HomeMy WebLinkAboutRozakis, Thomas
File: Petitions
Neville, Elizabeth
.~
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Neville, Elizabeth I
Wednesday, August 16, 20064:33 PM
'g. greenheron@verizon.net'
RE: Communications
Dear Mr. Rozakis,
Please be assured that I forward all e-mails that I
follow-up with a paper copy in their town mailboxes.
you, please donlt hesitate to contact me.
receive both bye-mail and then
If I can be of further assistance to
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Neville
-----Original Message-----
From: g.greenheron@verizon.net [mailto:g.greenheron@verizon.net]
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 3:50 PM
To: Neville, Elizabeth
Subject: Communications
Dear Ms. Neville,
Thank you for your speedy reply. I had little doubt that you had forwarded my
communications, but I just had to make sure. I received the information about the two
Board members from a very reliable sourceJ who very discreetly refused to identify them,
in case they were llfibbing." Perhaps they are so busy they don't have time to read their
mail? We'll leave it at that for the time being.
Sincerely,
Thomas Rozakis
>From: I1Neville, Elizabeth" <E.Neville@town.southold.ny.us>
>Date: 2006/08/16 Wed AM 11:48:39 CDT
>To: g.greenheron@verizon.net
>Subject: RE: Communications
>Dear Mr. Rozakis,
>
>Yes, it is my responsibility to serve as a conduit of official
>communications to the Town Board and town government in general. I do
>copy and forward all communications to the Town Board and other
>government departments that I receive, as requested. I have checked my
>files and find five (5) e-mail communications from you beginning on May
>26, 2006 through today August 16, 2006. They are as follows: 5/26/06;
>6/12/06; 6/14/06; 7/13/06; and 8/16/06. All of these were copied and
>forwarded to the Town Board members, and other town officials and/or
>departments as requested. If you will be so kind as to tell me which
>two (2) Town Board members did not receive what communications, I will
>gladly copy them again and put them in their mailboxes.
>
>There is a "spam filter" on the town's e-mail. I cannot be responsible
>for any communication that is caught in the spam filter and deleted.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Elizabeth A. Neville
>Southold Town Clerk
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
1
>From: g.greenheron@verizon.net [mailto:g.greenheron@Verizon.net]
>Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 7:42 PM
>To: Neville, Elizabeth
>Subject: Communications
>
>Dear Ms. Neville:
> Is it (one of)the Town Clerk's responsibilities to serve as a
>conduit of official communication to the Town Board and the town
>government in general? I was told that by a very reliable source and
>have, as you know, sent many communications to you in the expectation
>that they are forwarded. However, two Town Board members have recently
>said that they have never received any of my extensive communications.
>So at this point, I would like to know if I am properly expecting your
>office to forward my communications, or is there another method that is
>more legal or proper?
>
Sincerely,
Thomas Rozakis
>
2
Neville, Elizabeth
From:
Sent:
To:
Ce:
Subject:
Sepenoski, John
Wednesday, August 16, 20064:36 PM
Neville, Elizabeth
Norklun, Stacey
RE:
Bruno is using the 2004 NYS aerials, the latest set available for Southold. We downloaded copies last year when they
were first available for internal use. These are available on the State's web site for free, requestors should go there to
obtain copies because they were created by the State, not the Town and are therefore State records.
Was he looking for the latest aerials or historic ones? If the latest we should direct him to the web site. If historical we
should discuss.
John Sep
-----Original Message-----
From: Neville, Elizabeth
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 1:47 PM
To: Sepenoski, John
Subject: RE:
John,
He is an environmental consultant and submits applications to the Trustees on behalf of applicants. He has been
coming here for years. Is there a way we could put them on LaserFiche. However, I understand from Stacey that
Bruno Semon has more recent maps on his computer?? How did this happen?
From: Sepenoski, John
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 1:39 PM
To: Norklun, Stacey
Cc: Neville, Elizabeth
Subject: RE:
Who was the guy? If it is the guy that keeps asking me for them I have pointed out to him that he can get them from
the State and that under the terms of the State program we are not supposed to be giving them out.
-----Original Message-----
From: Norklun, Stacey
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 11:37 AM
To: Sepenoski, John
Ce: Neville, Elizabeth
Subject:
Is there a way we can put Aerial photos on the computer for people who request to see them? I just
spent a 1/2 hour downstairs with some guy looking for something and we could not find it or make
sense of the maps. He is coming back later. I have been having to take people down a lot lately and it
usually takes a lot of time to flip through them all to try to find what they are looking for, then make a
copy if we find it, and put it all back together again. There must be an easier way. I don't know these
maps and cannot help people when they ask for a certain area.
Thanks.
