HomeMy WebLinkAbout1000-7.-2-9
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Soulhold, New York
11971
SCOTT L. HARRIS
Supervisor
Fax (516) 765-1823
Telephone (516) 765-1800
cr:.
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
Judge Ray Edwards, Councilman
Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner /5
Application of John E. and Judith D. Stripp
Barlow Pond, Fishers Island, SCTM * 1000-07-02-9.
TO:
RE:
DATE:
April 16, 1990
At the request of Kenneth Edwards, Planning Board member,
please review the attached copy of the Health Department's
latest correspondence regarding the above-noted property.
The Planning Board's position has been that it does not
wish lead agency status. Instead, it has opted for coordinating
agency status. The Town Trustees have also opted for
coordinating agency status. However, the Office of Ecology
feels that the Town should be lead agency on this matter.
Ken asked that this matter be brought to your attention for
possible discussion with the Town Board.
If additional information is needed, please do not hesitate
to contact me. I have enclosed a copy of my memo to John
Bredemeyer which will provide useful baCkground information as
to how this matter came into existance.
cc: Kenneth Edwards, Planning Board
Tom Wickham, Chairman, Planning & Zoning Committee
,.,,-~
; ">t.~.c,{l./l~"'.~
'''ri'?>. '
t' 'Wi>, 'l
fj. . !;,
~~ .' :ft
~ ;r",ftJ'
S/Jb'::'~
fl!J
VS
"
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
PATRICK G, HALPIN
SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
DAVID HARRIS. M.D.. M.P.H.
COMMISSIONER
April 10, 1990
Ms. Susan Ackerman
NYSDEC Region 1 - Bldg. #40
SUNY at Stony Brook
Stony Brook, New York 11794
RE: John E. & Judith D. Stripp
SeTHi: 1000-7-2-9
Dear Ms. Ackerman:
with regard to the above-referenced project, our office has
received additional comments from our Bureau of Drinking Water
regarding site plan concerns related to the protection of the
drinking water supply at .Barlow's Pond. These comments are
attached (memo from Paul Ponturo to W. Dawydiak, March 30, 1990)
so that they may be included in the public record of the SEQRA
review process of this project.
We would like to iterate our position that the Town of
Southold has the broadest jurisdiction over this project and, as
such, is the most appropriate candidate to assume lead agency
status. We would appreciate if you would notify us regarding the
Town's official position regarding lead agency status prior to
making a determination of significance on this project.
Thank you for keeping us advised as to the status of this
project. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact
the Of rica of Ecology at 548-3060.
Sincerely yours,
~-a.~~
Walter Dawydiak
Assistant Public Health Engineer
Office of Ecology
cc: Vito Minei, P.E.
Louise Harrison
Stephen Costa, P.E.
Paul Ponturo, P.E.
Charles Lind, SC Planning
Steve Sanford, NYSDEC
John Bredemeyer, Southold Town Trustees
Valerie Scopaz, Southold Town Planning Dept.~
-~- _ ,-
'~! }_jiy, :'
"
"
'--,
COUNTY CENTER
RIVER HEAD, N.Y. 11901
--
COUNTY OF SUFFOL.K
PATRICK G. HAL.PIN
SUFFOL.K COUNTY EXECUTIVE
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
DAVID HARRIS, M.D.. M.P.H.
COMMISSIONER
FROM:
P. Ponturo
-
MEMO TO:
Walter Dawyd'
RE:
March 30, 199
John E. and Judith stripp
SCTH # 1000-7-2-9
DATE:
Per our conversation, at this stage the Bureau has the
following comments:
The Bureau's sole concern regarding this site relates to the
public water supply source of Barlow Pond by the Fishers Island
Water Works Corporation. FIWW is the Island's sole public water
supplier. As it relates to this proposal, evaluation and
mitigation of the following impacts appear necessary:
a- Sewage disposal including impact of system failure (i.e.
overflow) on the Pond.
b- Intended use of cleared but described "undeveloped"
areas with regard to possible turf maintenance
activities, and chemical storage.
c- Swimming pool operational activities such as filter
backwash disposal, chemical storage.
d- Heating oil storage proposal.
The Bureau points out that the Pond should be afforded the
same degree of protection to cesspool discharge as a glacial
public supply well; however the direct movement of an overflow
into the Pond as a receiving body must be addressed as well.
We would appreciate a further clarification of the extent of
Clearing proposed, and wish to be available at any future
meetings.
cc: R. Reynolds
BUREAU OF DRINKING Wit, TER
22:i RABRO DRIVE EAST
HAUPPAUGE. NEW 'rOR'" 11788
l~ llil 34ts-2776
~-----~. .
"
VALERIE SCOPAZ
TOWN PLANNER
'"
" ,-,..."
;i " -. '~,"-;'
.,'; .... .\'.-"'"
- -<H
~ ~:7, \ ,')h H
':"'->;:'" " - .......~cj
;~<~'~~'..',c~=~{;}
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P,O, Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
TELEPHONE
(516) 765,1938
MEMORANDUM
TO:
John Bredemeyer, III
President, Board of Trustees
Valerie Scopaz f~
Town Planner y.
FROM:
RE:
Coordination with Suffolk County Department of
Health Services: Fishers Island
DATE:
April 3, 1990
As a result of a long running series of discussions dating
back to the late 70's and early 80's regarding the subdivision
map for FIDCO on Fisher's Island, Roy Reynolds of the Wastewater
Division of the SCDHS will be requesting the Planning Board's
coordination during its environmental reviews of all
applications to build individual lots around the public
reservoirs of Fisher's Island.
If you wish to be a coordinating agency on future
applications for permission to locate septic systems on lots
adjoining public water supply sources on Fisher's Island you
could ask Roy to put the Trustees on his coordination list.
If you need background information as to how and why this
procedure came into existence regarding the FIDCO map you should
talk with Victor Lessard who coordinated the Town's efforts on
behalf on the Town and Planning Boards in resolving this matter
with the Health Department.
cc: Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman, Planning Board
Tom Wickham, Chairman, Planni' & Zoning Committee
Victor Lessard, Principal Bui. :ng Inspector
~.
"
\ .
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
su.EP, t..E:'
Pe
VIC-\-o,e. (ffsst\-Rt',
-roM INlc.K.J.Il4:M
PATRICK G. HAL.PIN
SUFFOL.K COUNTY EXECUTIVE
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
DAVID HARRIS. M.D.. M,P.H.
