No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1000-135.-1-23Thomas W. Cramer, Principal P.O. Box 5535 Miller Place, New York 11764 Telephone (631)476-0984 Fax (631) 476~6933 October 5, 2005 Ms. Patricia C. Moore, Esq. 51020 Main Street Southold, New York 11971 Padovan LWRP Consistency Review SCTM# 1000-135-1-23 & 24.1 OCT 1 7 2005 So[]tiioi¢ Bourd of Truetees Dear Ms. Moore: As per your request, I have reviewed the letter from Mr. Mark Terry, Senior Environmental Planner, dated August 23, 2005, concerning the above. The following are my comments and observations on the letter. The Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan (LWRP), and the 13 policies and standards within it, is a refinement of the New York State Department of State's (NYSDOS) 44 Coastal Policies. I am thoroughly familiar with the NYSDOS' program and the rigorous process the towns go through to assure consistency with the State's plan. I have both instructed and been a guest speaker at a number of workshops and symposiums for the NYSDOS on the LWRP program. In addition, I was Director of Environmental Protection and Commissioner of Planning, Environmental and Development in the Town of Brookhaven. In those capacities I was the chief executive officer in charge of the implementation of Brookhaven's LWRP. Because of Brookhaven's vast size and the differences in the various coastlines found within the Town, we chose to implement the LWRP program by developing a number of detailed LWRPs to address the various sub-regions in Brookhaven. Furthermore, I have provided consulting services to numerous private clients and municipalities throughout Long Island, many dealing with the various local LWRPs. I am thoroughly familiar with the NYSDOS' program, which is the basis of Southold's program, and have worked with and reviewed the Town's LWRP numerous times in the past. For your use and information, I am providing a copy of my curriculum vitae (attached). The Town's document was developed to provide an ~p opnate balance between economic development and the preservation that will permit beneficial (sic) use of and prevent adverse effects on Southold's coastal resources ". As stated above, the Town has culled the 44 NYSDOS policies down to 13 that are relevant to Southold. These 13 are categorized into four groups in the LWRP. The cateKori~ ~re_ u~fu! in determiningconsistency to the LWRP, depending on t~ type 0fprojec~ and its location and setting within the coastal zone. The categories are as follows: · Developed Coast Policies · Natural Coast Policies · Public Coast Policies · Working Coast Policies Each of the policies, within the categories, is provided with a narrative as to its relevance to Southold. They are then followed by a set of policy standards to aid and provide guidance in development within the coastal zone. It is these standards and how the project is proposed according to them that would determine consistency to the Town's LWRP. Mr. Terry states in the second paragraph of his letter that he reviewed the LWRP Consistency Assessment Form and other information and that it is his recommendation that "the proposed action is generally inconsistent with the ... policies standards and is therefore inconsistent with the LWRP." He then lists four (4) of the thirteen (13) policies of which the proposed action is supposedly inconsistent with the various standards. However, no supporting information is provided to substantiate how the project does not conform to the policies or their corresponding standards. In fact, in reviewing the proposed project and comparing it to the LWRP policies and standards, the project, in my opinion, is consistent with the intent of the LWRP. The following is a review of the various LWRP policies and standards as listed in the August 23, 2005 letter. The policies and standards are shown in bold italics; each is then followed by a discussion on how Mr. & Mrs. Angelo adovan s proposed project relates to them. p , DEVELOPED COAST POLICIES Policy 3 Enhance visual quality and protect scenic resources thrbughout the Town of Southold. Policy Standards 3.1 Enhance visual quality andprotect scenic resources throughout the Town of Southold. A. Minimize introduction of structural design components (including utility lines, lighting, signage and fencing) which would be discordant with existing natural scenic components and character. The proposed house is within an ama that is not considered natural. There is an existing structure on the site that is proposed to be enlarged as a non-major addition, in accordance with the Town's Chapter 37, Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas. In addition, immediately across the street is a large condominium complex, as well as attached housing just to the west. On the same side of the street as the project there are numerous houses fronting on Long Island Sound in an almost continuous line stretching both east and west. The only exceptions to this is an area west of the site where the shoreline