1
, ,
Neville, Elizabeth
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ipevans% fishers island. net [Ipevans@fishersisland.net]
Wednesday, August 16, 2006 1:31 PM
Neville, Elizabeth
Read: Forward to LWRP Council
Attachments:
ATT873321.txt
~
ATT873321.txt
(272 B)
This is a receipt for the mail you sent to "Terry, Mark"
<mark.terry@town.southold.ny.u8>i "Bill Edwards" <wpe@post.harvard.edu>i <rossl042
@aol.com>i "Russell, Scott" <Scott.Russell@town.southold.ny.us>i
<lpevans@fishersisland.net>i <wickhamthomas@yahoo.com>i "Krupski, AI"
<al.krupski@town.southold.ny.uS>i "Corcoran, Kieran" <Kieran.Corcoran@town.southold.ny.us>
at 8/16/2006 11,30 AM
This receipt verifies that the message has been displayed on the recipient1s computer at
8/16/2006 1:31 PM
1
Neville, Elizabeth
From:
Sent:
To:
SubJect:
Kt\"tlYtU
t't:! T"..,N I3c/
''''v'V ;fit.,
L. w R P C~o.,J"
,Ilo1.,.rk {("rr1
g.greenheronQv,~
Tueeday, AI,~if'5,8087:43 PM
Neville, Elizabeth
Forward to LWRP Council
AUG 1 6 z006
Kendall Klett
John Wieland
NYS DEC
Stony Brook,
South old Town CIeri
NY
re: Tsai Application, Southold, NY
DEC. 1-4738-03534/00002
Dear Ms. Klett,
In a previous phone conversation with you I had requested the "file" for the above
referenced application. You assured me that the materials I had received (which you sent)
represented the "substantive" contents of the file. I never received the following
materials, and would like to know if they exist. (If they do, I will make the proper FOIL
application to obtain copies of them.)
1. A completed Coastal Assessment Form relating to the above project, (as referred to in
Part 600 of Title 19 of the NYCRR.) This should be dated just after 11/01/05, the initial
date of the above application.
2. Since this project is located in a DOS significant habitat, and the area is in an
approved Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (two affirmative answers on the CAF), was
a copy of the CAF sent to the "Secretary" as required in Title 19, 600.4?
3. If the DEC has determined that this "action will not have a significant effect on the
environment," it is required by 600.4c to "submit...information on the proposed action to
the local government." If this determination has been made, has Southold's LWRP
Coordinator or Town Board been notified?
4. Has the DEC certified that this action is consistent with State Coastal Policies? If
so, is there a letter of determination in the file?
Sincerely,
Thomas Rozakis
Kenney's Beach Civic Association
c. Consistency Review, NYDOS
Southold Town Board
Mark Terry, Southold LWRP Coordinator
Southold LWRP Council
Pat Poppe, Pres., KBCA
Anne Murray, NFEC
1
.e
,4-
'.
Neville, Elizabeth
RECEIVED
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
g.greenheron@verizon.net
Thursday, July 13, 20069:46 PM
Neville, Elizabeth
Please Forward to Town Board
JUl 17 _
South old Town Cieri
Dear Ms. Neville:
Please forward this letter (below) to each individual member of the Town Board.
Thank you.
Thomas Rozakis
P.O. Box 450
Southold, NY 11971
July 10, 2006
Kendall Klett
Robert Marsh, Regional Manager, Bureau of Habitat Region One New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation Bldg. 40, SUNY Stony Brook, NY 11790-2356.
re: Tsai DEC Application # 1-4738-03534/0002 SCTM # 1000-59-1-21.1
310 Lake Drive, Southold, NY 11971
Dear Ms. Klett and Mr. Marsh,
I am writing this letter in opposition to the granting of the permit to Julie Tsai
referenced above. The subject parcel is located in what is known locally as Kenney's
Beach (See map, Attach. P). I have lived in this area for 17 years and have been a member
of the Kenney's Beach Civic Association as long. I became familiar with this application
through my work on the Preservation committee of the association. The project site is one
that I am most familiar with, as it is with most members of the association and many
citizens of Southold. The area has been identified as a maritime freshwater interdunal
swale and dunes, and is one of the few remaining on Long Island that offers the viewer a
sense of a coastal environment. It is a valuable community resource as noted in
Southold's newly adopted LWRP. Due to the efforts of our Civic Association, it was
designated a Significant Habitat, Goldsmith Inlet and Beach, by the NYS Department of
State, October 2005 (Attach. A).
I will attempt, in this letter, to present the issues as I see them based upon my
reading of the DEC's regulations. For the record, I am a layperson and as such am
unfamiliar with this type of analysis. I have been employed for the past twenty-five years
as a surveyor in the heavy construction industry.