COMMISSIONER
April 5, 1990
Ms. Susan Ackerman
NYSDEC Region 1 - Bldg. #40
SUNY at Stony Brook
Stony Brook, New York 11794
RE: John E. & Judith D. Stripp
SCTM#:1000-7-2-9
Dear Ms. Ackerman:
We have considered your recent request for verification of our
position regarding lead agency status for the above-referenced
project. As stated in our correspondence to you dated March 23,
1990 (see attached), we do not wish to assume lead agency status for
this project.
SCDHS intends to provide technical comments regarding matters
pertaining to our regulatory jurisdiction, including sewage disposal
and water supply. In addition, as part of the coordinated SEQRA
review process for this project, we will comment further in areas of
our expertise, including natural resources. However, we believe
that the broadest jurisdiction with respect to the planning and
approval of this project resides with the Town of Southold.
We discourage the issuance of a negative declaration to this
project by the NYSDEC on the basis that the project will satisfy
Article 24 wetlands requirements. Such an determination for a
coordinated Type I action would finalize the SEQRA process and would
preclude the possibility of comprehensive review py the Town. Given
the sensitive nature of the project area and '\tbe potential for
future development in the region, a GenericEIlVironmental Impact
Statement may be warranted for the entire Barl~~ p~-~~O The
COUNTY CENTER
RIVERHEAO, N.Y. 11901
...
, Letter to S. Ackerman
April 5, 1990
determination of non-significance by an agency with a limited
permitting role might also hinder the effectiveness of such a study.
Thank
project.
Office of
you for keeping us advised as to the status of this
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the
Ecology at 548-3060.
Sincerely yours,
//~ ~~ \~I
~~ x::_/c.-<--;5>,A.-0
Walter Dawydiak
Assistant Public Health Engineer
Office of Ecology
cc: Vito Minei, P.E.
Louise Harrison
Stephen Costa, P.E.
Paul Ponturo, P.E.
Charles Lind, SC Planning
Steve Sanford, NYSDEC
A. Krupski, Southold Town Trustees
Valerie Scopaz, Southold Town Planning DePt.~
"
....---.--
I
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
~$~'
~~~'li;"" ~~,~
tiP .~
. ..
1\l.,'."."...~.'"
"r/.~ 'lJ'oOi __'"
............\11
PATRICK G. HALPIN
SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
DAVID HAHRIS. M.D.. M,P.H.
COMMISSIONER
March 23,1990
Ms. Susan Ackennan
NYSDEC Region 1 - Bldg. #40
SUNY at Stony Brook
Stony Brook, New York 11794
RE: Jolm E. & Judith D. Stripp
SCTM#: 1000-7-2-9
Dear Ms. Ackerman:
The Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) has received your letter dated
February 23, 1990, conceming the above-referenced project and offers the following comments.
SCDHS does not wish to assume lead agency status. However, we have identified several
potential adverse impacts associated with this project which merit a comprehensive
environmental evaluation. Chief among these concerns is the proximity of the proposed project
to Barlow's Pond, a surface water body which is utilized as a drinking water reservoir.
Freshwater-wetlands and cumulative impacts of development around Barlow's Pond are also
among our concerns, which we believe should be addressed in an Environmental Assessment
Form Part m. These concerns are summarized as follows:
DRINKING WATER RESERVOIR PROTECTION
Sanitary System Location
The proposed location of the leaching pool appears to be unacceptably close to Barlow's
Pond, a drinking water supply reservoir. The Suffolk County Sanitary Code requires a minimum
separation distance of 200 feet between leaching pools and public water supply wells; separation
COUNTY CENTER
R1VERHEAO. N.Y. 11901
APR - 9 1990
"
.,
II
I
.,.(
I
,
.
,\,
Letter to Susan Ackerman
March 23,1990
Page 2
distances for surface water reservoirs should be at least as great. The location of the swinuning
pool, fIlter, and drywell for pool backwash also are of concern.
Open Space Buffer
To mitigate the potential adverse impacts of the sanitary system on Barlow's Pond, we
recommend that the septic tank and leaching pool setbacks be increased to the maximum
practicable extent. The relocation of the swimming pool system also should be considered. The
analysis of potential adverse impacts that should be performed prior to formulating a
reconfigured site plan should incorporate a broad range of impacts, including those caused by
stormwater runoff as well as potential reservoir overflow and septic system failure. We
recommend that, as part of the subsequent mitigation plan, a substantial portion of the property
near Barlow Pond be left in its natural state to act as a buffer against contamination of the
drinking water reservoir. We would subsequently encourage the town to provide for dedication
of such an area as protected open space.
I
I
,'.'
Site Soil Conditions
I
I
The mottling of subsurface soil at approximately four feet below grade is of concern to our
agency. Therefore, soil conditions and local hydrogeology should be an important element in the
study of potential project impacts.
SCDHS Application Status
L
SCDHS has received an application for the proposed project. The application is incomplete
for a number of reasons, which include the lack of NYSDEC and Town freshwater wetlands
determinations and a SEQRA determination. The applicant must comply with the requirements
of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code and relevant construction standards for water supply and
sewage disposal. Design and flow specifications, subsurface soil conditions, and complete site
plan details are essential to the review of this project. These considerations are reviewed
completely at the time of SCDHS application. SCDHS maintains jurisdiction over the fmal
location of sewage disposal and water supply systems. The applicant, therefore, should not
undertake the construction of either system without Health Department approval.
I
I
&'
I{
!
i
i
~
..
EO
T
FRESHWATER WETLANDS / NATURAL RESOURCES
Freshwater wetlands reportedly occur on the subject property. Therefore, the subject parcel
may be affected by Article 24 (Freshwater Wetlands). We recommend that NYSDEC-delineated
wetlands boundaries on and near the subject property be shown on the site plan. Proposed
,
-/
.- - ~ ~----~
~ .------......
~.- -
.
Letter to Susan Ackerman
March 23, 1990
Page 3
-
!
.
~
development of the subject property should incorporate the maximum practicable setback from
any wetlands boundaries.
"
The subject site contains potentially significant natural resources in terms of vegetation and
wildlife habitat. Therefore, potential impacts of the proposed development on natural resources
should be assessed as part of the environmental review process for this project. The formulation
of a natural resources mitigation plan should be based upon a detailed natural resources inventory
and evaluation and should, if possible, incorporate the objective of maintaining contiguous
wildlife habitat corridors on a regional basis.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
There is currently additional residential development proposed for the area of Barlow's
Pond. The value and fragility of this ecosystem in terms of drinking water supply and natural
resources is apparent, and cumulative impacts of development in the region might have serious
and irreversible adverse impacts on the area. Therefore, we recommend that cumulative impacts
of proposed developments be examined to the maximum practicable extent in an effort to
mitigate potential adverse impacts on drinking water supplies, wetlands, surface waters, and
wildlife habitat.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this application. If you have any questions, please
feel free to contact the Office of Ecology at 548-3060.