comes right to the edge of the road (used as a private beach access) and the Town of Southold's large parking field and beach approximately 300 feet to the east. Houses then continue both east and west beyond these breaks. The proposed project would not be in discord with the existing character of the area. With regard to the structural design components listed, including utility lines, lighting, signage and fencing: The site has existing utility poles on the north side of the roadway, or immediately ad~iacentta th~ site Thes~pe!es prcs~nt!y serciee the existing homes: The proposed~roject dryes not alter the established character. The applicant would be willing to install underground service to the proposed house; however, the mitigation is not considered significant with the existing conditions. There is no proposed signage. The applicant would be willing to covenant that no fencing would be installed and that any exterior lighting, which will be minimal for a residence, would conform to "dark-sky" standards of shielded fixtures. Considering the above, this standard is met. 2 D. Use appropriate siting, scales, forms, and materials to ensure that structures are compatible with and add interest to existing scenic components. As stated above, the existing character of the area is residential, both single-family and multi- family/high density development. The proposed action will be a single-family home. There is a vast range of style in the existing homes in the area. However, the applicant intends to develop a home that is fitting with the seaside character and attractiveness, with the use of breaks in the roofline, gables and other architectural treatments. In addition, it should be noted that, considering the topography and the location of the home on the site, the first floor would be substantially below the level of the road. This will present a smaller profile (scale) than most of the other homes in the area. In addition, existing vegetation on site will be able to be preserved, particularly on the western portion of the site. Through the proposed design and siting of this home this standard will be met. H. Protect the visual interest provided by active water-dependent uses. The site does not have, nor are there views of, active water-dependent uses; therefore, this standard does not apply. K. Protect visual quality associated with agricultural land, open space and natural resources. l. Maintain or restore original landforms except where altered inndforms provide useful screening or contribute to scenic quality. 3. A void structures or activities which introduce visual interruptions to natural landscapes including: a. introduction of intrusive artificial light sources c. changes to the continuity and configuration of natural shorelines and associated vegetation The site does not contain agricultural land or open space; the site currently is occupied by structures associated with the beach cabana. The proposed non-major additions to the existing structure(s) are located on the eastern portion of the parcel. The western half of the site, as well as all of the beach and dunes on the northern portion of the site, will be maintained undisturbed in its original condition. The shoreline will not be altered; all proposed activity is located over 100 feet from the mean high water of Long Island Sound. As stated in the response to Standard 3.1, exterior lighting, which will be minimal for a residence, would conform to "dark-sky" standards of shielded fixtures. Therefore, the proposed project conforms to this standard. NATURAL COAST POLICIES Policy 4 Minimize loss of life, structures, and natural resources from flooding and erosion. Policy Standards 4.1 Minimize losses of human life and structures from flooding and erosion hazards. The following management measures to minimize losses of human life and structures from flooding attd erosion hazards are suggested: /1. Minimize potential loss and damage by locating development and structures away from flooding and erosion hazards. l. Avoid development other than water-dependent uses in coastal hazard areas. Locate new development which is not water-dependent as far away from coastal hazard areas as practical. a. No development is permitted in natural protective feature areas, except as specifically allowed under the relevant portions of 6 NYCRR 505.8. b. Avoid hazards by siting structures to maximize the distance from Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas. 3 The proposed home is a non-major addition to an existing structure(s) as defined under The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation's (NYSDEC) 6 NYCRR 505.8, Coastal Erosion Management Regulations, and the Town of Southold's Chapter 37, Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas. Therefore, the proposed activity is not considered new development and is allowed in the natural protective features found on the site (see my letter of May 7, 2005 to Albert J. Krupski, Jr., President of the Town of Southold