HomeMy WebLinkAboutPadovan, AngeloAlbert J. Krupski, President
James King, Vice-President
Artie Foster
Ken Poliwoda
Peggy A. Dickerson
Town Hall
53095 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971-0959
Telephone (631) 765-1892
Fax (631) 765-6641
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
November 16, 2005
Patricia C. Moore, Esq.
51020 Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
Re: ANGELO PADAVAN
SOUNDVlEW AVE,, SOUTHOLD
SCTM# 135-1-23, 24.1
Dear Ms. Moore:
The Board of Trustees took the following action during its regular meeting held on Wed.,
November 16, 2005 regarding the above matter:
WHEREAS, Patricia C. Moore as agent for ANGELO PADAVAN applied to the
Southold Town Trustees for a permit under the provisions of the Wetland Ordinance
under Chapter 97 of the Town Wetland Code and Chapter 37 of the Town Code of the
Town of Southold, application dated December 22, 2004 and
WHEREAS, said application was referred to the Southold Town Conservation Advisory
Council for their findings and recommendations, and,
WHEREAS, the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council recommended
DISAPPROVAL of this proposed application, and,
WHEREAS, several Public Hearings were held by the Town Trustees with respect to
said application at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be
heard, and,
WHEREAS, the Board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the
premises in question and the surrounding area, and,
WHEREAS, the Board has considered all the testimony and documentation submitted
concerning this application, and,
WHEREAS, the action is found to be INCONSISTENT with the Town of Southold Local
Waterfront Revitalization Program, and
WHEREAS, the existing permitted structure is a 10' x 14' shed, and the proposed house
is 708 square feet which is greater than 25% of the existing structure, and,
WHEREAS, In accordance with Chapter 37, Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas, Major
Additions are defined as greater than 25%, and are not allowed in the Coastal Erosion
Hazard Area, and,
WHEREAS, the existing structure is a storage shed, and not a habitable structure,
with no sanitary system, electric, insulation, or plumbing, and,
WHEREAS, the proposed house is located on the beach, as defined in Chapter 37, and
all development is prohibited on the beaches, and,
WHEREAS, the proposed house is INCONSISTENT with the following LWRP policy
standards: 3.1,4.1, 4.2,5.1,5.3,6.1, and 8.3. and is therefore inconsistent with the
Town of Southold's Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan, and,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE, under Chapter
37, the application of ANGELO PADAVAN to construct a single-family dwelling,
sanitary system, gravel driveway, and bulkhead, and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this determination should not be considered a
determination made for any other Department or Agency, which may also have an
application pending for the same or similar project.
Very truly yours,
Albert O. Krupski, Jr.
President, Board of Trustees
AJK: hkc
Conservation & Natural Areas Planning
P. O. Box 2908
Setauket, NY 11733-0870
631.584.5641 consnap@aol.com
June 15, 2005
La, Johnson, Esq.
1451 Main Road
P.O. Box 2021
Jamesport, NY 11947-2021
Re: Padovan proposal, Southold
JUi~ ld 2005
S0uth0!d Town
B0nrd 04 Trustees
Dear Mr.]ohnson:
Below is my initial evaluation of the proposal to build a house on the site of an
existing structure on the Padovan property, north of Soundview Avenue in
Southold. ! am providing this on behalf of the owners and residents of the North
Fork Beach Motel and Condominiums, whose property lies immediately to the south
of the subject site. ! would be pleased to provide additional information for your
review and that of the Southold Board of Trustees. Attached are annotated
photographs taken during my visit to the site in the afternoon of June 10, 2005,
and a copy of my c.v., to introduce my qualifications for undertaking this review.
The report provided by Mr. Thomas Cramer that accompanies the applicant's
project re-submittal contains inaccuracies, and relies on information on the Young
and Young site plan that may not be complete.
The proposed construction project should be denied, !t does not meet the
requirements for building in the Town of Southold's coastal erosion hazard area
(CEHA) management zone.
I~lajor Project
It appears the project is a "major" project under present code, as it presents an
increase in total structural coverage of approximately 31%. The calculations
provided by Young & Young, "Building Envelope Study for Angelo Padovan,"
received by the Board of Trustees on 12/22/04, and relied upon by Mr. Cramer, do
not appear to include the proposed retaining wall/bulkhead. Based on the drawings
submitted, the retaining wall and supporting pilings would occupy approximately 40
square feet. This would bring the total square footage of structural additions above
the 25% limit cited in the code for projects that would not be considered major.
Major projects are prohibited in the structural hazard area.
Area of Active Erosion
Inspection of aerial photographs of the Hashamomuck Beach area and project site
reveals that the beachfront east of the last groin (which is just west of the Padovan
site) is eroding. Sand is accumulating on the west sides of the groins in the groin
field, starving the beach to the east of seasonal sand deposition.
On .lune 10, during my site visit, I found clear evidence of erosion at the Padavan
property, itself. The so-called "dune," seaward of the existing structure, has
suffered overwash, causing a shallow swale where beachgrass roots are exposed.
This area was described by Mr. Cramer as typical of"more complex dune systems,"
but it is not. This swale is not a blowout and was not caused by wind action; it was
caused by overwash, which carried off sand and exposed pebbles and cobbles
below. The area immediately seaward of the "dune" toe has extensive deposition of
cobble-sized stones and a wrack line, which indicate a high-energy wave
environment reaching extensively into the beach area. Indeed, wrack may be
found behind some black cherry trees near the base of the bluff, which also is
eroding. These findings are evidence of water reaching up to and beyond the
elevation of the existing and proposed structures.
There also is evidence of past attempts at fortification of the site. Blocks have been
stacked into a wall formation under the deck of the existing structure, tree stumps
have been arranged at the seaward edge of the vegetated area, and branches have
been piled high to create a small wall in the same area. It appears the property
owners are concerned about erosion, despite the claims of their consultant that
there were no visible signs of such during his "several" site visits, "even affcer major
winter storm events." The dates of these several site visits should be provided, as
should the results of "soil core samples taken in a number of locations within the
dune area on site," which the consultant relies on to assert that the vegetated area
is a typical north shore "dune."
Even if the vegetated area seaward of the proposed construction site is considered
by the Trustees to constitute a "dune," Mr. Cramer's assertion that the dune
exhibits features attesting to its permanence is without any basis. Dunes, by
definition, are made of loose sand and can never be considered permanent features
of a landscape, despite their importance as natural protective features in coastal
zones.
Retaining wall/Bulkhead
The proposal for a retaining wall seaward of the proposed dwelling is inconsistent
with the applicant's assertions that the property is not eroding. Further, such a wall
would Interfere with the natural movement of sand in the "dune" area, since it
would be installed in the soil and would not provide the required 3-foot clearance
for structures installed above dunes.
The retaining wall will cause further erosion on nearby properties. It will starve the
beach to the east of sand that otherwise would migrate there. It also will not
absorb wave energy to the degree that natural protective features such as dunes
and bluffs can, and therefore will cause a rebound effect, which can exacerbate
scouring.
Severe slopes
The applicant's environmental report represents that a slope of 25% is not
"severe." Slopes over 15% should be considered severe, especially when soils are
loose and unconsolidated and particularly when they lie within coastal erosion
hazard areas. Areas of the Padovan site have slopes far exceeding 25%.
I~lassive site alteration
It appears impossible to state, as Mr. Cramer does, with any credibility, that "no
activities are proposed in the severe slope area of the site and it will remain
natural." Based on the project proposal, involving necessary excavation for deep-
ring sanitary system installations; significant amounts of fill to level the steep grade
between the bluff and the house; new pavement areas for driveway and drainage;
and the need to bring heavy equipment on site to undertake construction; it
appears the severe slope (bluff face) in front of which the new dwelling would be
built will be obliterated.
Attorney's representations
Please note the applicant's attorney provided inaccurate and incomplete information
in the Full Environmental Assessment Form accompanying the Padovan application.
Examples follow.
Page 3, item 2: Area of brushland was not provided.
Page 3, item 3(a): Soil drainage is presented as "well drained" over 100% of the
site. However, test hole results show the presence of clayey soils in several layers.
Such soils are not considered "well drained."
Page 3, item 5: lit is wholly inaccurate to state that the entire site ("100%") has
slopes no greater than 10%. Much of the site has extreme slopes far exceeding
25%.
Page 5, item 3(a): States that reclaiming disturbed areas is "not applicable" in this
project.
Page 5, items 3(b) and (c) provide NO information on handling of soil.
Page 6, item 5: Asserts there are no trees over 100 years old on the site. This has
not been substantiated, nor has there been any attempt to do so.
Page 7, item 20: Noise above ambient levels is likely to be produced during
construction. This may have an adverse impact on federally endanqered pipinq
olovers, which are known to nest in the immediate area (see site plan showing
sanitary system and proposed line of hay bales/silt fence). The Nature
Conservancy reports that a pair of piping plovers nested west of Hashamomuck
Beach, near the project site, in the summer of :2004, although the nest was
unsuccessful.
Page 7, item 23: No information was provided on expected water usage. This
information is important in assessing the impact of the sanitary system recharge
rates, which can affect bluff stability.
Please also note that all Southold Town decision making concerning projects in the
coastal zone now should be consistent with the provisions of the Town's Local
Waterfront Revitalization Program. ! will be happy to present the findings of this
program as they relate to the Padovan project upon request.
I hope you find this information useful in representing the interests of your clients.