Ms. Klett sent me the substantive (as she described them) application materials
submitted by Mr. Barrett, which included a letter dated June 5, 2006 and a site survey
dated May 28, 2006 (Revised). Mr. Marsh told me in a phone conversation last month that
the wetland on the property was a Class I. I have been told in previous conversations
with Mr. Marsh and MS. Klett that the Adjacent Area was defined by the DEC as 100 feet,
and it is so written in DEC Regulations Part 663.2(b). I am basing my comments below on
that information.
According to DEC regulations Part 663.4(d) table, page 22, a septic system
("Introduction of sewage effluent") is "incompatible" in an Adjacent Area of a freshwater
wetland. Despite the dimension shown on the survey (91 feet from the westerly wetland) or
called out in Mr. Barrett's letter (90 feet) the distance is actually 85 feet. One can
derive that number simply by adding up the given dimensions from the northwesterly wetland
as flagged: 60 foot setback to house, 20 foot house, and 5 fe~t to the septic tank. Be
1
"
that as it may, the septic system and its effluent is clearly within the Adjacent Area as
defined by the DEC.
As this regulated activity is incompatible, it must meet the weighing standards of
Part 663.5(e) for a Class I Wetland. It must also satisfy "a compelling economic or social
need that substantially outweighs the loss of or detriment to the benefit(s) of the Class
I wetland." Neither the applicant nor her representative address any of the above
weighing standards or show any need, compelling or otherwise, to overcome the
incompatibility of the sewage effluent which accompanies this project. AS "The burden of
showing that the proposed activity will comply with the policies and provisions of the Act
and this Part rests entirely on the applicant" (663.5a), and the applicant has not made
any argument whatsoever, this permit should be rejected.
In the event that this obvious and fatal deficiency in this application is
overlooked, I will address the septic system first and then the other regulated activities
that are usually incompatible with an Adjacent Area.
Before that, however, I will respectfully submit that, due to the reported systemic
and closely related hydrologic, botanical and topographic interaction (as variously
reported, see Attachments) between wetland and dune in a maritime interdunal swale, there
is no Adjacent Area. It is all wetland. Certainly the normal delineation of wetland and
upland, linear and progressive differences in elevation, are not apparent here. In
looking at the topographic data, there is less than one foot of elevation change between
the "edge of wetlands as flagged" and much of the Adjacent Area, and the elevation changes
occur in swales and mounds, not in defined slopes where one could definitively say, this
is and will always be upland. Those of us who have lived here long enough have seen many
changes in the landscape. A cranberry bog emerged from a low-lying swale just 900 feet
from this site.
As Heather Tetrault, Southold's Environmental Technician wrote in her report (Attach.
F) of a similar property in the same significant habitat, "it is a dynamic system that is
susceptible to ...shifting sand formation." It contains "seasonally flooded depressions
that occur in back dunes." The proposed project lies in one of these back dunes. As Ms.
Tetrault reports, "According to past aerial photography and historical information the
groundwater table experiences seasonal fluctuations and the size of the wetlands increase
with the movement of groundwater." Larry Penny, Director of Environmental Protection, Town
of Easthampton, in his testimony and letter (Attach. E) to the Southold Trustees, states
"The groundwater column rises and falls depending upon the amount of precipitation,"~ut is
also tied to sea level because the fresh groundwater is less dense than the saline sea
water which underlies it and thus "floats" on top of it. Thus, with the sea level rise
that we are presently experiencing on Long Island, interdunal swales will expand rather
than shrink and we can expect the subject one...to increase in size over the next fifty
years. "
It would be irresponsible to define the wetlands in this habitat in the "snapshot"
approach of this application. I would urge a more synoptic view, more in concert with
public policies of long-term conservation. Although I will spend the balance of these
comments addressing the regulated activities in the 100-foot DEC defined "Adjacent Area"
it is my primary contention that the project lies within a freshwater wetland. Due to the
rarity and fragility of that wetland, as variously reported (see Attachments) the project
is therefore completely incompatible and the application should be rejected.
SEPTIC SYSTEM - Regulated Activity: " Introduction of Sewage effluent"
The septic tank lies within 85 feet of the flagged wetland, and by DEC standards is
incompatible in the Adjacent Area of a freshwater wetland. Although the reasons for
incompatibility are not stated in DEe regulations, in testimony, letters and reports
(enclosed) the destructive outcome of placing septic systems in proximity of wetlands is
well known. In his affidavit (Attach. G) former President of Southold Trustees Al Krupski
refers to Larry Penny's testimony relating the aggressive plant species that "thrive on
nitrate-rich leaching from septic tanks...that would overrun and wipe out...the rare iris
prismatica and sundew that Eric Lamont had seen growing within the interdunal swales."