.
Sincerely yours,
.
~
"
,/ ___" 2-~,{=
Walter Dawydiak
Assistant Public Health Engineer
Office of Ecology
cc: Vito Minei, P.E.
Louise Harrison
Stephen Costa, P.E.
Paul Ponturo, P.E.
Charles Lind, SC Planning
Steve Sanford, NYSDEC
John Bredemeyer, Southold Town Trustees
Valerie Scopaz, Southold Town Planning Dept.
"
=
=
r
v
,
t
"
54.BRLE
P6
,
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
PATRICK G. HALPIN
SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE
DEPARTMENT OF HEAL.TH SERVICES
DAVID HARRIS. M.D.. M.P.H.
COMMISSIONER
March 23,1990
Ms. Susan Ackerman
NYSDEC Region 1 - Bldg. #40
SUNY at Stony Brook
Stony Brook, New York 11794
RE: John E. & Judith D. Srripp
SCTM#: 1000-7-2-9
Dear Ms. Ackerman:
The Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) has received your 1eller dated
February 23, 1990, concerning the above-referenced project and offers the following comments.
SCDHS does not wish to assume lead agency status. However, we have identified several
potential adverse impacts associated with this project which merit a comprehensive
environmental evaluation. Chief among these concerns is the proximity of the proposed project
to Barlow's Pond, a surface water body which is utilized as a drinking water reservoir.
Freshwater wetlands and cumulative impacts of development around Barlow's Pond are also
among our concerns, which we believe should be addressed in an Environmental Assessment
Form Part III. These concerns are summarized as follows:
DRINKING WATER RESERVOIR PROTECTION
Sanitary System Location
The proposed location of the leaching pool appears to be unacceptably close to Barlow's
Pond, a drinking water supply reservoir. The Suffolk County Sanitary Code requires a mirlimufIl
separation distance of 200 feet between leaching pools and public water Sl!pply~~.,~epar~tibn
,,' \) \';'
~,.,..,
\JI~~ 2. 1 \C$J
COUNTY CENTER
RIVERHEAD, N.Y. 11901
. \
1
.
Letter to Susan Ackerman
March 23. 1990
Page 2
distances for surface water reservoirs should be at least as great. The location of the swimming
pool, filter, and drywell for pool backwash also are of concern.
Open Space Buffer
To mitigate the potential adverse impacts of the sanitary system on Barlow's Pond, we
recommend that the septic tank and leaching pool setbacks be increased to the maximum
practicable extent. The relocation of the swimming pool system also should be considered. The
analysis of potential adverse impacts that should be performed prior to formulating a
reconfigured site plan should incorporate a broad range of impacts, including those caused by
stormwater runoff as well as potential reservoir overflow and septic system failure. We
recommend that, as part of the subsequent mitigation plan, a substantial portion of the property
near Barlow Pond be left in its natural state to act as a buffer against contamination of the
drinking water reservoir. We would subsequently encourage the town to provide for dedication
of such an area as protected open space.
Site Soil Conditions
The mottling of subsurface soil at approximately four feet below grade is of concern to our
agency. Therefore, soil conditions and local hydrogeology should be an important element in the
study of potential project impacts.
SCDHS Application Status
SCDHS has received an application for the proposed project. The application is incomplete
for a number of reasons, which include the lack of NYSDEC and Town freshwater wetlands
determinations and a SEQRA determination. The applicant must comply with the requirements
of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code and relevant construction standards for water supply and
sewage disposal. Design and flow specifications, subsurface soil conditions, and complete site
plan details are essential to the review of this project. These considerations are reviewed
completely at the time of SCDHS application. SCDHS maintains jurisdiction over the fmal
location of sewage disposal and water supply systems. The applicant, therefore, should not
undertake the construction of either system without Health Department approval.
FRESHWATER WETLANDS / NATURAL RESOURCES
Freshwater wetlands reportedly occur on the subject property. Therefore, the subject parcel
may be affected by Article 24 (Freshwater Wetlands). We recommend that NYSDEC-delineated
wetlands boundaries on and near the subject property be shown on the site plan. Proposed
~
.
.
- Letter to Susan Ackerman
March 23,1990
Page 3
development of the subject property should incOIporate the maximum practicable setback from
any wetlands boundaries.
The subject site contains potentially significant natural resources in terms of vegetation and
wildlife habitat. Therefore, potential impacts of the proposed development on natural resources
should be assessed as part of the envirorunental review process for this project. The formulation
of a natural resources mitigation plan should be based upon a detailed natural resources inventory
and evaluation and should, if possible, incorporate the objective of maintaining contiguous
wildlife habitat corridors on a regional basis.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
There is currently additional residential development proposed for the area of Barlow's
Pond. The value and fragility of this ecosystem in terms of drinking water supply and natural
resources is apparent, and cumulative impacts of development in the region might have serious
and irreversible adverse impacts on the area. Therefore, we recommend that cumulative impacts
of proposed developments be examined to the maximum practicable extent in an effort to
mitigate potential adverse impacts on drinking water supplies, wetlands, surface waters, and
wildlife habitat.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this application. If you have any questions, please
feel free to contact the Office of Ecology at 548-3060.
Sincerely yours,
~.
2-~~
~
Walter Dawydiak
Assistant Public Health Engineer
Office of Ecology
cc: Vito Minei, P.E.
Louise Harrison
Stephen Costa, P.E.
Paul Ponturo, P.E.
Charles Lind, SC Planning
Steve Sanford, NYSDEC
John Bredemeyer, Southold Town Trustees
Valerie Scopaz, Southold Town Planning Dept.v'
SU/!J;:'U;-
fl!J
VS
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
PATRICK G. HALPIN
SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
DAVID HARRIS. M.D.. M.P.H.
COMMISSIONER
April 10, 1990
Ms. Susan Ackerman
NYSDEC Region 1 - Bldg. #40
SUNY at Stony Brook
Stony Brook, New York 11794
RE: John E. & Judith D. Stripp
SCTHi: 1000-7-2-9
Dear Ms. Ackerman:
with regard to the above-referenced project, our office has
received additional cOllUllents from our Bureau of Drinking Water
regarding site plan concerns related to the protection of the
drinking water supply at ,Barlow's Pond. These cOllUllents are
attached (memo from Paul Ponturo to W. Dawydiak, March 30, 1990)
so that they may be included in the public record of the SEQRA
review process of this project.
We would like to iterate our position that the Town of
Southold has the broadest jurisdiction over this project and, as
such, is the most appropriate candidate to assume lead agency
status. We would appreciate if you would notify us regarding the
Town's official position regarding lead agency status prior to
making a determination of significance on this project.