Sincerely,
Louise Harrison
Conservation & Natural Areas Planning
P. O. Box 2908
Setauket, NY 11733-0870
631.584.5641 consnap@aol.com
3une 24, 2005
Albert 3. Krupski, President
Board of Trustees
Town of Southold
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971-0959
JUN 2 7 2005
Southold Town
Board of Trustees
Re: Padovan proposal, Soundview Avenue, Southold
Dear Hr. Krupski:
In my earlier correspondence, ! mistakenly omitted two pages from my
curriculum vitae. Would you kindly add the two enclosed pages to my c.v.,
now in your file on the above named project?
Please accept my apology for the omission and for your inconvenience.
Sincerely,
Louise Harrison
enc.
April 13 Field Inspection
June 13, 2005
oard of Trustees
To Unit Owners:
With reference to our "neighbor" Mr. Angelo Padavan, there will be another hearing on June 25~h
regarding his plans for building a house. ,
As you lmow, this Board is continuing to oppose the possible construction of a home to be built
across frmn the condo, which opposition was the position of the previous Board of Managers and
started at that titne. This will be the third hearing which the condo is being represented by an
attorney who will continue to oppose the ¢.onst .rnction 0~fa house and which the condo is incurring
additional legal fees for this matter. , ~
If the position of the condo remains in opposition of this construction, and if we are to be represented
each time Angelo brings "new plans" to the hearings by an attorney, we will continue to accrue legal
fees for each appearance on the copdo's behalf.
We would like, at this time, to take a new vote as to each unit owner's position on this subject. We
need an immediate vote as to your position. Please return this letter with your vote of either "YES"
to continue being represented by an attorney and opposing the construction ora house; or"NO", not
to continue being represented by an attorney and letting the matter be decided by the Town.
Very truly yours,
TIIE BOARD OF MANAGERS OF
THE NORTH FORK BEACH CONDOMINIUM
Name:
Yes
Unltl,) # lQ
TOWN OFSOUTHOLD
BOARD OFTRUSTEES
PERMIT APPLICATION OF ANGELOPADAVAN
TO: PRESIDENT ALBERTJ. KRUPSKI, Jr.,AND THE MEME
OFTHEBOARD
JUL
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
IN OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION FOR PERMIT
This memorandum of law is submitted to the Board in opposition to the
application of Angelo Padavan for a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to
construct a single-family dwelling, sanitary system, gravel driveway and bulkhead. The
applicant's property is located at 22455 Soundview Ave, Southold, NY. The undersigned
represents the North Fork Beach Condominium Association, which is the administrative
arm of the condominium complex directly across Soundview Ave from the proposed
project. The application should be denied in its entirety because the applicant has failed
as a matter of law to demonstrate that he is entitled to the requested permits.
NATURE OF THE CASE
This is an application for a Wetland Permit pursuant to Chapter 97 of the Town
Code and a Coastal Erosion Management Permit pursuant to Chapter 37 of the Town
Code. The applicant proposes to build a multiple story structure along the Long Island
Sound on property that has been designated as a Coastal Erosion Hazard Area and that
falls within the jurisdiction of the Town's Wetland Law.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Angelo Padavan, is the owner of real property located on
Soundview Ave in Southold. The subject property sits against a bluff on the Long Island
Sound. The various experts who have reviewed the application have arrived at different
conclusions regarding the nature of the subject parcel. One such expert considers the
property to be dunes and bluff area while another has concluded that the project is a
"beach." Notwithstanding these divergent opinions, all parties agree that the proposed
project falls within the jurisdiction of the Town and requires both Wetland and Coastal
Erosion Management permits.
The applicant has submitted various documents in support of his application
including proposed plans, an environmental assessment form completed by the
applicant's attorney, and a report submitted by a consultant who purports to have
analyzed the project in light of the pertinent Town Code provisions. The project is
opposed by the North Fork Environmental Counsel and the North Fork Condominium
Association. In addition, the Conservation Advisory Council of the Town of Southold
has unanimously recommended that the proposed project be disapproved.
ARGUMENT
A. The Applicant is Not Entitled to a Coastal Erosion Management Permit
The Town's Coastal Erosion Hazard Area Law is designed to "[r]egulate, in
coastal areas subject to coastal flooding and erosion, land use and development activities
so as to minimize or prevent damage or destruction to man-made property, natural
protective features and other natural resources and to protect human life." Town Code
{}37-4. No person may engage in regulated activity within the erosion hazard area
without a permit. Town Code {}37-11. A permit will be issued only if the proposed
activity is: 1) reasonable and necessary, considering reasonable alternatives and the
extent to which the proposed activities requires a shoreline location; 2) not likely to cause
a measurable increase in erosion at the proposed site and at other locations; and 3)
2
prevents, if possible, or minimizes adverse effects on natural protective features and their
functions and protective values, existing erosion protection structures and natural
resources. Town Code §37-12.
In this case, the applicant seeks to build a large, multiple story structure in an
extremely sensitive area along the Long Island Sound. The applicant has failed to meet
his burden to show that he is entitled to the necessary permit.
First, the applicant has not articulated why this project is necessary. In fact, the
applicant points out that there already is a structure on the property. He also owns a large
home on the neighboring lot. There is nothing ambiguous about the term "necessary."
This project clearly is not necessary.
Next, the applicant has failed to show that the project will not cause an increase in
erosion at the proposed site or neighboring shoreline property. The only evidence to
support this factor is a short statement offered by the applicant's consultant that the
project "is not likely to cause any measurable increased erosion at the proposed site or at
other locations." See Report of Cramer Consulting Group at 6. However, this statement
is unsupported by analysis. The only comment from the consultant on this point is his
statement that the "northern retaining wall/bulkhead" will "provide additional erosion
protection to the bluff and structures if the dune area is overtopped during severe storm
events." Report at 5. The consultant does not explain how this "retaining wall/bulkhead"
will provide protection to the bluff or other neighboring property. Nor does he explain
how the project will protect other natural features.
In contrast, Ms. Louise Harrison of Conservation and Natural Areas Planning, has
submitted a report that explains how bulkheads and other man-made structures can
3
actually exacerbate erosion to surrounding properties. See Harrison Report at 2-3. She
notes that the proposed structure will in fact increase such erosion. Report at 2. Ms.
Harrison also states that there is evidence of water reaching up to and beyond the
elevation of the proposed structure. Report at 3. The Conservation Advisory Counsel
observed active erosion as well. CAC Recommendation. This information confirms that
further erosion is likely and that the proposed project will only contribute to this erosion.
Finally, the applicant has failed to show that the project prevents or minimizes
adverse effects on natural protective features and their functions and protective values,
existing erosion protection structures and natural resources. Again, Ms. Harrison points
out that the project virtually obliterates a portion of the existing bluff which is a natural
protective feature. Report at 3. This is precisely the type of project that the Town Code
is designed to prevent.
The proposed project also appears to run afoul of various other provisions of the
Town Code. For example, even if the project site is considered a secondary dune area as
suggested by the applicant's consultant, "[e]xcavating, grading or mining must not
diminish the erosion protection afforded by them." Town Code §37-16(B). Completely
eliminating certain portions of these protective dunes certainly does not meet this
standard. Also, such activity in a primary dune area is completely prohibited. Town
Code §37-16(A).
Furthermore, the Town's own consultant, Ms. Heather Tetrault, considers this site
to be beach area. Tetrault Letter of January 19, 2005. If that is the case, all development
is prohibited unless specifically provided for elsewhere. Town Code §37-15.
Additionally, the applicant's consultant states that a portion of the project
involves bluff area. Cramer Report at 5. If that is correct, only minor alterations to the
bluffis permitted, and only nonmajor additions to existing structures on the bluffis
permitted. Town Code §37-17(B). Here, the project calls for significant excavation and
modification to the bluff. Moreover, the addition is not to a structure on the bluff per se
but to a structure that, according to the applicant's consultant, sits on a dune area.
Therefore, it is not authorized.
B. The Applicant is Not Entitled to a Wetland Permit
The proposed project clearly falls within the jurisdiction of the Town's Wetland
Law. Town Code §97-12(C). The applicant is therefore required to obtain a permit.
Town Code §97-20. The applicant fails to demonstrate that he is entitled to the necessary
permit.
To obtain such a permit, the applicant must establish that his project meets all the
specific requirements and is consistent with the policies behind the Wetland Law. The
Town's Wetland Law is designed to protect against erosion and damage from flooding.
Town Code §97-12(B). As noted above, this project does not serve that end.
Additionally, the proposed structure does not even meet the basic set back
requirements under the Code. The proposed residence is only 80 feet from the High
Water Mark as opposed to the required 100 feet. Town Code §97-12(D)(1). The
applicant admits that his project does not meet this requirement. Cramer Report at 6.
The setback provisions represent an absolute minimum. Therefore, on its face, the
application should be denied.
In addition, the Board may issue a permit only if it determines that the project will
not cause damage from erosion, turbidity or siltation, will not weaken lateral support to
other lands in the vicinity, and will not otherwise adversely affect the health, safety and
general welfare of the People of the Town. Town Code §97-28. The applicant has failed
to meet these standards as he has not sufficiently addressed the likely erosion problems
and potential adverse effects on neighboring property. This very real risk militates
against granting the application.