Heather Tetrault, Southold's Environmental Technician, similarly states "nutrient
enrichment from...septic systems greatly accelerate invasion by these species (common reed
and purple loosestrife)."
2
"
As the septic system is considered incompatible, the weighing standards must be
applied as per 663.5(e) for a Class I wetland:
1. "the proposed activity must be compatible with the public health and welfare"
The public welfare is defined in 663.5(f) as "consistency with related federal, state and
local laws, regulations and policies."
I would maintain that this project is inconsistent with the basic tenets of the New York
State Freshwater Wetlands Act of 1975, as codified in the Environmental Conservation Law,
which states:
"It is declared to be the public policy of the state to preserve, protect and conserve
freshwater wetlands and the benefits derived therefrom, to prevent the despoliation and
destruction of freshwater wetlands, and to regulate use and development of such wetlands
to secure the natural benefits of freshwater wetlands, consistent with the general welfare
and beneficial economic, social and agricultural development of the state." (24-0103)
"It shall further be the policy of the state to improve and coordinate the environmental
plans, functions, powers and programs of the state, in cooperation with the federal
government, regions, local governments, other public and private organizations and the
concerned individual, and to develop and manage the basic resources of water, land, and
air to the end that the state may fulfill its responsibility as trustee of the environment
for the present and future generations." (1-0101,2)
I also point out Policy 7 of the New York State Department of State Coastal Management
Program (Attach. H), which states:
"SIGNIFIC~ COASTAL FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITATS WILL BE PROTECTED, PRESERVED, AND WHERE
PRACTICAL, RESTORED SO AS TO MAINTAIN THEIR VIABILITY AS HABITATS. "(Original text
capitalized)
The project is inconsistent with numerous Town of Southold policies, some of which are:
Local Waterfront Revitalization Program - The Southold Town Planning Department has
determined that this project is severely and profoundly inconsistent with its newly
adopted LWRP. February 9, 2006 report by the Town's LWRP coordinator, Mark Terry.
(Attach. J)
Southold Town Board Resolution #171, adopted unanimously March 29, 2003 "The subject
property (one of 11 referred to above in this letter) and other properties located north
of Lake Drive and in the vicinity of Lake Drive, are comprised of a wetland and dune
system dominated by ecological communities classified as rare in New York by the New York
Heritage Program (NYNHP) and the maritime freshwater interdunal swale community is
currently listed as globally rare. The preservation and protection of this property falls
under multiple purposes of the Community Preservation Project Plan, including but not
limited to, preservation and protection of open spaces and scenic values, protection of
wetlands, protection of significant biological diversity and protection of unique and
threatened ecological areas." (Attach. I)
Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy - Draft Generic Environmental Impact
Statement Southold Town Board May 2003
"Freshwater wetlands are equally important ecological communities (as tidal wetlands)
scattered throughout the Town. As summarized in the Master Plan Update (RPPW, 1984)
freshwater wetlands can playa major role in flood control, acting as storage basins and
reducing flood crests and erosive capacities; wetlands are vital to the hydrologic cycle
in that they help to recharge groundwater." (Attach. K, abstract)
SEQRA Resolution, Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy, January 7, 2003 Southold
Town Board "Whereas, the Board has articulated the goals of the Town in various documents
and reiterates here the intent to achieve the Town's vision as identified in the following
goals:
The Town's goal is to preserve land including open space, recreation and working
landscapes.
The Town's goal is to preserve its natural environment; to prevent further deterioration
3
"
of resources and to restore degraded resources back to pristine or near pristine quality."
(Attach. L, abstract)
Scenic Southold Corridor Management Plan April 2001 (prepared for Southold Town Board by
Ferrandino & Associates Inc. and Hutton Associates Inc.)
"... wetlands are productive habitats for a number of different plant and animal species,
and therefore are central to the maintenance of Southold's natural environment and the
productivity of its marine resources. Perhaps most importantly for the preservation of
views, wetlands restrict development, ensuring more effectively than any other regulation
that an open vista will remain open." (Attach. M, abstract)
County Route 48 Corridor Land Use Study April 1999 (prepared for Southold Town Board by
Cramer Consulting Group)
"The importance of wetlands can not be overstressed. Any land use decisions in or near
wetlands must recognize their importance and reduce or avoid potential impacts to the
greatest extent possible.H (Attach. N, abstract)
2. "be the only practicable alternative that could accomplish the applicant's
objectives and have no practicable alternative on a site that is not a freshwater wetland
or adjacent area.H
Suffolk County has made a standing offer to all owners of all 10 remaining parcels (the
eleventh has been preserved by Southold Town and the peconic Land Trust) to appraise and
purchase the lots at market value. To the best of my knowledge, the applicant's
investment group owns three of the 10 parcels and has been offered a generous profit on
one, has refused appraisal on the subject parcel, and is in tax arrears on the third. The
practicable alternative to the applicant's clear real estate speculation objectives on
this wetland or adjacent area is to accept these offers of purchase by Suffolk County and
speculate in other properties on sites that are not wetlands or adjacent areas.