Thank you for keeping us advised as to the status of this
project. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact
the Office of Ecology at 548-3060.
Sincerely yours,
~-g~~
Walter Dawydiak
Assistant Public Health Engineer
Office of Ecology
cc: vito Minei, P.E.
Louise Harrison
Stephen Costa, P.E.
Paul Ponturo, P.E.
Charles Lind, SC Planning
Steve Sanford, NYSDEC
John Bredemeyer, Southold Town Trustees
Valerie Scopaz, Southold Town Planning Dept.~
r;::--:-~'--"'-',c
"" ~
\ ~ 1
APR I 2 \990
"{,.,,.,..,.-
COUNTY CENTER
RI....ERHEAO, N.Y. 11901
. -
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
PATRICK G. HALPIN
SUFFOL.K COUNTY EXECUTIVE
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
DAVID HARRIS. M.D.. M.P.H.
COMMISSIONER
FROM:
P. Ponturo
-
MEMO TO:
Walter Dawyd'
DATE:
March 30, 199
RE:
John E. and Judith Stripp
SCTH # 1000-7-2-9
Per our conversation, at this stage the Bureau has the
following comments:
The Bureau's sole concern regarding this site relates to the
public water supply source of Barlow Pond by the Fishers Island
Water Works Corporation. FIWW is the Island's sole public water
supplier. As it relates to this proposal, evaluation and
mitigation of the following impacts appear necessary:
a- Sewage disposal including impact of system failure (i.e.
overflow) on the Pond.
b- Intended use of cleared but described "undeveloped"
areas with regard to possible turf maintenance
activities, and chemical storage.
c- Swimming pool operational activities such as filter
backwash disposal, chemical storage.
d- Heating oil storage proposal.
The Bureau points out that the Pond should be afforded the
same degree of protection to cesspool discharge as a glacial
public supply well; however the direct movement of an overflow
into the Pond as a receiving body must be addressed as well.
We would appreciate a further clarification of the extent of
clearing proposed, and wish to be available at any future
meetings.
cc: R. Reynolds
APR I 2 i99U
BUREAU OF DRINKING WATER
2.2.5 RA8RO DRIVE EAST
HAUPPAUGE, NEW YORK 11788
(!) 161341:1-2776
.
., (
i
"
.~
:5 u.. BFi LE:
P6
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
V~J;,"
,f:~~'~> s('>:(:iJ~~~
';~~~~:I >_. -2~~
~~, 'OC.J..' '"".
\!j.. ",,-!:!!..-..
'4;,1~~{, ,,,..' ~~:I
~I~-~~
PATRICK G. HALPIN
SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
DAVID HARRIS, M.D.. M.P.H.
COMMISSIONER
March 23,1990
Ms. Susan Ackerman
NYSDEC Region I - Bldg. #40
SUNY at Stony Brook
Stony Brook, New York 11794
RE: John E. & Judith D. Stripp
SCTM#: 1000-7-2-9
Dear Ms. Ackerman:
The Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) has received your letter dated
February 23,1990, concerning the above-referenced project and offers the following comments.
SCDHS does not wish to assume lead agency status. However, we have identified several
potential adverse impacts associated with this project which merit a comprehensive
environmental evaluation. Chief among these concerns is the proximity of the proposed project
to Barlow's Pond, a surface water body which is utilized as a drinking water reservoir.
Freshwater wetlands and cumulative impacts of development around Barlow's Pond are also
among our concerns, which we believe should be addressed in an Environmental Assessment
Form Part III. These concerns are summarized as follows:
DRINKING WATER RESERVOIR PROTECTION
Sanitary System Location
The proposed location of the leaching pool appears to be unacceptably close to Barlow's
Pond, a drinking water supply reservoir. The Suffolk County Sanitary Code requires a minimum
separation distance of 200 feet between leaching pools and public water supply wells; separation
COUNTY CENTER
RIVERHEAD. N.Y. 11901
,
~'
,'.,
(
Letter to Susan Ackennan
March 23, 1990
Page 2
distances for surface water reservoirs should be at least as great. The location of the swimming
pool, filter, and drywell for pool backwash also are of concern.
Open Space Buffer
To mitigate the potential adverse impacts of the sanitary system on Barlow's Pond, we
recommend that the septic tank and leaching pool setbacks be increased to the maximum
practicable extent. The relocation of the swimming pool system also should be considered. The
analysis of potential adverse impacts that should be performed prior to formulating a
reconfigured site plan should incorporate a broad range of impacts, including those caused by
stormwater runoff as well as potential reservoir overflow and septic system failure. We
recommend that, as part of the subsequent mitigation plan, a substantial portion of the property
near Barlow Pond be left in its natural state to act as a buffer against contamination of the
drinking water reservoir. We would subsequently encourage the town to provide for dedication
of such an area as protected open space.
Site Soil Conditions
The mottling of subsurface soil at approximately four feet below grade is of concern to our
agency. Therefore, soil conditions and local hydrogeology should be an important element in the
study of potential project impacts.
SCDHS Application Status
SCDHS has received an application for the proposed project. The application is incomplete
for a number of reasons, which include the lack of NYSDEC and Town freshwater wetlands
determinations and a SEQRA determination. The applicant must comply with the requirements
of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code and relevant construction standards for water supply and
sewage disposal. Design and flow specifications, subsurface soil conditions, and complete site
plan details are essential to the review of this project. These considerations are reviewed
completely at the time of SCDHS application. SCDHS maintains jurisdiction over the final
location of sewage disposal and water supply systems. The applicant; therefore, should not
undertake the construction of either system without Health Department approval.
FRESHWATER WETLANDS / NATURAL RESOURCES
Freshwater wetlands reportedly occur on the subject property. Therefore, the subject parcel
may be affected by Article 24 (Freshwater Wetlands). We recommend that NYSDEC-delineated
wetlands boundaries on and near the subject property be shown on the site plan. Proposed
,
"
Leiter to Susan Ackerman
March 23, 1990
Page 3
development of the subject property should incorporate the maximum practicable setback from
any wetlands boundaries,
The subject site contains potentially significant natural resources in terms of vegetation and
wildlife habitat. Therefore, potential impacts of the proposed development on natural resources
should be assessed as part of the environmental review process for this project. The formulation
of a natural resources mitigation plan should be based upon a detailed natural resources inventory
and evaluation and should, if possible, incorporate the objective of maintaining contiguous
wildlife habitat corridors on a regional basis.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
There is currently additional residential development proposed for the area of Barlow's
Pond. The value and fragility of this ecosystem in terms of drinking water supply and natural
resources is apparent, and cumulative impacts of development in the region might have serious
and irreversible adverse impacts on the area. Therefore, we recommend that cumulative impacts
of proposed developments be examined to the maximum practicable extent in an effort to
mitigate potential adverse impacts on drinking water supplies, wetlands, surface waters, and
wildlife habitat.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this application. If you have any questions, please
feel free to contact the Office of Ecology at 548-3060.