Finally, the Wetland Law provides that a bulkhead on the Sound "shall only be
permitted when the likelihood of extreme erosion is demonstrated and it shall not
increase erosion on neighboring properties." Town Code §97-27(B). Even the
applicant's consultant claims that there is no active erosion on the site. Cramer Report at
6. Therefore, the applicant must concede that the bulkhead is not appropriate. On the
other hand, if there is extreme erosion, the project should be denied in its entirety under
the Coastal Erosion Law.
CONCLUSION
The applicant has failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to a Wetland Permit or
Coastal Erosion Permit. The proposed project simply does not meet the standards for
obtaining such permits. Therefore, the applicant's request should be denied.
Respectfully Submitted,
L s
Attofi4ey for the North Fork
Condominium Association
P.O. Box 2021
Jamesport, NY 11947
(631) 722-4744
Jul 20 05 01:41p Hoor~ Lam OF£$ce 631 ?G5 4643 p. i
July 20, 2005
PATRICIA C. MOORE
Attorney at Law
51020 Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
Tel: (63 ! ) 765-4330
Fax: (631 ) 765-4643
Margaret Rutkowski
Secretary
Southotd Town Trustees
Southo!d Town Hall
Main Road
P.O.Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Dear President Krupski
and Board:
Re: Padovan
In accordance with my telephone call, we request an adjournment
of the above matter. Tom Cramer was composing a response to the
neighbor's correspondence which required information from Young &
Young. The surveyor did not complete his review in time for this
meeting, but we hope to have a response before the next regularly
scheduled meeting.
We have been unable to locate a phone number of fax number for
Mr. Johnson in Jamesport.
Thank you for your courtesies.
Very ~'~uly yours,
Board of Trustees
11/15/04 Field Ins
ELIZABETH A. NEV~,LE
TOW~ CLERK
REGISTllAF/OF VITAL STATISTICS
MARRIAGE OFFICER
RECOI~DS MANAGEMENT OFFICER
FREEDOM OF INFOP, MATION OFFICER
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (631) 765-6145
Telephone (631) 765-1800
southoldtown.northfork.net
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC ACCESS TO RECORDS
INSTRUCTIONS: Please complete Section I of this form and give to Town Clerk's
Office (agency Freedom of Information Officer). One copy will be returned to you
in response to your request, or as an interim response.
SECTION I.
(Depahment OrLOYficer, if known, that has the information you are requesting.)
RECORD YOU WISH TO INSPECT: (Describe the record sought. If possible, supply
date, file title, tax map number, and any other pertinent information.)
Signature of Applicant:
Printed Name:
Address:
Mailing Address (if different from above):
Telephone Number: ~'~"~-' ?~'~ Date:
[ ] APPROVED
[ ] APPROVED WITH DELAY*
Eli'~(~e v~i[:~//~''
Freedom of Information Officer
[ ] DENIED*
RECEIVED
I~AR 2 1 2005
Date
Southold Town Clerk
* If clelayed or denied see reverse side for explanation.
Albert J. Krupski, President
James King, Vice-President
Artie Foster
Ken Poliwoda
Peggy A. Dickerson
Town Hall
53095 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971-0959
Telephone (631) 765-1892
Fax (631) 765-1366
January 21,2005
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OFSOUTHOLD
Patricia C. Moore, Esq.
51020 Main Rd.
Southold, NY 11971
RE:
Angelo Padavan
Soundview Ave., Southold
SCTM#135-1-23&24.1
Dear Ms. Moore:
With regard to the above-referenced, this is to inform you that there is an outstanding
application fee of $250.00 due at this time. The description of fees paid vs. fees due is as
follows:
Total application fee: $500.00
Wetland Permit application -$250.00 pd. 12/22/04
Coastal Erosion Permit application - $250.00 DUE
The application fee must be received as soon as possible in order for us to continue our
review.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Very truly yours,
Albert J. Krupski, Jr., President
Board of Trustees
AJK:lms
Albert J. Krupski, President
James King, Vice-President
Artie Foster
Ken Poliwoda
Peggy A. Dickerson
Town Hall
53095 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971-0959
Telephone (631) 765-1892
Fax (631) 765-1366
January 19, 2005 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
To: Southold Town Trustees
From: Heather Tetrault
Environmental Technician
Re: Application of Angelo Padavan
22455 Soundview Ave., Southold
SCTM# 135-1-23 and 24.1
This is to confirm the analysis of Brownell Johnston concerning the legal elements and
~my interpretation of the environmental elements of this apphcation Orir-conclugl no~iS-'~
that the existing structure is existing_as defined in Chapter 37 Coastal Erosion Hazard~
Area~--w-~r~y ihterpre~fio~of the location of the-'6~d~fi~-o~-"Be~ch" as defined
Xn--fh~ chapter ~s a"zone of unconsoli, dat~ed earth t,hat exten, ds la~..d:w~rtdhefr~a~m~hwear~mit
low water line tb the waterward toe ora aune or where no aune cx~[~ ·
of a beach is 10~feet landward from the place where there is a marked change in material
or from the line o~permanent vegetation" and that all development is prohibited on
beaches prohibits ~rnstees from considering a permit.
/
Albert J. Krupski, President
James King, Vice-President
Artie Foster
Ken Poliwoda
Peggy A. Dickerson
Town Hall
53095 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971-0959
Telephone (631) 765-1892
Fax (631) 765-1366
January 19, 2005
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
To: Southold Town Trustees
From: Heather Tetrault
Environmental Technician
Re: Application ofAngelo Padavan
22455 Soundview Ave., Southold
SCTM# 135-1-23 and 24.1
BOARD OFTOWNTRUSTEEI
This is to confirm the analysis of Brownell Johnston concerning the legal elements and
my interpretation of the environmental elements of this application. Our conclusion is
that the existing structure is existing as defined in Chapter 37 Coastal Erosion Hazard
Areas however my interpretation of the location of the building on a "Beach" as defined
in this chapter as a "zone of unconsolidated earth that extends landward from the mean
low water line to the waterward toe ora dune or where no dune exists the landward limit
of a beach is 100 feet landward from the place where there is a marked change in material
or from the line of permanent vegetation" and that all development is prohibited on
beaches prohibits the Trustees from considering a permit.
/~a~J -:/$'¢~- ~-,¢__A .t TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
OWNER STREET ~
IMP.
LAND
AGE
NEW
NORMAL
FARM Acre
Tillable 1
!Tillable 2
Tillable 3
Woodland
Swampland
Brushland
House Plot
Total
FARM
TOTAL DATE
1//4
'
/ ,
.1 ..,'~c.~ ~ ,~
BELOW ABOVE
Volue Per Value
Acre
PROPERTY RECORD CARD
VILLAGE
D~.~ SUB.
ACR.
TYPE OF BUILDING
W
LOT
BULKHEAD
DOCK
DEPTH
FRONTAGE ON ROAD
FRONTAGE ON WATER ~'~' ( / z¢/ .: /~.
COMM. CB. ,-~-Sc. ~t.
REMARKS
1-"! ,' --- I .. :o~.. ¢ 'r,';_5' ': . . ~.. ,
M. Bldg.
Extension
Extension
Extension
COLOR
TRIM
Foundation
Basement
Bath
FJoors
JExt. Walls Interior Finish
Heat
~ . ~ ..,' Rooms 1st Floor
Porch ~-/~, . (.-u Rooms 2nd Floor
Porch
Breezeway
Garage
Patio
Total
Fire Place
Type Roof
Recreation Room
Dormer
Driveway
Dinette
11/15/04 Field Inspectior~
11 / 15/04 Field Inspection~
11/15/04 Field InspectionO
11/15/04 Field Inspectio~
11/15/04 Field Inspectio~
11/15/04 Field Inspection
1 t / 15/04 Field Inspection0
11/15/04 Field Inspection
Telephone
(631)765-1892
Town Hall
..53095 Route 25
¥.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971-0959
CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
TO: Southold Town Board of Trustees
FROM: Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council
DATE: January 11,2005
RE: Recommendations
A meeting of the Southoid Town Conservation Advisory Council was held Tues.,
January 11,2005. The following recommendations were made:
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION OF WETLAND PERMIT & COASTAL
EROSION PERMIT APPLICATIONS
Moved by Don Wilder, seconded by William Cook, it was
RESOLVED to recommend to the Southold Town Board'of Trustees DISAPPROVAL of
the Wetland Permit & Coastal Erosion Permit applications of ANGELO PADAVAN to
construct a single-family dwelling, sanitary system, gravel driveway, and bulkhead.
Located: 22455 Soundview Ave., Southold. SCTM#135-1-23&24.1
The CAC recommends Disapproval of the applications because of the following
reasons:
There is existing erosion.
The septic system should be located beyond 100' from the wetlands and
landward of the CEHA.
The entire project is located within the CEHA.
Vote of Council: Ayes: All
Motion Carried
COUNTY OF
~ Property lox Service
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE
Chair
WILLIAM J. CREMERS
KENNETH L. EDWARDS
MARTIN Ht. SIDOR
GEORGE D. SOLOMON
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTItOLD
To: Town of Southold Board of Trustees
From: Mark Terry, Senior Environmental Planner
LWRP Coordinator
Date: August 23, 2005
MAILING ADDRESS:
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
OFFICE LOCATION:
Town Hall Annex
54375 State Route 25
(cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.)