Board of Trustees). It should be noted that 6 NYCRR 505.8 is less restrictive than Chapter 37; the Town's LWRP refers to the less restrictive 6 NYCRR 505.8. For example, under 6 NYCRR 505.8, a non-major addition to existing structures could occur on the natural protective features of the beach. The proposed action holds itself to the more stringent requirements of Chapter 37. The house will be located above the FEMA flood zone elevation. The entire site is located within the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area as presently defined by NYSDEC. The structure has been located as far as possible from the shoreline, avoiding potential hazards as much as possible. It is impossible to locate this non-major addition out of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area. The proposed action meets this standard by avoiding the hazards of erosion as much as possible (Standard 4.1 .A. 1.2) and fully complies with the all other aspects of the standard. 2. A void reconstruction of structures, other than structures that are part o fa water-dependent use, damaged by 50% or more of their value in coastal hazard areas. This standard addresses reconstruction of structures in coastal hazard areas that are damaged by 50% or more of their value. The existing structures are not damaged; the action is for a non- major addition. Therefore, the standard does not apply to the project. 3. Move existing development and structures as far away from flooding and erosion hazards as practical. Maintaining existing development and structures in hazard areas may be warranted for: a. structures which functionally require a location on the coast or in coastal waters. b. water-dependent uses which cannot avoid exposure to hazards. c. sites in areas with extensive public investment, public infrastructure, or major public facilities. d. sites where relocation o fan existing structure is notpractical. As stated in the response to Standard 4.1 .A 1, the proposed project has been located as far as possible from erosion hazards. As stated in this policy standard, "existing development and structures in hazard areas may be warranted" if certain conditions, as listed, exist. Standard 4.1.A. 1.3 condition numbers "a", "b", and "c" are not relevant to the project. The proposed project conforms to condition "d". Therefore, the action conforms to this policy standard. B. Use vegetative non_structural measures to manage flooding and erosion hazards. l. Use vegetative non-structural measures which have a reasonable probability of managing flooding and erosion, based on shoreline characteristics including exposure, geometry, and sediment composition. 2. Use vegetative measures to increaseprotective capabilities of natural protective features. Discourage clearing of existing, particularly indigenous vegetation during siting, design, construction and regrading phases of any develo mentp_ro'ect 3. Discourage alteration of existing natural drainage contours and swales and encourage enhancement of those natural drainage features where they exist. The proposed action will not disturb the existing vegetation within the dune area. As discussed in my May 7, 2005 letter to the Trustees, it is this area that provides the most significant non- structural measures to manage flooding and erosion hazard. It has been previously suggested, again in my May 7, 2005 letter, that augmentation of the dune system in front of the proposed project would further reduce the potential of erosion. At present, road runoffand natural drainage does not flow from the south, over the top of the bluff. This condition will remain after the proposed construction. The western half of the site, as well as all of the beach and dunes on the northern portion of the site, will be maintained undisturbed, it its original condition. In the undeveloped area of the right-of-way of Sound View Avenue, between the site's southern property line and paved roadway, only a portion of the existing vegetation is to be removed. This will be used for the access drive into the site, while maintaining existing drainage patterns away from the top of the bluff. In those areas that are required to be disturbed for the additions to the existing structures, vegetation, particularly indigenous species, will be used to stabilize the slopes and regraded portions of the site. Considering the above, the action conforms to this policy's standard. C. Enhance existing natural protective features and processes, and use nonstructural measures which have a reasonable probability of managing erosion I. Enhance the protective capabilities of beaches by using fill, artificial nourishment, dredge disposal, or by restoring coastal processes. a. Use only clean sand or gravel with a grain size equivalent to or slightly larger titan tbe native material at the project site. b. Design criteria for enhancing the protective capabih'ties of beaches should not exceed the level necessary to achieve protection frotn a 30-year storm, except where th ere is an overriding public benefit. c. Provide for sand by-passing at engineered inlets or other shore protection structures to maintain coastal processes and protective capabih'ties of beaches. The beach on the site will not be disturbed. All activity will be well above the beach. Therefore, this policy standard does not apply. 