveyors, P.C., indicating all proposed structures thereon, last dated November 9th, 2005( one original and one copy); (7) Check made payable to the Town of South old in the amount of$250.00 covering the requisite application fee. By way of this correspondence, and on behalf of Mr. Fergus, 1 request that you commence review of this application and schedule for the next available Board of Trustees meeting for . . permIt Issuance. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, or require additional information, please feel free to contact this office at any time. Thank you as always for your attention and consideration. Sincerely, i/L~ William J. Lohn encl. cc: E. Fergus . . Town of South old LWRP CONSISTENCY ASSESSMENT FORM o ~0 1:3 ~C~~5 A. INSTRUCTIONS J. All applicants for permits. including Town of South old agencies, shall complete this CCAF for proposed actions that are subject to the Town of South old 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 pre parer 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 South old Town). 3. If any question in Section C on this form is answered "yes", then the proposed action may affect the achievement of the LWRP policy standards and conditions contained in the consistency review law. Thus, the action should be analyzed in more detail and, if necessary, modified prior to making a determination that it is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the L WRP policy standards and conditions. If an action cannot be certified as consistent with the L WRP 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 South old'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# 70 --1.L - 39.3 The Application has been submitted to (check appropriate response): Town Board 0 Planning Dept. 0 Building Dept. 0 Board of Trustees ~ 1. Category of Town of South old agency action (check appropriate response): (a) Action undertaken directly by Town agency (e.g. capital construction, planning activity, agency regulation, land transaction) o o ~ (b) Financial assistance (e.g. grant, loan, subsidy) (c) Permit, approval, license, certification: Nature and extent of action: Construct a ,j,52' x 41' sin!!le familv dwellin!! with associated deckin!! and attendant sanitary system. a ,j,25' x 36' attached !!ara!!e and a ,j,10' x 24' shed on subiect parcel (please also refer to the attached proiect description). . . Location of action: North Bavview Road; Town of South old Site acreage: 1.45 acre ~ Present land use: vacant 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: Edward Fen!us (b) Mailing address: 5 Hail! Drive Dix Hills. NY 11746-5160 (c) Telephone number: Area Code (631) 940-5726 (d) Application number, if any: N/A Will the action be directly undertaken, require funding, or approval by a state or federal agency? Yes~ NoD If yes, which state or federal agency? NYSDEC. SCDHS 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 0 No 0 Not Applicable As indicated within Policv 1, "Development that does not reintorce the traditional land use pattern ot the Town ot Southold would result in a loss ot the communitv and landscape character at Southold.", this proiect is a proposal to improve an undeveloped lot with a dwellina and related appurtenances that are common to the surroundina area, which is hiahlv developed. The proposal. as desianed, will not result in adverse effects to the surroundina environment in that it meets all reauired setbacks trom situate wetlands, In addition, all dwellinos in the surroundina area have coexisted harmoniouslv with the environment tor vears. Accordinolv, we believe that this proiect is consistent with this policv. 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 DYes 0 No ~ Not Applicable Policv 2 is not applicable in that subiect lot and the surroundino neiohborhood cannot be deemed a substantial historic and/or archaeolooical resources. 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 5 through 7 for evaluation criteria ~ Yes D No D Not Applicable 4 Subiect proposal will not adverselv impact the visual aualitv ot the surroundina area in that the surroungin area is currentlv comprised of properties improved with sinale-tamilv dwellinas ot similar, it not lamer. size, Th proposed dwell in a will not impede line of siaht throuah subiect lot anv more than it is impeded now as sgig I, is hiahlv veaetated. The reauired clearina of the lot will actuallv increase the amount of visibilitv throu( subiect parcel therebv openina up more of the Town's scenic resources to public view. Therefore, thisQrQPOs, will complv with Policv 3. 