Loading...
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 ..~ ~)