2. Protect and enhance existing dunes or create new dunes using fill, artificial nourishment, or entrapment of windborne sand. a. Use only clean sand with a grain size equivalent or slightly larger than native dune material. b. Design criteria for created dunes should not exceed the overtopping height defined by the 30-year storm, except where there is an overriding public benefiL c. Enhance existing or created dunes using snow fencing and dune vegetation. d. Construct and provlde for use of walkovers to prevent pedestrian damage to existing attd enhanced dunes. There is a small dune formation in front of the existing structures and proposed home. As presented in my letter of May 7, 2005 to Albert J. Krupski, Jr., Trustee President, dune augmentation and enhancement would be possible and the applicant would be willing to include it in the proposed project if the Trustees feel it is appropriate. Likewise, a walkover (boardwalk) across the existing/enhanced dune will be included in the proposed project. With the inclusion of the dune enhancement, as previously proposed, and the use of a boardwalk over the dunes, the proposed project is consistent with this policy standard. 3. Increase protective capacity of natural protective features using practical vegetative measures in association with at! oth~w~rhan~em~nt~ffo~ts. As stated above, any disturbed areas as a result of the construction will be revegetated with appropriate vegetation species. In addition, beach grass will be planted on the enhanced dunes. The proposed project is consistent with this policy standard. 5 D. Use hard structural erosion protection measures for control of erosion only where: l. Avoidance of the hazard is not appropriate because a structure is functionally dependent on a location on or in coastal waters; located in an area of extensive public investment; or reinforces the role of Maritime Centers or Areas for Concentrated Developmena 2. Vegetative approaches to controlling erosion are not effective. 3. Enhancement of natural protective features would not prove practical in providing erosion protection. 4. Construction of a hard structure is the only practical design consideration and is essential to protecting the principal use. 5. The proposed hard structural erosion protection measures are: a. limited to the minimum scale necessary b. based on sound engineering practices 6. Practical vegetative methods have been included in the project design and implementation. 7. Adequate mitigation is provided and maintained to ensure that there is no adverse impact to adjacentproperty or to natural coastal processes and natural resources and, if undertaken by a private property owner, does not incur significant direct or indirect public costs. There are no hard structural erosion protection measures proposed as part of the project. There is a structure proposed on the north of the existing structures/proposed home that is identified as a "bulkhead" on the survey. However, this should be more appropriately labeled a "retaining wall." Considering the proposed grading and the existing conditions on the site, the retaining wall is designed principally to provide a level area in front of the proposed home and to retain soil associated with the proposed septic tank to the south. The size of the wall is limited to just in front of the proposed structure(s). The proposed retaining wall is located back from the beach and dune area; the bluff/slope on which it is situated does not show any signs of erosion. In fact, the trees in the immediate area of the wall attest to the prolonged stability. While the area of the proposed wall has been stable for some time, there may be a significant storm in the future that could result in erosion. Therefore, based on sound engineering practices, the retaining wall will be constructed in such a manner as to withstand such a significant storm event, i.e. bulkhead-type construction. As part of the design and dune enhancement, the project will include the placement of sand in front of the retaining wall. This area will be planted with appropriate dune species. This sand, if a significant enough storm event did occur, would serve as additional protection and as a sand by-pass (providing sand to adjacent properties that might not otherwise occur). There will be no significant direct or indirect public costs. Considering the above, the proposed project is consistent with these policy standards. 