Southold, NY
Telephone: 631 765-1938
Fax: 631 765-3136
Re:
Proposed Wetland and Coastal Erosion Permit for Angelo Padovan
SCTM#1000-135-1-23 & 24.1
ANGELO PADOVAN requests a Wetland Permit & Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a
single-family dwelling, sanitary system, gravel driveway, and bulkhead. Located: 22455
Soundview Ave., Southold. The project is located in the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area adjacent
to Long Island Sound.
The proposed action has been reviewed to Chapter 95, Waterfront Consistency Review of the
Town of Southold Town Code and the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) Policy
Standards. Based upon the information provided on the LWRP Consistency Assessment Form
submitted to this department, as well as the records available to me, it is my recommendation
that the proposed action is generally INCONSISTENT with the following Policy Standards
and therefore is INCONSISTENT with the LWRP.
Pursuant to Chapter 95, the Board of Trustees shall consider this recommendation in preparing
its written determination regarding the consistency of the proposed action.
Policy 3 Enhance visual quality and protect scenic resources throughout the Town of /
Southold.
1
Policy Standards
3.1
Enhance visual quality and protect scenic resources throughout the Town of
Southold.
Minimize introduction of structural design components (including utility lines,
lighting, signage and fencing) which would be discordant with existing natural
scenic components and character.
Use appropriate siting, scales, forms, and materials to ensure that structures are
compatible with and add interest to existing scenic components.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE
Chair
WILLIAM J. CREMERS
KENNETH L~ EDWARDS
MARTIN H. SIDOR
GEORGE D. SOLOMON
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
MAILING ADDRESS:
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
OFFICE LOCATION:
Town Hall Annex
54375 State Route 25
(cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.)
Southold, NY
Telephone: 631 765-1938
Fax: 631 765-3136
To: Town of Southold Board of Trustees
From: Mark Terry, Senior Environmental Planner
LWRP Coordinator
Date: August 23, 2005
Re:
Proposed Wetland and Coastal Erosion Permit for Angelo Padovan
SCTM#1000-135-1-23 & 24.1
ANGELO PADOVAN requests a Wetland Permit & Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a
single-family dwelling, sanitary system, gravel driveway, and bulkhead. Located: 22455
Soundview Ave., Southold. The project is located in the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area adjacent
to Long Island Sound.
The proposed action has been reviewed to Chapter 95, Waterfront Consistency Review of the
Town of Southold Town Code and the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) Policy
Standards. Based upon the information provided on the LWRP Consistency Assessment Form
submitted to this department, as well as the records available to me, it is my recommendation
that the proposed action is generally INCONSISTENT with the following Policy Standards
and therefore is INCONSISTENT with the LWRP.
Pursuant to Chapter 95, the Board of Trustees shall consider this recommendation in preparing
its written determination regarding the consistency of the proposed action.
Policy 3 Southold.Enhance visual quality and protect scenic resources throughout the Town of
Policy Standards
3.1
Enhance visual quality and protect scenic resources throughout the Town of
Sonthold.
Minimize introduction of structural design components (including utility lines,
lighting, signage and fencing) which would be discordant with existing natural
scenic components and character.
Use appropriate siting, scales, forms, and materials to ensure that structures are
compatible with and add interest to existing scenic components.
H. Protect the visual interest provided by active water-dependent uses.
Protect visual quali~y associated with public lands, including public
transportation routes, public parks and public trust lands and waters.
1. Limit water surface coverage or intrusion to the minimum mount
necessary.
2. Limit alteration of shoreline elements which contribute to scenic quality.
Protect visual quality associated with agricultural land, open space and natural
resources.
1. Maintain or restore original landforms except where altered landforms
provide useful screening or contribute to scenic quality.
3. Avoid 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
NATURAL COAST POLICIES
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 and erosion hazards are suggested:
Minimize potential loss and damage by locating development and structures
away from flooding and erosion hazards.
1. 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.
2. Avoid reconstruction of structures~ other than structures that are part
of a water-dependent use~ damaged by 50% or more of their value in
coastal hazard areas.
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.
c. sites where relocation of an existing structure is not practical.
Use vegetative non-structural measures to manage flooding and erosion hazards.
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.
Use vegetative measures to increase protective capabilities of natural
protective features. Discourage clearing of existing, particularly
indigenous vegetation during siting, design, construction and regrading
phases of any development project.
Discourage alteration of existing natural drainage contours and swales and
encourage enhancement of those natural drainage features where they exist.
Enhance existing natural protective features and processes, and use non-structural
measures which have a reasonable probability of managing erosion
1. 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 than the native material at the project site.
b. Design criteria for enhancing the protective capabilities of
beaches should not exceed the level necessary to achieve
protection from a 30-year storm, except where there 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 capabilities of beaches.
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 benefit.
c. Enhance existing or created dunes using snow fencing and
dune vegetation.
d. Construct and provide for use of walkovers to prevent
pedestrian damage to existing and enhanced dunes.
3. Increase protective capacity of natural protective features using
practical vegetative measures in association with all other
enhancement efforts.
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 or prohibited.
No development is permitted in natural protective feature areas, except as
specifically allowed under the relevant portions of 6 NYCRR 505.8.
C.
Maximize the protective capabilities of natural protective features by:
1. 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. providing relevant signage or other educational or interpretive material to
increase public awareness of the importance of natural protective features
Minimize interference with natural coastal processes by:
1. providing for natural supply and movement of unconsolidated materials
and for water and wind transport
Policy 5 Protect and improve water quality and supply in the Town of Southold. ]
Policy Standards
5.1 Prohibit direct or indirect discharges that would cause or contribute to
contravention of water quality standards.
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. adversely affect receiving water quality, or
5.3 Protect and enhance quality of coastal waters.
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).
Protect water quality of coastal waters from adverse impacts associated with
excavation, fill, dredging, and disposal of dredged material.
Policy 6 Protect and restore the quality and function of the Town of Southold
ecosystem.
Policy Standards
6.1 Protect and restore ecological quality throughout the Town of Southold.
A. Avoid adverse changes to the Long Island Sound and the Peconic Bay ecosystems that
would result from impairment of ecological quality as indicated by:
Degradation of ecological components
Degradation occurs as an adverse change in ecological quality, either as a
direct loss originating within 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.
Functional loss of ecological components
Functional loss can be indicated by a decrease in abundance of fish 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. Timing 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.
Policy 8. Minimize environmental degradation in Town of Southold from solid waste
and hazardous substances and wastes.
8.3
Protect the environment from degradation due to toxic pollutants and substances
hazardous to the environment and public health.
Prevent release of toxic pollutants or substances hazardous to the environment
that would have a deleterious effect on fish and wildlife resources.
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 avoiding reentry of bio-accumulative substances into the food
chain from existing sources.
PATRICIA C. MOORE
Attorney at Law
51020 Main RoM
Southold, New Yerk 119714616
Tel: (631) 76543~
l~ax: (6.>1) 765- 643
April 19, 2005
Town of Southold
Board of Town Trustees
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Angelo Padavan
Soundview Avenue, Southold,
SCTM # 1000-135-1-23 & 24.1
Dear Ladies/Gentlemen:
Please adjourn the hearing of the above referenced matter from
April 20, 2005 to your next hearing date, and advise us of the new
date.
Thank you for your anticipated courtesy with this matter.
Ver~y~9~r_~y yours,
( Pa'frzcia~ C. Moore
PCM/mr
PATRICIA C. MOORE
Attorney at Law
51020 Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
Tel: (631) 765-4330
Fax: (631) 765-4643
FACSIMILE COVER SHEET
The pages comprising this facsimile transmission contain
confidential information from Patricia C. Moore. This information
is intended solely for use by the individual entity named as the
recipient hereof. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware
that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents
of this transmission is prohibited. If you have received this
transmission in error, please notify us by telephone immediately so
we may arrange to retrieve this transmission at no cost to you.
DATE:
TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET
IF TRANSMISSION IS FAULTY OR INCOMPLETE, PLEASE CALL BACK AS SOON
AS POSSIBLE.
CLIENT NAME:
OPERATOR:
PATRICIA C. MOORE
Attorney at Law
51020 Main l~oad
Southold, New York 11971-4616
Tel: (631) 765-4330
Fax: (631) 765-4643
II I11 FE~3 - ~
Board of Trustees
February 3, 2005
Town of Southold
Board of Town Trustees
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
RE:
Angelo Padavan
Soundview Avenue, Southold,
SCTM # 1000-135-1-23 & 24.1
NY
Dear Ladies/Gentlemen:
Please adjourn the hearing of the above referenced matter from
February 16, 2005 to your next hearing date, and advise us of the
new date.
Thank you for your anticipated courtesy with this matter.
Very truly ~ours,
Patricia C. Moore
PCM/mr
Albert J. Krupski, President
John Holzapfel, Vice President
Jim King
Martin H. Gan'ell
Peter Wenczel
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Town Hall
53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Telephone (516) 765-1892
Fax (516) 765-1823
Office Use Only
X Coastal Erosion Permit Application
X Wetland Permit Application
Grandfather Permit Application
Waiver/Amendment/Changes
~-l~eceived Application:
~Received Fee:$ ~0
Completed Application
Incomplete
SEQRA Classification:
Type I__.Type II Unlisted
Coordination:(date sent)
~AC Referral Sent: /~/~/~¥
~Date of Inspection:
Receipt of CAC Report:
Lead Agency Determination:__
Technical Review:
--/~ublic Hearing Held: ///~/0~'
Resolution:
N~ne of Applicant
Angelo Padavan
Address c/o Patricia C. Moore Esq.