Sincerely yours,
y;;
-Zr~
Walter Dawydiak
Assistant Public Health Engineer
Office of Ecology
cc: Vito Minei, P.E.
Louise Harrison
Stephen Costa, P.E.
Paul Ponturo, P.E.
Charles Lind, SC Planning
Steve Sanford, NYSDEC
John Bredemeyer, Southold Town Trustees
Valerie Scopaz, Southold Town Planning Dept..j
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
r.\6.
s....'o.
\JS
.
PATRICK G. HALPIN
SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
DAVID HARRIS, M.D.. M.P.H.
COMMISSIONER
May 18,1990
Glen Just, President
JMO Consulting
P.O. Box 447
Quogue, New York 11959
RE: Application of Strlpp
SCTM # 1000-7-2-9
SCDHS Application # 90 S006
Dear Mr. Just:
The NYSDEC has conducted a coordinated review of the subject proposal
pursuant to the requirements of NYCRR, Part 617.6 of the NYCRR. The thirty day
comment period has expired and there has been no objection raised regarding our
agency's stated intent to assume lead agency status. As a result, please be advised
that the SCDHS has assumed lead agency status for the subject proposal.
As lead agency, the SCDHS has completed the EAF Part 2 as required by
NYCRR,Part 617.5 (5)(b) in an effort to make a determination of significance (see
attached). Based on the materials and information reviewed, our agency has
determined that several of the potential impacts identified in the EAF Part 2 are large
and may be significant. Also, as noted in the EAF Part 2, we are concerned about the
community's comments regarding this and other proposals in the Barlow Pond vicinity.
As a result, our agency requests that you provide additional details pertaining to
these potential impacts and recommendations for appropriate mitigation measures to
assure that potential impacts are mitigated to the greatest degree practicable.
Additional information should be provided in an Environmental Assessment Form
Part 3 and provided to SCDHS when it is complete. The principal areas we wish to see
addressed in greater detail include the following:
1. All requirements of appropriate Articles of the NYSECL which may affect this
proposal (Article 15 and 24) are most important to this discussion.
'2. , \990
COUNTY CENTER
RIVERHEAD, N.Y. 11901
Letter to Glen Just
May 16,1990
Page 2
2. Adequate protection of surface and groundwater quality must be ensured with
due attention provided to any construction or operation causing any
contamination of a water supply system. Potential mitigation measures for the
prevention of such contamination should be presented.
3. As provided for in Section 617.11 of NYCRR, an examination of the existing
conditions of lands surrounding Barlow Pond as well as the potential for future
development in the vicinity of the pond should be evaluated. The potential for
cumulative impacts to this area is of great concern to our agency, and issues
pertaining to comprehensive mitigation measures are important to our decision-
making.
4. It is our understanding that there is some public controversy over this proposal.
To the extent practicable, we would like to have this issue discussed in the
EAF part 3.
Specific concerns which we have identified are contained in previous
correspondences from SCDHS to NYSDEC, dated March 23, 1990 and April 1 0, 1990,
which are attached for your use in preparing a Long EAF Part III.
As you are aware, we will await the requested information prior to rendering a
determination of significance. Thank you for you attention to these concerns. Should
you have any additional questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me directly
(548-3312).
Sincerely,
~
Roy Reynolds, P.E
Sr. Public Health Engineer
RRlWD/amf
Attachment
cc: Paul Ponturo, P.E.
Vito Minei, P.E.
AI Krupski, Southold Town Trustees
Valarie Scopaz, Southold Planning Department.J
Robert Schneck, NYSDEC
Steven Sanford, NYSDEC
2. , i."..Dn
\.......'d
.
. ",-.
Part 2-PROJECT IMPACTS AND THEIR MAGNITUDE
Responsibilily of Lead Agency
General Information (Read Carefully) . ! .
. In completing the form the reviewer should be guided by the question: Have my responses and determinations bee".
reasonablel The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst. .
. Identifying that an impact will be ~otentially large (column 2) does not mean that it is also necessarily significant..:
Any large impact must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance. Identifying an impact in column 2 simplY,
asks that it be looked at further. '
. The' Examples provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of impacts and wherever pos<ible the threshold 01
magnitude that would trigger a response in column 2. The examples are generally applicable throughout the State and
for most situations. But. for any specific project or site other examples and/or lower thresholds may be appropriate
for a Potential Large Impact response, thus requiring evaluation in Part 3.
. The impacts of each project, on each site, in each locality, will vary. Therefore, the examples are illustrative and.
have been offered as guidance. They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each question',
,
. The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question. , ,
~ In identifying impacts, consider long term, short term and cumlative effects.
Inslruclions (Read carefully)
a. Answer each of the 19 questions in PART 2. Answer Yes if there will be any impact.
b. Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers.
c. If answering Yes to a question then check the appropriate box (column 1 or 2) to indicate the potential size of the'
impact. If impact th'reshold equals or exceeds any example provided, check column 2. If impact will occur but threshold
is lower than example, check column 1.
d. If reviewer has doubt about size of the impact then consider the impact as potentially large and proceed to PART '3.
e. If a potentially large impact checked in column 2 can be mitigated by change(s) in the project to a small to moderate
impact. also check the Yes box ,in column 3. A No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible. Tliis
~ust be explained in Part 3.
IMPACT ON LAND
1. Will the proposed action result in a physical change t~ ~ project sitel
~O DYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
. Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise per 100
foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed
10%.
. Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than
3 feet.
. Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles.
. Construction on land wh~re bedrock is exposed or generally within
3 feet of existing ground surface.
. Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more
than one phase or stage.
. Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000
tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year.
. Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill.
. Construction in a designated floodway.
. Other impacts
2, Will there he an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on
the sitel (i.e.. cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc.~O DYES
. Specific land forms:
6
1 2 3
Small to Potential Can Impact Be
Moderate Large MItigated By .
Impact Impact Project Change
0 0 DYes ONo'
0 0 DYes ONo
0 0 DYes ONo
0 0 DYes oNo
0 0 DYes oNo
0 0 DYes oNo.
0 0 DYes oNo
0 0 DYes oNo
0 0 DYes oNo:'
\ ,'r; \
'2. ;
0 0- DYes oNo
"
.J"
.