4.2 Protect and restore natural protective features. Natural protective geologic features provide valuable protection and should be protected, restored and enhanced. Destruction or degradation of these features should be discouraged orprohibited A. IVo development is permitted in natural protective feature areas, except as specifically allowed under the relevant portions of 6 NYCRR 505.8. ~sstated pi-eviousl~he proposed h'0ifie is a non-major addition to an existing structure(s) as defined under The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation's (NYSDEC) 6 NYCRR 505.8, Coastal Erosion Management Regulations, and the Town of Southold's Chapter 37, Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas. Therefore, the proposed activity is not considered new development and is allowed in the natural protective features found on the site (see my letter of May 7, 2005 to Albert J. Krupski, Jr., President of the Town of Southold Board of Trustees). It should be noted that 6 NYCRR 505.8 is less restrictive than Chapter 37; the Town's LWRP refers to the less restrictive 6 NYCRR 505.8. For example, under 6 NYCRR 505.8, a non-major addition to existing structures could occur on the natural protective features of the beach. The proposed action holds itself to the more stringent requirements of Chapter 37. Therefore, the proposed project conforms to this policy standard B. Maximize the protective capabilities of natural protective features by: L avoiding alteration or interference with shorelines in a natural condition 2. enhancing existing natural protective features 3. restoring the condition of impaired natural protective features wherever practical 4. using practical vegetative approaches to stabilize natural shoreline features 5. managing activities to limit damage to, or reverse damage which has diminished, the protective capacities of the natural shoreline 6. pr. oviding relevant signage or other educational or interpretive material to increase public awareness of the tmportance of natural protective features As stated throughout the above discussion, the proposed additions will take place within an area of previous disturbance. Intrusion into areas not previously disturbed will be limited to the minimum extent necessary. All of the activities will be above the beach and dune areas, with the exception of the enhancement of the natural protective features (dune augmentation). The slope on the western portion of the site will be undisturbed and left vegetated. Where grading is required, the site will be landscaped with appropriate species to stabilize the site. Condition "6" is not relevant to a single-family home. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with these policy standards. Minimize interference with natural coastal processes by: 1. providing for natural supply and movement of unconsolidated materials and for water and wind transport 2. limiting intrusion of structures into coastal waters All of the activities will be above the beach and the dune areas, with the exception of the enhancement of the natural protective features (dune augmentation). The dune augmentation, as well as the planted fill in front of the retaining wall, will provide a supply of material for water and wind transport. The proposed structures are not located in coastal water; there is a separation of greater than 100 feet from the mean high water and any structures. The proposed project is consistent with these policy standards. Policy 5 Protect and improve water quality and supply in the Town of Southold. Policy Standards $.1 Prohibit direct or indirect discharges that would cause or contribute to contravention of water quality standards. B. Prevent point source discharges into Southold~s coastal waters and manage or avoid land and water uses that would: 2. cause or contribute to contravention of water quality classification and use standards, or 3. aa¥~rsely affect ~eceiving water quality, or The proposed sanitary system discharge will be subsurface at a distance of approximately 165 feet from the mean high water of Long Island Sound and 3 feet above groundwater. The Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS), the agency responsible for reviewing and approving sanitary systems in the County, requires a minimum of 100 feet separation from surface water and 2 feet from groundwater. These standards are based on the comprehensive 208 Study (a.k.a. Long Island Comprehensive Waste Treatment Management Plan). These standards are designed to address the concerns as expressed in this policy standard. Since the proposed action exceeds the SCDHS standards, the policy standards are also complied with. 5.3 Protect and enhance quality of coastal waters. A. Protect water quality based on an evaluation of physical factors (pH, dissolved oxygen, dissolved solids, nutrients, odor, color and turbidity), health factors (pathogens, chemical contaminants, and toxicity), and aesthetic factors (oils, floatables, refuse, and suspended solids). C. Protect water quality of coastal waters from adverse impacts associated with excavation, fill, dredging, and disposal of dredged material. See response to Policy Standard 5.2.1 above. There is no excavation, fill, dredging, or disposal of dredged