3. "the proposed activity must minimize degradation to, or loss of, any part of the
wetland or its adjacent area and must minimize any adverse impacts on the functions
and benefits that the wetland provides.H
The applicant's letter implies that some design accommodations were made because of the
project's proximity to a wetland: a house on "stilts, " a septic tank 90, not 76 feet
from the wetland, a driveway of crushed stone, a septic system within a retaining wall.
Although all other regulated activities will be addressed in depth below, nowhere does the
applicant or her representative address the proposed chemical intrusion of the septic
system into the groundwater of the wetland. Although "stilts" are proposed for the house
construction, no piles ("stilts)H have been invented that are inert and that do not leach
some harmful contaminants into the surrounding groundwater in which they will be
submerged. No methods of driving the piles have been proposed, let alone one that would
not interfere with the fragile ecology of the wetland. Furthermore, by simple arithmetic
one finds that the retaining wall's footing will be submerged in the groundwater. Not
only will the construction of this wall create havoc in the adjacent area and doubtless
spread its muck and mire into the wetlands, it will forever be sunk" into the groundwater,
and concrete and reinforcing bar will leach their byproducts as they decompose and rust,
as they always do under these conditions. AS "The burden of showing that the proposed
activity will comply with the policies and provisions of the Act and this Part rests
entirely on the applicant" (663.5a), and the applicant has not made any mention of these
problems, let alone their "minimizationH (as required in this final weighing standard) the
permit should be rejected.
Finally, as stated in DEC regulations, "a permit shall be issued only if it is determined
that the proposed activity satisfied a compelling economic or social need that clearly and
substantially outweighs the loss or detriment of the benefit(s) of the Class I wetland."
Neither the applicant nor her representative make any claim of need whatsoever, compelling
or otherwise. Certainly nothing stated (there is none) or implied outweighs the following
recommendation by Greg Edinger, Program Ecologist, N.Y. Natural Heritage Program in
concluding his October 8, 2004 report (Attach. D):
"Development within maritime dunes would likely reduce the landscape ranking factor for
the maritime interdunal swales, reduce the overall quality of the occurrence, and threaten
its long term viability."
4
"
HOUSE BUILT ON STILTS- Regulated activity- ~Constructing a residence"
The application describes the one-story residence as 60 feet from the flagged
boundary of the wetland. This is within the DEC defined Adjacent Area and therefore
usually incompatible, as per DEC regulation 663.4. There is no guarantee that if the
house is built the applicant will not soon apply and receive a variance to build a second
story, with additional septic needs. The Southold Zoning Board of Appeals does not
usually consider environmental issues in its dispensations. Please refer above to the
problems inherent in incompatible septic systems, scope and intensity of which is
undisclosed.
The applicant also fails to disclose the type and number of piles (stilts), the
method by which they will be driven, and the risks both in the materials and method. To
my knowledge there are no known inert pile materials or non-invasive methods for their
placement. Without this information it would be impossible to assess the real damage to
the wetland and its adjacent area. In failing to address these issues, the applicant
fails the DEe requirement that the burden of showing compliance rests entirely on the
applicant (663.5a).
The construction of the proposed residence fails the three tests required to be
applied to "usually incompatible" activities.
1) In not providing the necessary information, one can only assume, and has the right
to assume, that the project is incompatible with preservation, protection and
conservation. Certainly nothing has been offered by the applicant to overcome the
assessment of Eric Lamont, who summarized in his report dated August 2004 (Attach. B):
~The strictest environmental laws and codes should be enforced to preserve the integrity
of these delicate and sensitive ecological communities," and ~Fragmentation of this unique
maritime ecosystem will result in negative environmental impacts."
2) The applicant has avoided all discussion of the degradation of the wetland due to
the proposed regulated activity. Presumably the hay bales would protect the groundwater
from the undisclosed pile material. The 60 foot setback offered does not address the
concerns raised by Larry Penny, who states in his letter on a related, nearby parcel:
~...standard setbacks that provide protective buffers from wetlands in more inland areas
where the line between ~wetland" and ~upland" is generally sharp, don't offer as much
protection in interdunal swale areas...Developmental events produce short-term and long-term
chronic disturbances, ...and the change is progressive and deleterious to the natural
system. "
3) The regulated activity is inconsistent with State and Local conservation and
preservation policies, as enumerated above, in the section regarding the septic system.