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 D No D Not Applicable Subiect proposal will fullv complv with Policv 4 in that the location of the improvements within subiect propertv are to be situated above the eiaht foot 18.0' I elevation contour which will provide ample protection durina a severe storm event. Native veaetation will remain around the periphery of subiect parcel offerina further protection aaainst erosion. Accordinalv, the proposal will not result in anv form of loss of life, structures, and natural resources from floodina and erosion. Anach additional sheets if necessary Policy 5. Protect and improve water quality and supply in the Town of South old. See LWRP Section III - Policies Pages 16 through 21 for evaluation criteria ~ Yes D No D Not Applicable Subiect proposal will complv with Policv 5 in that the propertv will utilize public water, as well as to utilize an efficient sanitary svstem, which will be compliant with the reauirements of the Suffolk Countv Department of Health Seryices. Accordinalv, no adverse impacts to either the water aualitv and/or water supplv of Southold Town are anticipated. 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 L WRP Section III - Policies; Pages 22 . through 32 for evaluation criteria ~ Yes D No D Not Applicable Subiect proposal will complv with POlicv 6 in that the proposed improvements are desianed to meet the environmental auidelines and reauirements of both the Town of South old Board of Trustees and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and conseauentlv, will maintain the intearitv of the surroundina ecosvstem. Anach additional sheets if necessary . . Policy 7. Protect and improve air quality in the Town of Southold. See L WRP Section III - Policies Pages 32 through 34 for evaluation criteria DYes D No 1:8] Not Applicable Subiect proposal is not applicable in that the proposal is simplv to improve subiect propertv with a reasonablv sized sinale familv dwellina with related appurtenances. Accordinalv. this proposal is not applicable with this policv. Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 8. Minimize environmental degradation in Town of South old from solid waste and hazardous substances and wastes. See LWRP Section III - Policies; Pages 34 through 38 for evaluation criteria. DYes D No 1:8] Not Applicable Subiect proposal is not applicable in that the proposal does not involve disposal and/or transportation of solid waste. hazardous waste. toxic pollutants. or petroleum products. Attach additional sheets if necessary 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 South old. See LWRP Section III - Policies; Pages 38 through 46 for evaluation criteria DYes D No 1:8] Not Applicable Subiect proposal is not applicable in that the proposal is not situated within a propertv containina. or havina the potential to contain. public access to coastal waters. public lands and/or public resources within the Town of Southold. Attach additional sheets if necessary WORKING COAST POLICIES Policy 10. Protect South old 's water-dependent uses and promote siting of new water-dependence uses in suitable locations. See LWRP Section III - Policies; Pages 47 through 56 for evaluation criteria DYes D No 1:8] Not Applicable Subiect proposal is not apPlicable in that the proposal does not involve a water-dependent use fi.e. marina. aauaculture. etc...J. Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy ll. 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 DYes D No 1:8] Not Applicable Subiect proposal Is not applicable in that the proposal does not Involve anv form of marine resource manaaement Ii.e. commercial fisheries. recreational fisheries. aauaculture. etc...I. 