material into the coastal waters. Separation from the open water and any proposed activity is significant. During construction standard erosion control techniques (silt fencing, staked hay bales, etc.) will be employed to reduce threats of erosion on site from disturbed areas. Therefore, the proposed project complies with the policy standard. Policy 6 Protect and restore the quality and function of the Town of Southold ecosysten~ Policy Standards 6.1 Protect and restore ecological quality throughout the Town of Southola[ A. A void adverse changes to the Long Island Sound and the Peconic Bay ecosystems tbat would result from impairment of ecological quality as indicated by: 2. Degradation of ecological components Degradation occurs as an adverse change in ecological quality, either as a direct loss originating witbin the resource area or as an indirect loss originating from nearby activities. Degradation usually occurs over a more extended period of time than physical loss and may be indicated by increased siltation, changes in community composition, or evidence of pollution. 3. Functional loss of ecological components Functional loss can be indicated by a decrease in abundance offish or wildlife, often resulting from a behavioral or physiological avoidance response. Behavioral avoidance can be due to disruptive uses that do not necessarily result in physical changes, but may be related to introduction of recreational activities or predators. Tinting of activities can often be critical in determining whether a functional loss is likely to occur. Functional loss can also be manifested in physical terms, such as changes in hydrology. In the narrative following this policy in the LWRP the importance of the ecological natural resources is discussed. It is stated that: "Certain natural resources that are important for their contribution to the quality and biological diversity of the Town's ecosystem have been specifically identified by the State of New York for protection. These natural resources include regulated tidal and freshwater wetlands; designated Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats; and rare, threatened, and endangered species. In addition to specifically identified discrete natural resources, the quality of the Town's ecosystem also depends on more common, broadly distributed natural resources, such as the extent of forest cover, the population of overwinterin~songbirds, or- benthic communities. Th~more-common natural resources collectively affect the quality and biological diversity of the Sound ecosystem. "The role of the Southold Town Board of Trustees in the protection and management of the Town's ecosystem, particularly as it relates to surface waters is recognized by the Town. The policy standards noted below recognize that federal and state legislation governing the protection, management and restoration of the environment are not always sufficiently restrictive to protect local resources. Where the Town and its Board of Trustees have implemented protective measures that exceed that of federal and state regulations, local regulations and standards should be complied with." The applicant will fully comply with the various federal and state regulations, as well as those of the Town of Southold. Applications have been made and the appropriate permits are being sought at this time. Furthermore, degradation of the ecological components of the Town of Southold will not occur as a result of the proposed action. As stated previously, the proposed action includes various mitigation measures that are designed to avoid or eliminate degradation and loss resulting from increased erosion, siltation, and pollution. There will be a change in the site as a result of the proposed additions to the existing structure(s). This is the direct physical loss of vegetation around the existing structure to provide the required sanitary system, access, etc. The proposed project has been designed so as to keep these additional areas of disturbance to a minimum. It should be noted that the LWRP includes another policy standard, Policy Standard 6.1.A. 1, that is not listed in Mr. Terry's letter of August 23, 2005. This policy standard deals directly with the physical loss of ecological components. I concur with Mr. Terry's not including it in his listing as it is not relevant because of the minor impact of the proposed project on the ecological quality of the Town of Southold. With regard to the functional loss of ecological components, this too is not considered as significant when looking at the proposed project and the surrounding area. The proposed activity is constant with the existing ecological character established in the area, that of single-family and multi-family/high density development. Wildlife that currently utilizes the site is no doubt species that are tolerant of and even prefer the activities of man. Secretive and human intolerant species, such as forest interior birds, would not utilize the site because of its small size