As for the weighing standards that are not addressed by the applicant and the
compelling social and economic needs that are not offered, please refer to the previous
section on the septic system.
SEPTIC SYSTEM RETAINING WALL AND RAISED SEPTIC SYSTEM- Regulated Activities- "Constructing
a residence or related structures or facilities" ~Grading" ~Filling"
The raised septic system proposed will involve a minimum of 97 cubic yards of
excavation at about 10" below groundwater elevation to build the 190 foot long, 3' wide
footing. This is based on the plan view and section on the survey showing the minimum
distance from the ground elevation to bottom of footing as U2'6", the spot elevation of
5.5 at the northwest corner of the septic system, and the test hole showing groundwater
elevation at EI. 3.8. This is a minimum if the footing is stepped, (not shown) to
accommodate the higher ground elevations at the road. AS shown it would involve an
additional 60 cubic yards of excavation. In the 17 years I have witnessed construction
methods on the North Fork I have never seen sheeting or pumps used in a project such as
this, and certainly the applicant makes no such proposal.
without the use of expensive and rather sophisticated techniques such as these it is
my experience that excavations at or below groundwater quickly become uncontrollable mired
pits. A representative mud hole with flooding can be seen in the attached photo (Attach.
0) of similar construction nearby on West Drive (See map Attach. P). This house is
mentioned, in fact, in Greg Edinger's report. (I do not believe it is coincidental that
large concentrations of purple loosestrife and phragmites are directly across the road
from this new septic system.)
5
"
The construction process of this proposed retaining wall alone will cause massive
trauma to the wetland. The concrete footings and reinforcing bar will be immersed in the
groundwater for years, cracking (as they always do) and leaching their contaminants. The
applicant offers no credible explanation or minimization of the short term and long-term
effects of these regulated activities ("Constructing" and "Grading"). The applicant
merely proposes hay bales as a solution.
The approximately 2075 square foot septic area will then require an additional fill
of approximately 325 cubic yards (not including the original footing excavation requiring
backfill and compaction). The applicant does not address this regulated activity
("Filling") in any way.
It is the burden of the applicant to show that these regulated "proposed activities
comply with the policies and provisions of the Act and this Part (663)." Little or no
attempt has been made by the applicant to satisfy this requirement. Please refer to
previous sections of this letter concerning the incompatible nature of this project with
the tests, weighing standards, and lack of compelling social and economic reasons.
Eric Lamont reports that the maritime swales and maritime dunes are "closely and
inseparably intertwined with each other. They are connected together by an intricate and
delicate balance between macro- and microscopic organisms and abiotic (non-living) factors
of the environment such as hydrology, soil characteristics, and micro-habitats created by
blow-outs in the undulating systems of dunes." It seems impossible to reconcile Mr.
Lamont's description with the notion of an Adjacent Area. The construction of a retaining
wall with its requisite excavation below groundwater, grading and filling would threaten
the very wetland itself. This, of course, applies to the discharge of sewage effluent
from this system, which is considered flincompatible" by DEC standards, as discussed above.
No minimization has been offered by the applicant that would sufficiently limit the
degradation of this fragile and globally rare wetland. As is the case with all the other
incompatible and usually incompatible activities proposed in this project, the applicant
has failed to divulge a need that substantially outweighs the loss of or detriment to the
benefits of this Class I wetland, or any need whatsoever. I respectfully submit that
science, public policy and state regulation overwhelmingly argue against the granting of
this permit.
Sincerely,
Thomas Rozakis
c: Denise M. Sheehan, Commissioner, NYS DEC
Peter A. Scully, Region One Director, NYS DEe
Edward P. Romaine, Suffolk County Legislator
Scott Russell, Southold Town Supervisor
Southold Town Board Members
patricia Finnegan, Southold Town Attorney
Resler, Kiernan, Mildner, NYS DOS
Denise Civiletti, Suffolk Times
Attachments (to DEC and by request)
A. Goldsmith Inlet and Beach, NYSDOS Coastal Habitat Assessment
B. Botanical Report, flGreat Pond Wetlands & Dunes," Eric Lamont, Ph.D.
C. Curriculum vitae, Eric Lamont, Ph.D.
D. NY Natural Heritage Program Review of Natural Communities at Great Pond Wetlands and
Dunes, Greg Edinger
E. Letter to Southold Town Trustees, Larry Penny
F. Natural resource report, 1300 & 1460 Lake Drive (Mazzanobile Permit), Heather
Tetrault, Environmental Technician, Town of Southold
G. Affidavit, Albert Krupski, (former) President Board of Trustees of the Town of
Southold, Mazzanobile v. Southold Town Trustees, Supreme Court of the State of New York,
County of Suffolk, Index # 05-14509
6
,
H. Policy 7, NYS Department of State Coastal Management Program
I. Southold Town Board Resolution # 171
J. Inconsistent LWRP Determination, Mark Terry, Southold LWRP Coord.
K. Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy- Draft Environmental Impact
Statement, prepared for Southold Town Board (abstract)
L. SEQRA Resolution, Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy (abstract),
Southold Town Board
M. Scenic Southold Corridor Management Plan (abstract), prepared for Southold Town
Board
N. County Route 48 Corridor Land Use Study (abstract), prepared for Southold Town Board
Q. Photograph of flooding at above ground septic system, Lake Drive and West Drive,
Southold
P. Key map, "Sample Land Preservation Target Map"
7
Tsai Permit, Town Trustees
. .