Phone Number: (631) 765-4330
Suffolk County Tax Map Number: 1000 135 -01-23 & 24.1
Property Location: Sound View Avenue, Southold
(provide LILCO Pole 9, distance to cross
AGENT: Patricia C. Moore Esq.
(If applicable)
Address: 51020 Main Road, Southold NY 11971
streets, and location)
Phone: 765-4330
FAX~: 765-4643
1
of Trustees Applicatl
GENERAL DATA
Land Area (in square feet): ]6.975
Area Zoning: r-40
Previous use of property:
Intended use of property:
existing structure- 570 sf
residence- 25% increase or less
Prior permits/approvals
Agency
for site improvements:
Date
~ No prior permits/approvals for site improvements.
Has any permit/approval ever been revoked or suspended by a
governmental agency?
x No Yes
If yes, provide explanation:
Project Description (use attachments if necessary):
In accordance with Coastal Zone regulations a minor expansion of an existing
structure is proposed. The structure does not exceed 25% of the area of the existing
structures. A very small residential cottage is propose4 the residence will
not exceed 708 ss foot print. Drawings attached
ard of Trustees App
WETLAND/TRUSTEE LANDS APPLICATION DATA
Purpose of the proposed operations: ron~tr,,~n~ ~F ~ d~e!!±n~
Adjacent to LISound
Area of wetlands on lot: .square feet
Percent coverage of lot: %
Closest distance between nearest existing structure and upland
edge of wetlands: 75' feet
Closest distance between nearest proposed structure and upland
edge of wetlands: 75' feet
Does the project involve excavation or
No x Yes
filling?
If yes, how much material will be excavated? &oo cubic yards
How much material will be filled? backfill cubic yards
Depth of which material will be removed or deposited: see cross section
feet
Proposed slope throughout the area of operations: see drawing
Manner in which material will be removed or deposited:
small bulldozer
Statement of the effect, if any, on the wetlands and tidal
waters of the town that may result by reason of such proposed
operations (use attachments if appropriate):
Construction along CZM line
of Trustees ApplicatO
COASTAL EROSION APPLICATION DATA
Purposes of proposed activity:
construct dwelling
Are wetlands present within 75 feet of the proposed activity?
x No Yes
Does the project involve excavation or filling?
No X Yes
If Yes, how much material will be excavated? see drawi~bic yards)
How much material will be filled? see drawing (cubic yards)
Manner in which material will be removed or deposited:
small bulldozer
Describe the nature and extent of the environmental impacts
reasonably anticipated resulting from implementation of the
project as proposed. (Use attachments if necessary)
expansion of existing structure less than 25% in accordance with
regulations- constituting a minor addition
of Trustees Ap~
County of Suffolk
State of New York
~Tub~o P~h~C~v -3~/o~/-~J~///w~P~o~;~/~ BEING DULY SWORN
DEPOSES AND AFFIRMS THAT HE/SEE IS THE APPLICANT FOR T~ ABOVE
DESCRIBED PERMIT(S) AND THAT ALL STA~S CONTAINED HEREIN ARE
TRUE TO THE BEST OF HIS/HER KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF, AND THAT ALL
WORK WILL BE DONE IN THE MANNER SET FORTH IN THIS APPLICATION
AND AS MAY BE APPROVED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF TRUSTEES.
THE APPLICANT AGPdZES TO HOLD THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD AND TH~ TOWN
TRUSTEES HARMLESS AND FREE FROM ANY AND ALL DAMAGES AND CLAIMS
ARISING UNDER OR BY VIRTUE OF SAID PERMIT(S), IF GRANTED. IN
COMP~LETING THIS APPLICATION, I HE~RRY AUTHORIZE THE TRUSTEES,
THEIR AGENT(S) OR REPRESENTATIVES(S), TO ENTER ONTO MY PROPERTY
TO INSPECT THE PREMISES IN CONJUNCTION WITH REVIEW OF THIS
APPLICATION. /~
swoRN To BEFORE THISDAY OF
Notary Public
I~TRICIA C. MOORE
Notary Pub#e,, State of New York
Suffolk County - NO.
Commission Expires June 16,--"~'/--'~"~
of Trustees Applica~
AUTHORIZATION
(where the applicant is not the owner)
(~rint owner of property) (mailing address)
do hereby authorize
(Agent)
to apply for permit(s) from the
Southold Board of Town Trustees on my behalf.
(Owner s signature) -
8
PATRICIA C. MOORE
Attorney at Law
51020 Main Road
Southold, New York 11971-4616
Tel: (631) 765-4330
Fax: (631) 765-4643
January 10, 2005
Southold Town Board of Trustees
Southold Town Hall
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Re:
Hearing:
Application of
Angelo Padavan
Thursday, January 19,
2005 at 7:00 pm
Dear Ladies/Gentlemen:
Enclosed please find the Affidavit of Mailing with three (3)
Certified Mail Receipts for the above referenced matter.
Very truly yours,
Patricia C. Moore
PCM/mr
Encls
'Towh ~)f Southold
LWRP CONSISTENCY ASSESSMENT FORM
A. INSTRUCTIONS
All applicants for permits* including Town of Southold agencies, shall complete this CCAF for
proposed actions that are subject to the Town of Southold Waterfront Consistency Review Law. This
assessment is intended to supplement other information used by a Town of Southold agency in
making a determination of consistency. *Except minor exempt actions including Building Permits
and other ministerial permits not located within the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area.
Before answering the questions in Section C, the preparer of this form should review the exempt
minor action list, policies and explanations of each policy contained in the Town of Southold Local
Waterfront Revitalization Program. A proposed action will be evaluated as to its significant
beneficial and adverse effects upon the coastal area (which includes all of Southold Town).
If any question in Section C on this form is answered "yes", then the proposed action may affect the
achievement of the LWRP policy standards and conditions contained in the consistency review law.
Thus, the action should be analyzed in more detail and, if necessary, modified prior to making a
determination that it is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the LWRP policy
standards and conditions. If an action cannot be certified as consistent with the LWRP policy
standards and conditions, it shall not be undertaken.
A copy of the LWRP is available in the following places: online at the Town of Southold's website
(southoldtown.northfork.net), the Board of Trustees Office, the Planning Department, all local
libraries and the Town Clerk's office.
B. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSED ACTION
The Application has been submitted to (check appropriate response):
Town Board [] Planning Dept. [] Building Dept. [--] Board of Trustees
1. Category of Town of Southold agency action (check appropriate response):
(a) Action undertaken directly by Town agency (e.g. capital
construction, planning activity, agency regulation, land transaction)
(b) Financial assistance (e.g. grant, loan, subsidy)
(c) Permit, approval, license, certification:
Nature and extenLof action:
If an application for the proposed action has been filed with the Town of Southold agency, the following
information shall be provided:
(a) Name of applicant:
(b) Mailing address:
(c) Telephone number: Area Code ( ) ~ ,3',/ 76",-5':-
(d) Application numbe}, if any:
Will the action be directly undertaken, require funding, or approval by a state or federal agency?
Yes ~ No.~ If yes, which state or federal agency?
DEVELOPED COAST POLICY
Policy 1. Foster a pattern of development in the Town of Southold that enhances community character,
preserves open space, makes efficient use of infrastructure, makes beneficial use of a coastal location, and
minimizes adverse effects of development. See LWRP Section III - Policies; Page 2 for evaluation
criteria.
~Yes ~ No ~ Not Applicable
fed V
~ #HR D~ T'~c./c' G-I ra/~/)-i~r~Jrr/'~Y~ ~-/-/£ ?t:,x-/O£/'/rl~- '
Attach additional sheets if necessary
Policy 2. Protect and preserve historic and archaeological resources of the Town of Southold. See LWRP
Section III - Policies Pages 3 through 6 for evaluation criteria
Yes ~ No.N Not Applicable
Attach additional sheets if necessary
Policy 3. Enhance visual quality and protect scenic resources throughout the Town of Southold. See
LWRP Section III - Pofieies Pages 6 through 7 for evaluation criteria
.~ Yes [] No ~ Not Applicab~le
Attach additional sheets if necessaE/
NATURAL COAST POLICIES
Policy 4. Minimize loss of life, structures, and natural resources from flooding and erosion. See LWRP
Section III - Policies Pages 8 through 16 for evaluation criteria
~-~ Yes ~-~ No [-~ Not Applicable .
Attach additional sheets if necessary
Policy 5. protect and improve water quality and supply in the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section III
- Policies Pages 16 through 21 for evaluation criteria
7] Yes ~ No t~Not Applicable
Attach additional sheets if necessary
Policy 6. Protect and restore the quality and function of the Town of Southold ecosystems including
Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats and wetlands. See LWRP Section III - Policies; Pages 22
through 32 for evaluation criteria.
[] Yes [] No ~ Not Applicable
Attach additional sheets if necessary
Policy 7. Protect and improve air quality in the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section III - Policies
Pages 32 through 34 for evaluation criteria. See Section III - Policies Pages; 34 through 38 for evaluation
criteria.
~ Yes [-~ No ~ Not Applicable
Attach additional sheets if necessary
Policy 8. Minimize environmental degradation in Town of Southold from solid waste and hazardous
substances and wastes. See LWRP Section III - Policies; Pages 34 through 38 for evaluation criteria.