and surrounding land use(s). However, the project will maintain portions of existing conditions on site and in those areas that will be disturbed; vegetation will be installed to mitigate long-term impacts to species that may be temporarily displaced. It should be also noted that, as proposed, the project will result in more natural vegetation being left/restored on the parcel than is found on many of the other residential lots in the area. The proposed project is considered consistent with these policy standards. Policy 8 Minimize environmental degradation in Town of Southold from solid waste and hazardous substances and wastes. Policy Standards 8.3 Prbtect)he environment fr~tn degradation due tb ?ox~ pollut~nts and substances hazaidou~ to thd~nvi~nment and public health. A. Prevent release of toxic pollutants or substances hazardous to tile environment that would have a deleterious effect on fish and wildlife resources. In the LWRP, there is a narrative following this policy standard that is provided to clarify its intent. Unfortunately, Mr. Terry did not include it in his letter of August 23, 2005. The following is the clarification and the intent of the policy standard: 9 "The Town's Site Plan application process will determine whether proposed land use activities will involve toxic substances. Protection measures to prevent their release to the environment, particularly fish and wildlife resources, will be determined during the environmental review. Further, the dredging of toxic material from underwater lands and the deposition of such material shall be conducted in the most mitigative manner possible so as not to endanger fish and wildlife resources, in either the short or long term." The proposed project is for a single-family residence; therefore, a site plan application is not required. No dredging of any type is proposed and a home does not use toxic pollutants and hazardous substances other than household chemicals, which this policy standard is clearly not intended to address. Therefore, this policy standard is irrelevant to the proposed project. B. Prevent environmental degradation due to persistent toxic pollutants by: 1. limiting discharge of bio-accumulative substances, 2. avoiding re-suspension of toxic pollutants and hazardous substances and wastes, and avoMing reentry of bio- accumulative substances into the food chain from existing sources. Again, a home does not use toxic pollutants and hazardous substances. The project will use ordinary household chemicals, which this policy standard is clearly not intended to address. Suspension, no less re-suspension, of toxic pollutants and hazardous substances, or the discharge of bio-accumulative substances will occur as a result of the project. Therefore, this policy standard is irrelevant to the proposed project. In sununary, it is my professional and expert opinion that the proposed action is consistent with the Town of Southold's LWRP. There are, however, two refinements to the project that will further increase the consistency with the LWRP. These are as follows: · Policy Standard 4.1.C.2.d: · Policy Standard 4.1.D: Provide a boardwalk from the proposed home to the beach, over the existing and enhanced (previously recommended) dune area. Provide sand and dune vegetation plantings in front of the proposed retaining wall in conjunction with the dune enhancement. The above review is based, in part, on the survey of Angelo Padovan prepared by Young & Young, revision,.datedAugust 15, 2005, and my familiarity with the site, the/pf~Oposed project and the surrounctlnga rea. If I can provide any additional information or clarification of the/a~ve, please feel free to contact me. / Very t,~ ours, ~s i Cramer, ASLA ~nWc~o/sures -- _~ 10 CURRICULUM VITAE Thomas W. Cramer 54 North Country Road P.O. Box 5535 Miller Place, New York 11764 Office (631) 476-0984 Fax (631) 476-6933 Licensing and Certification: · Landscape Architecture; State of New York Experience: · Principal of, Cramer Consulting Group, Inc.; Environmental and Planning Consultants; Miller Place, New York (6/97 to Present) · Commissioner, Department of Planning, Environment and Development; Town of Brookhaven, New York (5/95-6/97) · Principal of, Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, Inc.; Environmental and Planning Consultants; Miller Place, New York (8/88-4/95) · Deputy Commissioner, Department of Planning, Environment and Development; Town of Brookhaven, New York (4/86-8/88) · Acting Commissioner, Department of Planning, Environment and Development; Town of Brookhaven, New York (7/87-11/87) · Director, Division of Environmental Protection, Department of Planning, Environment and Development; Town of Brookhaven, New York (8/82-3/86) · Environmental Planner/Planner, Department of Environmental Protection & Planning Board; Town of Brookhaven, New York (5/75-8/82) · Private and Public Consultant, Planning and Environmental Issues (9/74-3/87) Significant Professional Achievements: · Numerous Draft & Final Environmental Impact Statements (EIS), list furnished by request. · County Road 48 Corridor Land Use Study, Town of Southold. · DGEIS and FGEIS for the County Road 48 Corridor Land Use Study, Town of Southold. · Expert Witness in Federal, state and local courts. · Extensive work with NYS Attorney General and other state and local agencies. · 1996 Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Town of Brookhaven, 1996 · DEIS aad-FEtS-for the t996 Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Tow~of Brookhaven; 1996 · Draft Port Jefferson Harbor Complex Management Plan, 1996 · Central Pine Barrens Comprehensive Land Use Plan, 1995 · Draft New Ordinances for the Town of Brookhaven. 