"
::r~ Page 1 of 1
'....it"""'>
Neville, Elizabeth
From: Finnegan, Patricia
Sent: WedneSday, June 14, 2006 1 :42 PM
To: Neville, Elizabeth
Subject: FW: Tsai Permit, Town Trustees
RECEIVED
.JUN 14 ..
~outhold TOWD Oe.
-----Original Message-----
From: g.greenheron@verizon.net [mailto:g.greenheron@verizon.net]
Sent: Mon 6/12/2006 12:56 AM
To: Finnegan, Patricia
Cc: Corcoran, Kieran
Subject: Tsai Permit, Town Trustees
June 12,2006
To the Members of the Southold Town Board:
We thank you for the interest some of you have shown in our preservation efforts. Recently we have suffered a setback, but more
importantly, we believe the Town has suffered more.
We are referring, of course, to the recent decision by the Trustees to approve a wetland permit for the construction of a house at 310
Lake Drive, in the Kenney's Beach area. The Trustees' decision flouts Town Law in at least two respects.
First, the Trustees have expressed undue discretion in reducing the minimum setbacks required from structures to wetlands. As
stated by Trustee Doherty in the Suffolk Times on May 25, "It has to be a balance between property rights and saving the land."
Although we agree with Trustee Doherty that in certain cases property rights are an issue, we do not believe the Trustees have the
discretion or the authority of a Board of Appeals. The only discretion allowed by Chapter 97 speaks to environmental considerations,
and the law implies that the Trustees may be more restrictive, not less. In this particular decision the Trustees even failed to utilize the
services of their Environmental Technician, despite her specific assignment and qualifications for such evaluations. The Trustees, we
fear, have put in harm's way one of the more ambitious community preservation efforts we can recall, the plan to save the globally rare
Great Pond Wetlands and Dunes from the bulldozer.
Second, their decision completely ignored, by failing to address, the LWRP Coordinator's determination that the permit application
was absolutely inconsistent with the Town's Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. Their utter disregard of the newly enacted
Consistency Review Law, Chapter 95, threatens the Town's ability to advance its long term planning goals as well as its ability to
receive State L WRP grants. Some of the Trustees seem to be working at severe cross-purposes with the Town Board and with the
Town's recent preservation initiatives, not to mention the Town's clearly stated environmental policies of the last two decades.
Although we have every intention of exercising all possible legal and administrative remedies in our opposition to this Trustee
decision, we feel it is time the Town Board stepped up and enforced the Town's laws. We trust that the Town Board will agree with us
that this serious and irresponsible act by the Trustees must be addressed in the most strenuous manner. We look forward to hearing
from you in the very near future with your action plan to deal with this destructive decision.
Sincerely,
Pat Poppe
President
Kenney's Beach Civic Association
Lillian Ball Thomas Rozakis
Chairwoman Committeeman
Great Pond Wetlands and Dunes
Preservation Committee, KBCA
6/14/2006
7-f
"
Neville, Elizabeth
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
g.greenheron@verizon.net
Monday, June 12, 2006 12:54 AM
Neville, Elizabeth
Please distribute to Town Board
RECEIVED
JUN 1 2 3106
June 12, 2006
Soulholrl Town CIeri
To the Members of the Southold Town Board:
We thank you for the interest some of you have shown in our preservation efforts.
Recently we have suffered a setback, but more importantly, we believe the Town has
suffered more.
We are referring, of course, to the recent decision by the Trustees to approve a
wetland permit for the construction of a house at 310 Lake Drive, in the Kenney's Beach
area. The Trustees' decision flouts Town Law in at least two respects.
First, the Trustees have expressed undue discretion in reducing the minimum setbacks
required from structures to wetlands. As stated by Trustee Doherty in the Suffolk Times
on May 25, "It has to be a balance between property rights and saving the land."
Although we agree with Trustee Doherty that in certain cases property rights are an issue,
we do not believe the Trustees have the discretion or the authority of a Board of Appeals.