~ Yes ~ No ~ Not Applicable
PUBLIC COAST POLICIES
Policy 9. Provide for public access to, and recreational use of, coastal waters, public lands, and public
resources of the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section III - Policies; Pages 38 through 46 for evaluation
criteria.
[-~ Yes ~ No ~ Not Applicable
Attach additional sheets if necessary
WORKING COAST POLICIES
Policy 10. Protect Southold's water-dependent uses and promote siting of new water-dependent uses in
suitable locations. See LWRP Section III - Policies; Pages 47 through 56 for evaluation criteria.
~ Yes ~'~ No [] Not Applicable
Attach additional sheets if necessary
Policy 11. Promote sustainable use of living marine resources in Long Island Sound, the Peconic Estuary
and Town waters. See LWRP Section IH - Policies; Pages 57 through 62 for evaluation criteria.
Yes No Not Applieahle
Attach additional sheets if necessary
Policy 12. Protect agricultural lands in the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section III - Policies; Pages 62
through 65 for evaluation criteria.
[-~Yes ['--] No~ Not Applicable
Attach additional sheets if necessary
Policy 13. Promote appropriate use and development of energy and mineral resources. See LWRP
Section III - Policies; Pages 65 through 68 for evaluation criteria.
~] Yes ~ No ~ Not Applicable
Albert J. Krupski, President
James King, Vice-President
Artie Foster
Ken Poliwoda
Peggy A. Dickerson
Town Hall
53095 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971-0959
Telephone (631) 765-1892
Fax (631) 765-1366
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
BOARD OF TRUSTEES: TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
In the Matter of the Application of
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK)
STATE OF NEW YORK)
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
I, [9~/.7-F~ tc t,~ (~- t~'~f--~esiding at
being duly sworn, depose and say:
That on the//day of,.~ n.',~., 200 ,~II personally posted the property known as
by placing the Board of Trustees official poster where it can easily be seen, and that I have
checked to be sure the poster has remained in place for eight days prior to the date.of the public
hearing. Date of hearing noted thereon to be held ~ .. ~]t~/~ ,]~. GOOS _ .
Dated: ~
(signature)
Sworn to before me this
} / ~ay of-r;~ ,~. 200~'~
MARGARET C. RUTKOWSI~
Notary Public, State of New Yo~
NO. 4982528
Qualified In S~ffolk ~
Co~amion ~ Oun, a, ~:~.oo7
PATRICIA C. MOORE
Attorney at Law
51020 Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
Tel: (631) 765-4330
Fax: (631) 765-4643
January 11, 2005
Southold Town Board of Trustees
Southold Town Hall
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Re'
Hearing:
Application of
Angelo Padavan
Thursday, January 19, 2005 at 7:00 pm
Dear Ladies/Gentlemen,
Enclosed please find the Affidavit of Posting for the above referenced matter.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Very Truly Yours,
Patricia C. Moore
PCM/er
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOD:NEW YORK
In the Matter of the Application of
Angelo Padavan
(Name of Applicant)
SCTM Parcel/41000-135-1-23 + 24.1
AFFIDAVIT
OF
MAn JNGS
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK)
STATE OF NEW YORK)
I, Elizabeth A. Rogers residing at Jockey Creek Drive, Southold, New York, being duly
sworn, depose and say that:
On the 10th day of January, 2005, I personally mailed at the United States Post
Office in Southold, New York, by CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED, a
true copy of the attached Legal Notice in prepaid envelopes addressed to current owners shown
on the current assessment roll verified from the official records on file with the ( X ) Assessors,
or ( ) County Real Property Office ., for every property which
abuts and is across a public or private street, or vehicular right-of-way of record, surrounding the
applicant's property.
Elizabeth A. Rogers
Sworn to before me this lOth
day of January, 2005
C AL USE
.37
2.30
1.75
$ 4.42
fs~tT°North Fork Condominium
....................... 1
................
~,RET C. RUTKOWSKI
ublic, State of Now York
No. 4982528
vit or on a sheet of paper, the lot numbers next to the
otices were mailed. Tha~~/
Southold
Board of lrusbes _
Subject - 1000~135-1-23 + 24.1
1000-135-1-22.1
1000-135-2-24
1000-135-1-25.1
North Fork Condominium
52325 County Road 48
Southold, NY 11971
North Fork Condominium
52325 County Road 48
Southold, NY 11971
Angelo & Josephine Padavan
101-20 67 Drive
Forest Hills, NY 11375
NOTICE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
BOARD OF TRUSTEESr TOWN OF
In the matter of applicant:
Ange lo Padavan
SOUTHOLD
SCTM~1000-135-01-23 & 24.1
YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN NOTICE:
1. That it is the intention of the undersigned to request a
Permit from the Board of Trustees to:
construct a single family dwelling, sanitary system~ driveway and bulkhead
2. That the property which is the subject of Environmental
Review is located adjacent to your property and is described as
follows:
$oundview Avenue
S0uthold, NY
3. That the project which is subject to Environmental Review
under Chapters 32, 37, or 97 of the Town Code is open to public
comment. You may contact the Trustees Office at 765-1892 or in
writing.
The above referenced proposal is under review of the Board of
Trustees of the Town of Southold and does not reference any
other agency that might have to review same proposal.
OWNERS NAME:Angelo Padavan c/o Patricia C.
MAILING ADDRESS:51020 Main Road
Southo]d~ Ny 11971
PHONE ~:765-4330
Moore
Enc.: Copy of sketch or plan showing proposal for your
convenience.
NOTICE OF HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be hel.d by the
SOUTHOLD BOARD OF TRUSTEES at the Town Hall, 53095 Ma~n Road,
Southold, New York, concerning this property.
OWNER(S) OF RECORD:
SUBJECT OF PUBLIC HEARING:
TIME & DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING:
If you have an inferesf in this project, you are invited to view the Town file(s)
which are available for inspectionprior to the day of the hearing during normal
business days between the hours oF8 a.m and 4 p.m.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES * TOWN OF SOUTHOLD * (631 ) 765-1892
~0~®
FROM CARDINALE
(THU)JUN 16 2005 13:38/$T, 13:37/No. 6809460959 P
LARS C. JOHNSON
Attozney nt Law
1451 ~ ROAD
P.O. BOX 2021
JAMESPORT, NEW YORK 11~4712021
(631) 722-4744 FAX: (631) 722-4877
FAX COVER SHEET
no: cc:
[] U~gent [] For I~vlew [] Plee~ G~mment 0 Iqe~e Reply
· #0~. The ma~t,['in[ conlnined in this facsimile is sent from n legal office and may contain
hformation that is confulentJal and/or covered by the attorney client privilege. Itl ~he Feader of
Ihb mc~age is not tie iut~nded recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution or topying of thi~ eommunitnfiOn is strittly prohibi~d. If you have received this
communication Jn error, please immediately notify us by tclcphone and return the original
message to us at the above add.ss via the U.S. Po~al Service.
Comments:
FRON CARDINALE (THU)JUN 16 2005 13:38/ST. 13:37/No. 6809460959 P 2
LOUISE HARRISON
P. O. Box 2908, Setuuket, NY 11733-0870
631-584-5641 ¢o~r~p~ool,com 631-428-1315
Consulting
Co~eerwtlon & N&turel
m Plenning
Set~ukelr., NY
Public ,Sewice and Non. Profit Em Io ant
Ex~c~ive Dir~r Frlem~ of the ely
Oyster Bay, NY
Staff representative, IT Regiofl
N~ I)el~ll,bnent of ~
Division of Coastal Resources
Stony Brook, NY
Supervisor, Bureau of Environmental
Management
Suffolk County Offlee of
Eeo~y
Del~,~,,ent oS' Health
Riverheml, NY
Bureau ~f Environmental Pr~tectlon
Education
RIRIere Ua~,emity
Tim erie.am Selleel
Pi$cotaway, I~1
MaSter of Science Program,
Ecology
· t. Lllwree~e Unlveralty Bachelor of Science in Biology
Canton, NY
FROM CARDINALE (THU)JUN 16 2005 13:38/ST, 13:37/No. 6809460959 P 3
Lc~iae HI,TigOn
C:umculum Vitae
Appo/ntmen s
NM'th S#~re Lind AIUilnci AdVl~,ry
CommRtee
0Id Westbury, NY
Theodoee RooeevMt Pad[ Advisory
Commltel4
Town o4' Oyster Bay, NY
Lo#Il blind lnvlronmntll Voters
I~)l~m Advlmry Committee
Long Zshnd ~ Shore Heritage Arel
Planning Commllilon
State of New York
DennM IJuleteln C~lt~etvlldqn Award
The Open Space Council
emotchoven, NY
Ray of Llgltt Awanf, Stony
University
Stony Brook, NY
~ ~f'L~e '/'Mr
T'[me;-Beacon-Re~rd Newspapers
East 5etauket, NY
Wwn of the Year in the EBvllonment
T/me~-BMcon-Record Newspaper~
East Sebluket. NY
2003-PreSent" Member
200S-Present, Member
2002-Present, Member
1999-2006, Commissioner
Boundaries C~mmittee, Chair
Management Committee, Member
2003 Recipient, 'Passionate Pursuit of Open
Space P~sirvatlon'
2002 Recipient. 'Leadership in Promoting
Protection end Stewardship of the
EnvirOnment'
2000 Recipfent, 'People Who Saved Forsythe
Meadows'
1997 RecJpient
Supplemental Education
M~e UnlverJlb/ of New York
Stony Brook, NY
Biology Teacher Preparation Program
FRON CARDIN^LE (THU)JUN 16 2005 13:39/ST. 13:37/No, 6809460959 P 4
Lau~e #mTtSOn
¢umcu~um wae
3
Clients, e amples
Loflg blind Pine Ilrrens S~clety,
Nanorville, NY
Three Vgliee Community TM
Set~uket, NY
Reseerch, environmental nnnl¥sls,
tesUmony prepareUon, constituent
orglnlzJn9
Cons~ence Bay w~terSh~CI
analysis, project development
Southern queenl Park AssoclaUon
St. Albans, NY
Ecological site documentation and
waterlYont access analysts
North Shore Lind A#1enee
Old West~ury, NY
Ecologl(3l ~lte documentation
Rlwr~lde Drive NMB#I~OmOO~ Coelltlon EnvlronmeflGll Impact aflalysls
Riverhead, NY
141ddie Ruff Stream Coalition
Oyster Bay, NY
Environmental impact analysis
Avalon Perk and PrMMVe
Head-of-the-Harbor, NY
Natural and historical resources
inventory, educaUonal maWtals
Cltlzlml Envlroflmentll leillrch
Farmlngdale, NY
Pollution I:~eventiQn research;
author and editor of educational
public,Ions
"l~e Nltu~ Con~rvi#cy
U Chapter
Cold Spring Harbor, NY
Natural areas ecological throats
enalyses; preservation
management proposal
Pm Bono Environmentol Assistonce, examples
Natural world Series (Z003), Melville, NY
Frlendl of Thompeon-Detmer Film, Set~uket, NY
Three Vllh~l #lmMt Study T~k For~l, Setauk~t, NY
com#tlon for the Future o/Stony Brook Villmge, $~ony BrOOk, NY
Additional Skills
Print and television media publlOW, promotional wriUng, public SlXakln~,
communication of scientific concepts and informaUon for general public, community
organizing, editing.