<
7
1 2 3 ,
Small to Potential Can Impact Be
Moderate Large Mitigated By
Impact Impact Project Change
0 0 DYes DNo
0 0 DYes DNo
0 0 DYes DNo "
0 0 DYes DNo
0 0 DYes DNo
0 0 DYes DNo
0 0 DYes DNo
0 0 DYes DNo
0 0 DYes DNo
0 0 DYes DNo
0 0 DYes DNo
0 ';&t . .'";'Yes ? DNo
I;
0 0 DYes DNo
0 0 DYes DNo
0 0 DYes DNo
0 0 DYes DNo
0 0 DYes DNo
0 ~ DYes DNo
0 0 DYes QNo
;\ \?.
"
;
0 .' fi] .... DYes &!No
,
. "'; 'L \ \go
'"
0 0 DYes DNo
.:,
IM?ACT ON WATER
3. Will proposed action affect any water body designated as prolected?
(Under Articles 15, 24, 25 of the Environmental Conservation law, ECl)
DNa DYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
. Developable area of site contains a protected water body,
. Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a
protec'ted stream,
. Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body.
. Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland.
. Other impacts:
.,
!;
,
"
,.
4. Will proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body
of water? DNa DYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
. ^ 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water
or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease.
. Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area.
. Other impacts: .
5. Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater
quality or quantity? DNa ){YES
Examples that would apply to column 2
. Proposed Action will require a discharge permit.
. . .
. Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not
have approval to serve proposed (project) action.
. Proposed Action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45
gallons per minute pumping capacity.
. Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water
supply system.
. Proposed Action will adversely affect groundwater,
.' liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently
do not exist or have inadequate capacity,
. Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20.000 gallons per
day,
. Proposed Action will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an
existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual
contrast to natural conditions.
. Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical
products greater than 1,100 gallons,
. Proposed Action will allow residential USes in areas without water
andlor sewer services.
. Proposed Action locates commercial and/or industrial uses which may
require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage
facilities,
. Other impacts:
6. Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface
water runoff? DNa DYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
. Proposed Action would change flood water flows.
j"
,
. Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion.
o Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns.
o Proposed Action will allow development in a designated f1oodway.
o Other impacts:
IMPACT ON AIR
~o
DYES
7. Will proposed action affect air qualityl
Examples that would apply to column 2
o . Proposed Action will induce 1,000 or more vehicle trips in any given
hour.
o Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of
refuse per hour.
o Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed Sibs. per hour or a
heat source producin,g more than 10 million BTU's per hour.
o Proposed action will allow an increase in the amount of land committed
to industrial use.
o Proposed action will allow an increase in the density of industrial
development within existing industrial areas.
o Other impacts:
IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS
8. Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered
species 1 ~O DYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
o Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federal
list, using the site, over or ncar site or found on the site.
o Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat.
o Application of pe,ticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other
than for agricultural purposes.
. Other impacts:
9. Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threatened or
non-endanl~cred ,pecles/ DNO &ES
Examples that would apply to column 2
o Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident or
migratory fish. shellfish or wildlife species.
o Proposed Action requires the removal of more than 10 acres
of mature forest (over 100 years of age) or other locally important
vegetation.
IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES
10. Wi'lI the Proposed Action affect agricultural land resourcesl
~O DYES
Examples Ihtlt would apply to column 2 .
. The propo~~d clction would sever, cro~s or limit access to agricultural
land (includes cropland, hayfields. pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc.)
8
1 2 3
Small to Potential Can Impact Be
Moderate Large MItigated By
Impact Impact Project Change
D D DYes DNo
D D DYes DNo
D D DYes DNo
D D DYes DNo
,
,
'"
D D DYes DNo
D D DYes DNo
'.
D D DYes DNo
D D DYes DNo
D D DYes DNo.
D D DYes DNo
D D DYes DNo
D D DYes DNo
D D DYes DNo
D D DYes DNa
;8t D DYes DNq
D D DYes DNo
,
.
. \ :
L
D 0 DYes DNo
. '
j-.
~'
.i
"
..
i;
,
0'
il
\,'
jl:;
. Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of
agricultural land.
. The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres
of agricultural land or. if located in an Agricultutal District, more
than 2.5 acres of agricultural land.
. The proposed action would disrupt or prevent installation of agricultural
land management systems (e.g.. subsurface drain lines. outlet ditches.
strip cropping);" or'create a need for such measures (e.g. cause a farm
field to drain poorly due to increased runoff)
. Other impacts:
IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES
11. Will proposed action affect aesthetic resourcesl ~O DVES
(If necessary. use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section &17.21,
Appendix B.)
Examples that wo.uld apply to column 2
. Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from
or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, whether
man.made or natural.
· Proposed land uses. or project components visible to users of
aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their
enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource.
. Project components that will result in the elimination or significant
screening of scenic views known to be important to the area.
.. Other impacts:
IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
12. Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, pre.
historic or paleontological importancel ~O DYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
. Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially
contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or National Register
of historic places.
. Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within the
project site.
. Proposed Action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for
archaeological sites on the NVS Site Inventory.
. Other impacts:
IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION
13. Will Proposer! Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or
future open spaces or recreational opportunitiesl
Examples that would apply to column 2 JZft!o DYES
. The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity.
. ^ major reduction of an oppn space important to the community.
. Other impacts:
9
1 2 3
5m811to Potential Can Impact Be "
Moderate Large MItigated By.
Impact Impact Project Change
0 0 OVes DNa
0 0 ' OVes DNa'
0 0 OVes ONo I.
0 0 OVes ONo
,
0 0 OVes ONo
.
0 0 oVes oNo
0 0 OVes ONo
0 0 OVes ONo
0 0 OVes DNa
0 0 OVes DNa
0 0 OVes ONo
0 0 OVes ONo
:
0 0 " 'Dv~s ONo
0 0 DYes DNa
0 0 DYes ONo
~, '.
.
IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION
14.
Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems!
~O
DYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
. Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods.
. Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems.
. Other impacts:
IMPACT ON ENERGY
15. Will proposed action affect the community's so~C}s of fuel or
energy supply! jBl:lIO DYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
. Proposed Action will cause a greater than 5% increase in the use of
. any form of energy in the municipality.
. Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of an energy
transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two family
residences or to serve a major commercial or industrial use.
. Other. impacts:
NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS
1 &. Will there be obiectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result
of the Proposed Action! ~O DYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
. Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive
r~cility.
. Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day).
· Proposed Action will produce operating noise exceeding the local
ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures.
. Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a
noise screen.
. Other impacts:
IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH
17. Will Proposed Action affect public health and safetyl
~O
DYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
. Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous
substances (i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of
accident or upset conditions, or there may be a chronic low level
discharge or emission.
. Proposed Action may result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" in any
form (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating,
infectious, etc.)
. Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of Iiquified natural
gas or other flammable liquids.