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. DYes 0 No ~ Not Applicable Subiect proposal is not applicable in that the proposal does not involve aariculturallands li.e. the conversion ot farmland, the establishment and/or maintenance of new coastal aaricultural production, etc",) Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 13. Promote appropriate use and development of energy and mineral resources. See L WRP Section III - Policies; Pages 65 through 68 for evaluation criteria. DYes 0 No ~ Not Applicable Subiect proposal is not applicable in that the proposal does not involve the conservation of eneray resources on a commercial level and/or the promotion of alternative eneray sources, proper maintenance of fuel storaae facilities and/or the extraction of mineral extraction Attach additional sheets if necessary FLOOD ZONE LINES FROM FIRM 36103C0166 G MAY 4, 1998 ELEVA TlONS REFERENCED TO N.G. VD. I am familiar with the STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL AND CONSTRUCTION OF SUBSURFACE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS FOR SINGLE FAMIL Y RESIDENCES and will abide by the conditions set forth therein and on the permit to construct. The location of wells and cesspools shown hereon are from field observations and or from data obtained from others. ANY AL TERA T10N OR ADDITION TO THIS SURVEY IS A 1t10LA T10N OF SECTION 7209 OF THE NEW YORK STA TE EOUCA T10N LA W. EXCEPT AS PER SECTION 7209-SUBOIVlSION 2. ALL CERTlFlCA T10NS HEREON ARE VALID FOR THIS MAP AND COPIES THEREOF ONL Y IF SAID MAP OR COPIES BEAR THE IMPRESSED SEAL OF THE SURVEYOR WHOSE SIGNA TURE APPEARS HEREON. N APPROVED BY BOARD OF TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD DATE 813 /5 c?f: oC; ,Area.. c--I well o-noL :: G5,302"""J.ff- 3~~Z" .3:,~Z 55ft- 5 ~ 94-0 59 (!- Lof cove,....~e.:: 5360 :'''I.pf- /)/0 cpvere>-<:Je = 0:'4,0169,94-0 -::. ;;70 @ ~ d-rywel! AREA=63,302 SQ. FT. TO TIE LINES x =LA TH SET A WETLAND FLAG "~-"'~ ~ qo~~ 0.;>.- S6'6"" JSt :>~ ... ,. v~'., b ~'s;--"" J,z<.<'O';f r:.1Yh Q ~S' .~. V<,<' y./'~.... ~ I L;;-t~>---~ '""i I O.J'W 0 ~ I~ ; ~ I: 3 . "Ol ~2: '< I ~ i:~ ~ I ~ E~ 3! Ilg ~ ~ ~ -i I, r- ~ I "ON ~ unuTY t'!, ~ I POLE ! SURVEY OF PROPERTY AT BA YVIEW TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, N. y: 1000-70-12-39.3 SCALE: 1"-50' FEBRUARY 20. 2004- JANUARY 6. 2005 (Revisions) SEPTEMBER g, 2005 (Loc. wetlonds flogs. ;Va." 9. 2bCS (r(,:vl..)).I"I~) r..b. 2, l.oc~ (~/lo".,..1 1M;') ,410.'-. ~z. 1.00(.. ( '''-do':' tl ~ >-' ) PROPOSED SEWAGE" DISPOSAL SYSTEM [6] LEACHING POOLS WITH 3' SAND COLLAR [1] 1,200 GALLON SEPTIC TANK BOTTOM OF LEACHING POOLS TO BE 2' ABOVE GROUND revise prop. house) ~04.l) 2: ~ ~ ::Q ,,~ ~)> r-... '2: ... Cl ~ ); ;t: 2 J: r- 2: o -I Ol r-.i o . :l!; WA TER ~ ~ STK 1:"'" I\)SET~ ......... ~", ........ 0)> ......... t'!, ~ ......... I: ......... ~ 1\1/0...-1- .......... .......... "-1 ,/-4'-.......... {7..e ....cS........ c: -i'r .......... "70r ........... D~(IJV, <coo ........... G' Itrl?y -i'cvoc ........... PU8(~ -4St.l'- ........... ......., C 11< "".., . ,O,..~", ,......._ "Ire/!, ''T'Usr'' (~\ .h~,.. --........::::.. \. I'~ "'''<:'/1 -,....:;--....::: J: ' ~\ ZON~ x--.......:..::./~>-.... - 9 -.... 'D"'sr" 00.00' \ ~ : /::----.... C<:,..,,, ' \: .!.J ~ c. \ lit,;' (fV-- ~ , ...------__. \ ~ ~, \ ~ I !.k(,-; G:J-...... ;-""'" . - " {?", S\,fKE <:l \' \ '"b /C".f;'I@~"". ~~'c /<::: -'--I .6 (" \SET -'<> '~f"::.. ,E!rc \ L. ) " ' "\ \ VJ)\ ~;p " " \ .. J Pr1c. PIlI \ 'v '\ -,) \ '\}'" CYJ'_ i<-...~j )8-A'" ~~. , \ )\ \ ~ ,,\::Jf;!....j- :-- "7'" '" t"'It. '00, '\ 'cP' ':t- 'A- / ,~ t;, ... 3'.q... I ) . 't' ~ ,. 9,r '" , Vl -:....4.,y.\ ,,\ ~ ... ~l o!.-e, '3':);c;~;t d- \0 ,y./"^f, \. ~ \J ~.,r-f. Prop 3 I q I 0 'v"'!:- /' ~ """ '("'6 "'1'2 ~'''' ~. Vii I 0 It /" ./ ' ".....,., g a eq:: > --t / I 0 A/ ZONE AE ..... >f\"'<_~ ,:c,.,., ) '" - _-- ... / 0 EL. 8 " ~ 'e'" os.s "'~ __0,9 .-' . 10 ~ ........~ q;.~~ ~ "I .... ' e' ,--- .... - --- S - - - - --- " . SUBSURFACE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTfM DESIGN BY: JOSEPH FISCHETTI. PE HOBART ROAD SOUTHOLD, N. Y. 11971 (631) 765-2954 APPROXIMA TfL Y 150 cu. ft. OF FILL REQUIRED. GRADING PLAN 11' n ') (1 1'.':/\11 L. 0 ,..,.,."t' LJ).JO F:F: EL 12'-8- <I ~ APPROval PIPE PROPosm GRADE EL g' ;.. I.E. 7.5' - GROUNDWAT[R n. 2.8' ------------------ TEST HOLE DA TA 1989 [(.8.3' LOAMY SAND 10" MEDIUM TO COARSE SAND SW - - - - 4' SANDY CLA Y GRADING TO CLA 'J'!'Y SAND SC EL2.8' ---- 5.5' WA TER IN CLA l'f'Y SAND SC ---- 8' WA TER IN BROWN BOG OH ---- to' . WA TER IN MEOfU -- - .--. '. .5r....k1'"D l.J,.j~ "', 0\ .....::...~~_........_.'"_~r-- ---- '3' It~yl?y:...~.j -'-~~ 60/./ / /<!'f- ED~ OF ttETLANOS AS Di:L/NEA Tf:D BY SUFFOLK ENVIRONMENTAL CONSUL TING INC. ON .JJL Y 22, ZOO, -c--.' ! F{ECONlC sU (631) 765-502 P. O. BOX 909 1230 TRAVELER STREET SOUTHOLD, N. Y. 11971 04-108 ~ " '. 1\16',,.S' "':.,<,; CibQ Os.", ~~ ", ~ CO N ~ '!. ~~~ ~~ N82'5,J 55~W TI. -- 'E UNE -1---- 41.11' ;<.