PC-proficient,
FROM CARDINALE (THU)JUN 16 2005 13:39/ST, 13:37/No. 6809460959 P 5
Cur~uIum V~wE
4
Featured in
Blair, Cynthia (2000, April-May). Making the most of the ouMoors with your kids.
Long ]sland Paren~ & Children, April-May, 2000, pp.72-74.
Blair, Cynthia (1997, December 31). Louise Harrison: 'the ultimata accurate
resource.' The Village Times, Oec~mber 31, 1997, p. 8.
Kaufman, Bill (2004, March 21). Wlnner~: Louise Harrison/ecology acUvlst.
Newsday, Sunday, March 2:1, 2004, Long Islam Ufa (Smithtown edition), p.
G35.
Native America (2000, Autumn). Conservation spirit. Native America, ~he Nature
[nforrnaUon Paper a(2), back cover.
Oyster Bay Enterprise-Pilot (2002, October 3). Friends of the Bay's environmental
activist: New Friends of the Bay director comes with strong credenUals. Oyster
Bay Enterprise-P#o~, 3e(2), October 3, 2002.
Oyster Bay Guardian (2002, May $), FOTB appoints new exec. director. Oyster Bay
Guanfian, May 3, 2002, p.t.
Village 7lines Herald (2004, April 1). Harrison wins envlroflme~ltal award, The
Village T/roes Herald, 2~(3), April 1, 2004.
PATRICIA C. MOORE
Attorney at Law
51020 Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
Tel: (631) 765-4330
Fax: (631) 765-4643
October 14, 2005
Board of Trustees
Southold Town
PO Box 1179
Southold NY 11971
RE: PADOVAN
Dear Sir or Madam:
With reference to the above, enclosed please find a response to the LWRP
report.
Please provide this office of the Board's decision as soon as possible.
Thank you.
· ~ tru y you/m~.
Thomas W. Cramer, Principal
P.O. Box 5535
Miller Plac% New York 11764
Telephone (631)476-0984 -Fax (63I) 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 i / 2005
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 "appropriate 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 categories are useful in determining consistency to the LWRP, depending on
the type of project 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 Padovan's proposed project relates to them.
DEVELOPED COAST POLICIES
Policy 3 Enhance visual quality and protect scenic resources throughout the Town of Southold.
Policy Standards
3.1 Enhance visual quality and protect 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 area 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
adjacent to the site. These poles presently service the existing homes. The proposed project does
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.
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 tbe 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.
1. Maintain or restore original landforms except where altered landforms provide useful screening or contribute to
scenic quality.
3. AvoM 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.
Tbe following management measures to minimize losses of human life and structures from flooding attd erosion hazards
are suggested:
A. Minimize potential loss and damage by locating development and structures away from flooding and erosion hazards.
1. Avoid development other titan water-dependent uses fit 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. A void hazards by siting structures to maximize the distance from Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas.
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 voM reconstruction of structures, other than structures that are part ora 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 awayfrom 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 of an existing structure is not practical.
As stated in the response to Standard 4.1.Al, 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 managingflooding and erosion,
based on shoreline characteristics including exposure, geometry, and sediment composition.
2. Use vegetative measures to increase protective capabilities of natural protective features. Discourage clearing of
existing, particularly indigenous vegetation during siting, design, construction and regrading phases of any
development project.
3. Discourage alteration of existing natural drainage contours and swales and encourage enhancement of those
natural drabtage 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
4
project would further reduce the potential of erosion. At present, road runoff and 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 natura~ pr~tective features and pr~cesses~ and use n~nstructura~ measures which have a reas~nab~e
probability of managing erosion
L Enhance the protective capabilities of beaches by usingfill, 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 the native material at the
project site.
b. Design criteria for enhancing the protective capabilities of beaches should not exceed the level necessary to
achieve protection from a 30-year storm, except where there is an overriding public benefi~
c. Provide for sand by-pasMng at engineered inlets or other shore protection structures to maintain coastal
processes and protective capabilities 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 benefit.
c. Enhance existing or created dunes using snow fencing and dune vegetation.
d. Construct and provide for use of walkovers to prevent pedestrian damage to existing and 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
all other enhancement efforts.
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.
D. Use hard structural erosion protection measures for control of erosion only where:
1. 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 Development.
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 adjacent property or
to natural coastal processes and natural resources and, if undertaken by a private property owner, does not
incur significant direct or indirectpublic 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 or prohibited.
A. No development is permitted in natural protective feature areas, except as specifically allowed under the relevant
portions of 6 NYCRR 505.8.
As stated previously, 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. 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. providing relevant signage or other educational or interpretive material to increase public awareness of the
importance 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.
C. 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
5.1 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 avoM land and water uses that
would:
2. cause or contribute to contravention of water quality classification and use standards, or
3. adversely affect receiving 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
7
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 pbysical 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 witb 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 ecosystetr~
Policy Standards
6.1 Protect and restore ecological quality throughout tbe Town of Southold.
A. A voM adverse changes to the Long Island Sound and tire Peconic Bay ecosystems tit at would result from
impairment of ecological quality as indicated by:
2. Degradation of ecological components
Degradation occurs as an adverse change in ecological quality, eitber as a direct loss originating within the
resource area or as an indirect loss originating from nearby activities. Degradation usually occurs over a more
extended period of time titan 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 of. fish 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.
Timing of activities can often be critical in determining whether a functional loss is lihely 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
overwintering songbirds, or benthic communities. These 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 Protect the environment from degradation due to toxic pollutants and substances hazardous to the environment and
public health.
A. Prevent release of toxic pollutants or substances hazardous to the 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:
"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 avoiding 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 summary, 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 dated August 15, 2005, and my familiarity with the site, theA~¢posed project and the
surrounding area.
a/v~e, ple I me.
If I can provide any additional information or clarification of the ase fee free to contact
Very )urs,
TWC/
Enclosures
Cramer, ASLA
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 and FEIS for the 1996 Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Town 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:
Cen~al Pine Barrens District,
Bed & Breakfast Ordinance,
Marine Commercial District,
Recreational Commercial District.
11
Revisions to Existing Town of Brookhaven Codes. 1995-1997. Including 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 G1S 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.
Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements.
Feasibility and Development Potential Studies.
Phase I and Phase I1 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.
· GElS A-I Rezonings on the Towns Own Motion, 1988.
· GEIS Commercial Rezonings on the Towns Own Motion, 1988.
· GElS 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 & Internet 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 Coancil
· Town of Brookhaven Historic District Advisory Council
· Town ofBrookhaven 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:
· SI/NY, 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
Albert J. Krupski, President
James King, Vice-President
Artie Fester
Ken Poliwoda
Peggy A. Dickerson
Town Hall
53095 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971-0959
Telephone (631) 765-1892
Fax (631) 765-6641
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
October 18, 2005
MEMO
To: Board of Trustees
From: Heather Cusack, Environmental Technician
Re: LWRP Consistency Review: Angelo Padavan, SCTM# 135-1-23,24.1
The public heating for tomorrow night for Angelo Padavan will have to be postponed due
to the office has just received a letter regarding the LWRP review. The Board will need
time to read this letter before a determination can be made.