The only discretion allowed by Chapter 97 speaks to environmental considerations, and the
law implies that the Trustees may be more restrictive, not less. In this particular
decision the Trustees even failed to utilize the services of their Environmental
Technician, despite her specific assignment and qualifications for such evaluations. The
Trustees, we fear, have put in harm's way one of the more ambitious community preservation
efforts we can recall, the plan to save the globally rare Great Pond Wetlands and Dunes
from the bulldozer.
Second, their decision completely ignored, by failing to address, the LWRP
Coordinator's determination that the permit application was absolutely inconsistent with
the Town's Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. Their utter disregard of the newly
enacted Consistency Review Law, Chapter 95, threatens the Town's ability to advance its
long term planning goals as well as its ability to receive State LWRP grants. Some of the
Trustees seem to be working at severe cross-purposes with the Town Board and with the
Town's recent preservation initiatives, not to mention the Town's clearly stated
environmental policies of the last two decades.
Although we have every intention of exercising all possible legal and administrative
remedies in our opposition to this Trustee decision, we feel it is time the Town Board
stepped up and enforced the Town's laws. We trust that the Town Board will agree with us
that this serious and irresponsible act by the Trustees must be addressed in the most
strenuous manner. We look forward to hearing from you in the very near future with your
action plan to deal with this destructive decision.
Sincerely,
Pat Poppe
Thomas Rozakis
President
Committeeman
Kenney's Beach Civic Association
Lillian Ball
Chairwoman
Great Pond Wetlands and Dunes
Preservation
Committee, KBCA
1
.
...
Neville, Elizabeth
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
9.9 reenheron@verizon.net
< Friday, May 26, 2006 4:27 PM
Neville, Elizabeth
Press Release Kenney's Beach Civic Assoc.
n_wkd -h. 77:S .;f1t:,.,~rs
b~& REcE~Eb 1'<'''''' ..sly
Elizabeth Neville
Southold Town Clerk
JUN
8 3Xl6
Dear Ms. Neville:
Could you please distribute this Press
Board? Thank you.
SouthoM Town a.,.
Release to the members ,of
the Town
PRESS RELEASE MAY 22, 2006: KENNEY'S BEACH CIVIC ASSOCIATION
TRUSTEES APPROVE DESTRUCTION OF GLOBALLY RARE HABITAT
Last week, on Wednesday May 17th at their public hearing the Southold Town Trustees
voted 3-2 to approve a permit for a single family dwelling on piles with septic system
located in a globally rare and fragile ecosystem. Known as a "maritime interdunal swale
and dune," the area was identified and documented in the last two years by independent
scientists and the Department of Environmental Conservation and has been designated as a
significant habitat by the New York State Department of State. Although the Trustees
protected a similar parcel last year, the newly elected Trustees Doherty and Bergen teamed
up with Jimmy King to quash the preservation hopes of the Kenney's Beach Civic Association
and other dedicated environmentalists. Trustees Peg Dickerson and John Holzapzel spoke
eloquently in opposition to the permit.
The Southold Planning Department had determined that the submitted and now approved
site plan was completely inconsistent with the newly adopted Local Waterfront
Revitalization Program. The Trustees chose not to assign their own Environmental
Technician to prepare a report on this project, although she was hired to be their in-
house expert and advisor on projects of this type. She had previously agreed with the
experts who recommended the protection of the nearby parcel. The decision to grant the
permit ignored the science, public policy, and the minimum setbacks required by Southold
Town Code for freshwater wetland regulation.
Despite offers by Suffolk County to purchase the subject parcels in the area at
prices that would provide a very significant profit to the owners, the scientific
evidence, the LWRP inconsistency, and the public protest and testimony that spanned over
six months of hearings, the Trustees shockingly opted for development. The Kenney's Beach
Civic Association and many other supporters consider this one of the worst environmental
and governmental tragedies in recent Southold history. The granting of this permit
threatens the preservation efforts of the remaining 10 lots in the area known as the Great
Pond Wetlands and Dunes. These efforts by the community, the Town, the Peconic Land
Trust, Suffolk County, and elements of the DEC and DOS have been continuing for almost
three years and had become a model of joint citizen and government land preservation
action.
The Civic Association and other individuals committed to environmental preservation
have every intention of continuing their opposition to this .permit through all available
administrative and legal avenues. They will not cease their efforts until this ill-
considered decision is reversed or made mute by other more responsible agencies.
FOR MORE INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE PRESERVATION COMMITTEE OF THE KENNY'S BEACH CIVIC
ASSOCIATION:
Lillian Ball, Chairman: 917 453-5040 Thomas Rozakis: 347
728-3109
cc: Town Board, Commissioner, DEe, Kiernan,Resler, DOS, Suffolk Times, Traveler
Watchman, NY Times
1