. Proposed action may result in the excavation or other disturbance
within 2,000 f~et of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous
waste.
. Other imp<1ct~:
10
1 2 3
Small to Potential Can Impact Be
Moderate large MItigated By.'
Impact Impact Project Change
0 0 DYes oNo'
0 0 DYes oNo'
0 0 DYes oNo
0 0 DYes oNo'
0 0 DYes oNo'
0 0 DYes DNa
0 0 DYes oNo
0 0 DYes oNo
0 0 DYes oNo
0 0 DYes oNo
0 0 DYes oNo
0 0 DYes oNo
0 0 DYes DNo
0 0 DYes ONo
:
0 0 DYes DNO
,
0 q DYes oNo
. .
\"
,
. .
IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER
OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD
18'. -Will proposed action affect the character of the exis~~}. ~ommunit\'!
~O DnS
Examples that would apply to col~mn 2
. The permanent population of the city, town or vii/age in which the
project is located is likely to grow by more than 5%.
. The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating services
will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this project.
. Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals.
. Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land use,
. Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities: structures
or areas of historic importance to the community,
. Development will create a demand for additional community services
(e.g. schools, police and fire, etc.)
. Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects.
. Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment.
. Other impacts:
.19. Is there, or is there likely to be, public
potential adverse environmental impacts!
1 2 3
Small to Potential Can Impact Be
Moderate Large MItigated By
Impact Impact Project Change
I
0 0 DYes DNa
0 0 DYes oNo
0 0 DYes oNo ,
0 0 DYes DNo
D 0 DYes DNo
0 0 DYes oNo
0 0 DYes DNa
0 0 DYes DNo
0 0 DYes DNo'
controversy related to
DND ~ES
If Any Action In Part 2 Is Identified as a Potential Large Impact or
If You Canno,t Determine the Magnitude of Impact, Proceed to Part 3
Part 3-EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS
Responsibility of lead Agency
Part 3 must be prepared if one or more impael(s) is considered to be polentially large, even if the impaells) may be
. mitigated.
Instructions
Discuss the following for each impact identified in Column 2 of Part 2:
1. Briefly describe the impact.
2. Describe (if applicable) how the impact could be mitigated or reduced to a small to moderate impact by project change{si.
3. Based on the information available. decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is important.
To answer the question of importance, consider:
. The probability of the impact occurring
. The duration of the impact
· Its irreversibility, including permanently lost resources of value
. Whether the impact can or will be controlled
. The regional consequence of the impact
. lis potential divergence from local needs and goals
. Whether known objections to the project relate to this impact.
(Continue on attachments)
11
.{.'
r, ~
).'
.
.""
r,~_.._.___;
--
~
. ,.... .
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
~,~."",-:~~
~,..I.}.,., '.,
~(~~i~
~;~
~)-i7'i,(i'Jn!.\"'"
............
PATRICK G. HALPIN
5UFFOl..K COUNTY EXECUTIVE
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
DAVID HARRIS. M.D.. M.P.H.
COMMISSIONER
March 23,1990
Ms. Susan Ackerman
NYSDEC Region I - Bldg. #40
SUNY at Stony Brook
Stony Brook, New York 11794
RE: John E. & Judith D. Stripp
SCTM#: 1000-7-2-9
Dear Ms. Ackelman:
The Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) has received your letter dated
Febmary 23, 1990, concerning the above-referenced project and offers the following comments.
SCDHS does not wish to assume lead agency status. However, we have identified several
potential adverse impacts associated with this project which merit a comprehensive
environmental evaluation. Chief among these concerns is the proximity of the proposed project
to Barlow's Pond, a surface water body which is utilized as a drinking water reservoir.
Freshwater wetlands and cumulative impacts of development around Barlow's Pond are also
among our concerns, which we believe should be addressed in an Environmental Assessment
FonTI Part Ill. These concerns are summarized as follows:
DRINKING WATER RESERVOIR PROTECTION
Sanitary System Location
The proposed location of the leaching pool appears to be unacceptably close to Barlow's
Pond, a drinking water supply reservoir. The Suffolk County Sanitary Code requires a minimum
separation distance of 200 feet between leaching pools and public water supply wells; separation
'[ \
COllNTY CENTER
RIVERHEAO. N,Y. 11901
"", ,.......:.-----
-. ,
..J
/
/
Letter to Susan Ackerman
March 23. 1990
Page 2
distances for surface water reservoirs should be at least as great. The location of the swimming
pool, mter, and dIywell for pool backwash also are of concern.
Open Space Buffer
To mitigate the potential adverse impacts of the sanitary system on Barlow's Pond, we
recommend that the septic tank and leaching pool setbacks be increased to the maximum
practicable extent. The relocation of the swimming pool system also should be considered. The
analysis of potential adverse impacts that should be performed prior to formulating a
reconfigured site plan should incorporate a broad range of impacts, including those caused by
stormwater runoff as well as potential reservoir overflow and septic system failure. We
reconmlend that, as part of the subsequent mitigation plan, a substantial portion of the property
near Barlow Pond be left in its natural state to act as a buffer against contamination of the
drinking water reservoir. We would subsequently encourage the town to provide for dedication
of such an area as protected open space.
Site Soil Conditions
The mottling of subsurface soil at approximately four feet below grade is of concern to our
agency. Therefore, soil conditions and local hydrogeology should be an important element in the
study of potential project impacts.
SCDHS Application Status
SCDHS has received an application for the proposed project. The application is incomplete
for a number of reasons, which include the lack of NYSDEC and Town freshwater wetlands
determinations and a SEQRA determination. The applicant must comply with the requirements
of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code and relevant construction standards for water supply and
sewage disposal. Design and flow specifications, subsurface soil conditions, and complete site
plan details are essential to the review of this project. These considerations are reviewed
completely at the time of SCDHS application. SCDHS maintains jurisdiction over the fmal
location of sewage disposal and water supply systems. The applicant, therefore, should not
undertake the construction of either system without Health Department approval.
FRESHWATER WETLANDS I NATURAL RESOURCES
Freshwater wetlands reportedly occur on the subject property. Therefore, the subject parcel
may be affected by Article 24 (Freshwater Wetlands). We recommend that NYSDEC-delineated
wetlands boundaries on and near the subject property be shown on the site plan. Proposed
l
......~.........., ___'a"" _
/
~~-
-
, ,
Letter to Susan Ackerman
March 23, 1990
Page 3
development of the subject property should incOlporate the maximum practicable setback from
any wetlands boundaries.