1995-1997. Including but not limited to: Central Pine Barrens District, Bed & Breakfast Ordinance, Marine Commercial District, Recreational Commercial District. I1 · Revisions to Existing Town of Brookhaven Codes. 1995-1997. [ncluding but not limited to: Bays and Harbor Bottoms Ordinance Planned Development Districts (PDD), Planned Retirement Community (PRC), Change of Use/Expansion, Sign Ordinance, Historic District, Wetlands Ordinance, Site Plan Ordinance, J-Business Districts, L-Industrial Districts, as well as others. · Computerization of Department of Planning, Environment & Development Permit issuing and tracking system in Building Division, 1997. Computerization and Networking of entire Department, 1997. Computerization of log-in and tracking applications, 1997. Computerization of Town's Real Property Inventory, 1996. Computerization of Building Divisions records, 1997. Upgrade and expand GIS capabilities, 1995. · Numerous projects for private and municipal clients as a partner in the firm of Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, Inc., 1988-1995. Specific list provided upon request. Dra~ and Final Environmental Impact Statements. Feasibility and Development Potential Studies. Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Audits. Visual Impact Assessments. Site Planning and Landscape Design. Archaeological and Historic Studies. Testimony before Boards and in Court. · Town of Brookhaven's application for the Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act, 1996. · GElS Industrial Rezonings on the Towns Own Motion, 1988. · GEIS A-1 Rezonings on the Towns Own Motion, 1988. · GEIS Commercial Rezonings on the Towns Own Motion, 1988. · GEIS Large Lot Rezonings on the Towns Own Motion, 1988. · Award for Environmentally Sensitive Land Design, Pine Barrens Review Commission, 1988. · Environmental Quality Bond Act, Acquisition Study for Brookhaven Town, 1987. · Town of Brookhaven Land Use Plan, 1987. · Pine Barrens Watershed Preserve, 1985. · Local Waterfront Revitalization Program, 1984. · Open Space Study - Town of Brookhaven, 1984. · Comprehensive Review of Industrial Zoned Land in the Sensitive Hydrogeologic Zone, Town of Brookhaven, 1983. · Coastal Erosion Along the North Shore of Brookhaven, 1979. · Sound Beach - A Neighborhood Study, 1978. · Puerto Escondido, Hoy y Manana, 1976. · Mount Sinai Harbor, A Conceptual Plan~_1975. · Cedar Beach - A Balanced Future, 1973. · Guest lecturer at several colleges and universities on land use and environmental issues. · Conducted seminars and workshops for the State of New York Department of State on land use and coastal management. 12 Professional & Other Organizations: past and present Bo'sun Supplies, President. Mail order & Intemet marine supply business. · Chairman of the American Cancer Society Regatta · American Planners Association · American Society of Landscape Architects · American Water Resources Association · National Eagle Scout Association · New York State Pine Barrens Council New York State Pine Barrens Task Force · New York Planning Federation · New York State Association of Environmental Professionals · Suffolk County 208 Technical Advisory Council · Suffolk County Council on Environmental Quality · Suffolk County Pine Barrens Advisory Council · Town of Brookhaven Conservation Advisory Council · Town of Brookhaven Historic District Advisory Council · Town of Brookhaven Peconic River Advisory Board · Long Island Association Advisory Committee Boy Scouts of America, District Advancement Chairman · Miller Place Historical Society, Trustee · Moriches Inlet Breach and Stabilization Committee · Mount Sinai Harbor Advisory Committee · Mount Sinai Sailing Association, Commodore Education: · SUNY, College of Environmental Science & Forestry; Undergraduate and · Syracuse University; Undergraduate BLA - Landscape Architecture BS - Environmental Sciences & Forestry · SUNY at Stony Brook; Graduate courses in Planning and Political Science · Suffolk County Community College; Associate Business and Humanities · LIU, Southampton College, Undergraduate studies · SUNY, Agricultural & Technical College at Farmingdale, Specialized technical course work · Other Continuing Education Programs offered by organizations in the planning and environmental fields References: Furnished upon request. 13