The subject site contains potentially significant natural resources in terms of vegetation and
wildlife habitat. Therefore, potential impacts of the proposed development on na!Ural resources
should be assessed as part of the environmental review process for this project. The formulation
of a natural resources mitigation plan should be based upon a detailed natural resources inventory
and evaluation and should, if possible, incorporate the objective of maintaining contiguous
wildlife habitat corridors on a regional basis.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
There is currently additional residential development proposed for the area of Barlow's
Pond. The value and fragility of this ecosystem in terms of drinking water supply and natural
resources is apparent, and cumulative impacts of development in the region might have serious
and irreversible adverse impacts on the area. Therefore, we recommend that cumulative impacts
of proposed developments be examined to the maximum practicable extent in an effort to
mitigate potential adverse impacts on drinking water supplies, wetlands, surface waters, and
wilcUife habitat.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this application. If you have any questions, please
feel free to contact the Office of Ecology at 548-3060.
Sincerely yours,
___ 2-~~
Walter Dawydiak
Assistant Public Health Engineer
Office of Ecology
cc: Vito Minei, P.E.
Louise Harrison
Stephen Costa, P.E.
Paul Ponturo, P.E.
Charles Lind, SC Planning
Steve Sanford, NYSDEC
John Bredemeyer, Southold Town Trustees
Valerie Scopaz, Southold Town Planning Dept.
,~ ;'.~~'~~.1r :;;t~:::;~;p:f:~6'\.~"" . -"~. s..~.-"""" ........ .'
--
-:;,-..'"...-.'
,-""....,,'~.. ..~
-
r
'-,-", '::"'
-
~
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
'~~~~.~
.1Z '~
~~~
~
~tt;
I"~
PATRICK G. HALPIN
SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
DAVID HARRIS, M.D.. M.P.H.
COMMISSIONER
April 10, 1990
Ms. Susan Ackerman
NYSDEC Region 1 - Bldg. 140
SUNY at Stony Brook
Stony Brook, New York 11794
RE: John E. & Judith D. Stripp
SCTHi: 1000-7-2-9
j':"
.r, :
'lji ,
~
Dear Ms. Ackerman:
with regard to the above-referenced project, our office has
received additional comments from our Bureau of Drinking Water
regarding site plan concerns related to the protection of the
drinking water supply at .Barlow's Pond. These comments are
attached (memo from Paul Ponturo to W. Dawydiak, March 30, 1990)
so that they may be included in the public record of the SEQRA
review process of this project.
',~
We would like to iterate our position that the Town of
Southold has the broadest jurisdiction over this project and~ as
such, is the most appropriate candidate to assume lead agency
status. We would appreciate if you would notify us regarding the
Town's official position regarding lead agency status prior to
making a determination of significance on this project.
Thank you for keeping us advised as to the status of this
project. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact
the Office of Ecology at 548-3060.
Sincerely yours,
~'-~~/~
Walter Dawydiak
Assistant Public Health Engineer
Office of Ecology
cc: vito Minei, P.E.
Louise Harrison
Stephen costa, P.E.
Paul ponturo, P.E.
Charles Lind, SC Planning
Steve Sanford, NYSDEC
John Bredemeyer, Southold Town Trustees
Valerie Scopaz, Southold Town Planning Dept.
COUNTY CENTER
RIVERHEAO. N,Y. 1190 I
-
i,i~ :,:'!"-~ --':_~._':"" -.'''.
:<,>1'
..~_.._.. .........-...-..-..---....
r....'.I'~U
....._..--~~ ........-..--
. ----...---.. -
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
-Ii
"'.
PATRICK G. HALPIN
SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUnVE
,.f
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
DAVID HARRIS. M,D.. M.P.H.
COMMISSIONER
,1
,'.
FROM:
P. Ponturo
,
Ii
MEMO TO:
Walter Dawyd'
-
",1
d
J
d
j
DATE:
March 30, 199
John Ii: , and Judi.th str:Lpp
SeTH # 1000-7-2-9
RE:
Per our conversation, at this stage the Bureau has the
following comments:
,-
I
I
The Bureau's sole concern regarding this site relates to the
public water supply source of Barlow Pond by the Fishers Island
Water Works Corporation. FIWW is the Island's sole public water
supplier. As it relates to this proposal, evaluation and
mitigation of the following impacts appear necessary:
.
a- Sewage disposal including impact of system failure (i.e.
overflow) on the Pond.
b- Intended use of cleared but described "undeveloped"
areas with regard to possible turf maintenance
activities, and chemical storage.
c- Swimming pool operational activities such as filter
backwash disposal, chemical storage.
d- Heating oil storage proposal.
The Bureau points out that the Pond should be afforded the
same degree of protection to cesspool discharge as a glacial
public supply well; however the direct movement of an overflow
into the Pond as a receiving body must be addressed as well.
We would appreciate a further clarification of the extent of
clearing proposed, and wish to be available at any future
meetings.
ce: R. Reynolds
DUAEAU 0' DAINKING WATER
22~ RAORO DRIVE EAST
HAUPPAUQE. hEW 'YORK . 178B
H~ 1613."-2776
SUe,F L L.b
l.E""ss,4-R'U
fib
"Tb: 1=l '&K~
1~~
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
PATRICK G. HALPIN
SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
DAVID HARRIS. M.D.. M.P.H.
COMMISSIONER
April 27, 1990
Ms. Susan Ackerman
NYSDEC Region 1 - Bldg.
SUNY at Stony Brook
Stony Brook, New York
140
11794
RE: John E. & Judith D. Stripp
SCTM#:1000-7-2-9
Dear Ms. Ackerman:
Regarding the above-referenced application, we maintain our
position that there is a need to examine the potential adverse
impacts associated with the development of the subject parcel. We
also believe that the Town of Southold has the broadest jurisdiction
over this project and, as such, is the most appropriate candidate to
assume lead agency status. However, we have been apprised that the
Town has not assumed lead agency status for this project. Our most
serious concern with respect to this application is the protection
of the surface waters of the drinking water supply reservoir of
Barlow Pond, a matter which is out of the jurisdiction of the NYSDEC
wetlands permit. Therefore, we wish to assume lead agency status
for this project.
Please advise us as to your position regarding our intention to
assume lead agency status. If you have any questions, please feel
free to contact the Office of Ecology at 548-3060.
Sincerely yours,
~
~~~~/L
Walter Dawydiak
Assistant Public Health Engineer
Office of Ecology
co: vito Minei, P.E.
Louise Harrison
Stephen Costa, P.E.
Paul Ponturo, P.E.
Charles Lind, SC Planning
Steve Sanford, NYSDEC
A. Krupski, Southold Town Trustees j
Valerie Scopaz, Southold Town Planning Dept.
COUNTY CENTER
RIVERHEAD. N.Y. 11901
..~
~)