Sep 21 05 12:39p Moore Las O??ice G31 ?65 4643 p.1
PATRICIA C. MOORE
Attorney at Law
51020 Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
Tel: (631 ) 765-4330
Fax: (631) 765-4643
September 21, 2005
765-6641
Board of Trustees
Town of Southold
PO Box 1179
Southold NY 11971
RE: PADOVAN
Dear Sir or Madam:
With reference to the above, I respectfully request an adjournment of the above
from tonight's hearing so thatt we may review and respond the the LWRP Coordinator's
response.
encls.~'-.~.
C: Tom Cramer
Ve~ruly yours,
LARS C. JOHNSON
ATTORNEY AT LAW
1451 MAIN ROAD
P.O. BOX 2021
JAMESPORT~ NEW YORK 11947-2021
(631) 722-4744 FAX: (631) 722-4877
September 8, 2005
Attn: President Krupski and Board Members
Southold Town Board of Trustees
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Via hand delivery,
$[? - 8 2005
S0oth01d Towe
Board of Trustees
Re: Padovan Permit Application, SCTM# 1000-135-1-23 & 24.1
Dear Mr. President and Members,
I have enclosed an original and several copies of my response to the memorandum offered in
support of the Padovan application. Please let me know if you desire any further information
from the North Fork Condo Association.
Also, I am enclosing a faxed copy of a letter I received from Mr. lan MacLennan, a member of
the Board of Managers of the Condo Association. I have instructed him to send an original to
your attention.
Thank you for your consideration of this important matter.
Very tmly yours,
FROM : LION SYSTEMS FAX NO. : 15166717477 Aug. 30 2005 04:53PM P1
So~ffhold Town
Boar8 of Trustees
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
PERMIT APPLICATION OF ANGELO PADOVAN
TO: PRESIDENT ALBERT J. KRUPSKI, JR., AND THE MEMBER~
OF THE BOARD
SEP - 8 2005
Southold Towo
Board of Trustees
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN RESPONSE TO APPLICANT PADOVAN'S
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR PERMIT
This memorandum of law is submitted to the Board in response to the memorandum filed
in support of the application of Angelo Padovan for a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion
Permit to construct a single-family dwelling, sanitary system, gravel driveway and bulkhead.
The application should be denied in its entirety because the applicant has failed as a matter of
law to demonstrate that he is entitled to the requested permits.
NATURE OF THE CASE
This is an application for a Wetland Permit pursuant to Chapter 97 of the Town Code and
a Coastal Erosion Management Permit pursuant to Chapter 37 of the Town Code. The applicant
proposes to build a multiple story structure along the Long Island Sound on property that has
been designated as a Coastal Erosion Hazard Area and that falls within the jurisdiction of the
Town's Wetland Law.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The undersigned relies on the Statement of Facts previously submitted.
ARGUMENT
The applicant has failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to the requested permits.
Specifically, the application should be rejected for the following reasons:
A. The proposed project does not satisfy the criteria set forth in Town Code §37-11. The
applicant has not shown that the project is: 1) reasonable and necessary, considering reasonable
alternatives and the extent to which the proposed activities requires a shoreline location; 2) not
likely to cause a measurable increase in erosion at the proposed site and at other locations; and 3)
prevents, if possible, or minimizes adverse effects on natural protective features and their
functions and protective values, existing erosion protection structures and natural resources. Id.
B. The applicant's consultant, Mr. Cramer claims the project site sits in a dune area.
Cramer Report of May 7, 2005 at 5. If that is the case, "[e]xcavating, grading or mining" is
prohibited. Town Code §37-16(A). Even in a secondary due area, such activity must not
diminish the erosion protection afforded by [the dunes]." Town Code §37-16(B). The applicant
has not shown that there will be no excavating or grading in the dune area or that the project will
avoid diminishing the existing erosion protection.
C. The applicant's consultant states that a portion of the project involves bluff area.
Cramer Report at 5. If that is correct, only minor alterations to the bluff are permitted. Town
Code §37-17(B). Here, the project calls for significant excavation and modification to the bluff
which is prohibited.
D. The Town's consultant, Ms. Heather Tetrault, considers this site to be beach area.
Tetrault Letter of January 19, 2005. All development is prohibited in beach area unless
specifically provided for elsewhere in the Code. Town Code §37-15.
E. The proposed project does not satisfy the criteria set forth in Town Code §97-28 for a
Wetland Permit. In particular, the applicant has failed to show that the project will not cause
damage from erosion, turbidity or siltation, will not weaken lateral support to other lands in the
vicinity, and will not otherwise adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the
People of the Town.
2
F. The proposed project does not even meet the minimum set back requirements. The
proposed residence will sit 93 feet from the high water mark which is less than the required 100
feet. Town Code §97-12(D)(1). The proposed bulkhead is even closer to the high water mark.
This set back is a minimum requirement that has not been met.
G. The applicant has not sufficiently addressed the issue of erosion. In his initial report,
Mr. Cramer states that the proposed bulkhead will "provide additional erosion protection."
Cramer of Report of May 7, 2005 at 5. In his latest submission he claims there is no erosion.
Cramer Report of August 12, 2005 at 3. How can the bulkhead provide erosion protection if
there is no erosion? Furthermore, the conclusion that there is no erosion conflicts with the
findings of Ms. Louise Harrison and the Conservation Advisory Council. See Harrison Report of
June 15, 2005 and CAC Letter of January 11, 2005.
H. The applicant has failed to show that he is entitled to the bulkhead. To be so entitled
under the Town's Wetland Law, the applicant must show that there is a likelihood of extreme
erosion and that there will be no increase in erosion to the neighboring properties. Town Code
§97-28. Again, the applicant's consultant now seems to take the position that there is no erosion
on the proposed project site. If that is the case, no bulkhead is permitted. Furthermore, Mr.
Cramer casually dismisses the conclusion in Ms. Harrison's report that the bulkhead will
contribute to erosion on neighboring property. He calls the bulkhead a "small retaining wall"
designed to contain fill and not to protect against erosion. This, of course, contradicts his prior
assertion that it will provide erosion protection. More importantly, if that is the purpose for the
"retaining wall", then it simply is not a "reasonably necessary" structure and should not be
allowed.
3
I. The Conservation Advisory Council has recommended that the project be disapproved.
CAC Letter of January 11, 2005.
J. The Town's Senior Environmental Planner and Local Waterfront Revitalization
Program (LWRP) Coordinator has determined that the project is inconsistent with various policy
standards established by the program.
K. Both the memorandum in support of the application and Mr. Cramer's report are
littered with improper and questionable factual assertions. Factual assertions in the record
should be in the form of sworn statements or testimony and should, of course, be made by
persons having knowledge of the facts asserted. They should also be relevant.
In this case, the memorandum and reports submitted by the applicant contain numerous
factual assertions that are not based on personal knowledge, are irrelevant and inaccurate. For
example, the memo describes the neighboring property as a "motel" when it is in fact a
condominium. The memo describes members of the association using the site as a toilet, a trash
can and trespassing on the property. The memo also accuses the Condo Association members of
being environmentally insensitive. The author of the memorandum does not reveal the basis for
this information but she presumably did not witness any of this alleged activity herself. There
certainly is no independent evidence to support these accusations in the record.
Mr. Cramer's report also contains assertions that are not based on personal knowledge.
He attempts to explain how certain "wrack" ended up at the base of a bluff by referring to
conduct involving Mr. Padovan. However, again, Mr. Cramer presumably was not there when
this alleged activity occurred and Mr. Padovan himself never provided this information.
Finally, the assertions about the conduct of the Condo owners, their deck and the
structures on neighboring properties are ultimately irrelevant. Many of the structures referred to
were built in a different era when regulations were not in place to protect against the type of
activity proposed by this applicant. Also, the "my neighbor did it" and "he is a big jerk" line of
argument should not sway this Board one bit. The focus of this Board should be on the project at
hand and the pertinent regulations.
L. Threats of litigation and references to "regulatory takings" should not deter this Board
from enforcing the Town's regulations. It is true that property owners have certain basic
property rights. However, all property owners in Southold Town are subject to regulations
regarding the extent and manner of development on their property. The enforcement of those
regulations should not be dictated by the extent to which a property owner is willing to threaten
or pursue litigation. Rather, the enforcement should be based solely on the criteria in the Town
Code and the discretion of the Board members who are entrusted with this important
responsibility.
CONCLUSION
The applicant has failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to a Wetland Permit or Coastal
Erosion Permit. Therefore, the applicant's request should be denied.
Dated: Jamesport, New York
September 8, 2005
Respectfully Submitted,
ohn
Attorney for North Fork Condo Assn.
P.O. Box 2021
Jamesport, NY 11947
(631) 722-4744
5
ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE
TOWN CLERK
REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS
MARRIAGE OFFICER
RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER
TOWN HALL, 53095 MAIN ROAD
P.O. BOX l179
SOUTHOLD NY 11971
FAX: 631-'765-. 6145
TELEPHONE: 631- 765-1800
southoldtown.northfork, net
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ~
APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC ACCESS TO RECORDS
INSTRUCTIONS: Please complete section I of this form and give to Town Clerk's Office (agency
Freedom of Information Officer). One copy will be returned to you in response to your request, or as
an interim response.
SECTION I.
TO:
(Department or Officer, if known, that has the information you are requesting).
RECORD YOU WISH TO INSPECT: (Describe the record sought. If possible, supply date, file
title, tax map number, and any other pertinent information).
Signature of Applicant:
Printed Name:
Address:
Mailing Address (if different from above):
Telephone Number: ~ (.. ,~ ~ ~' ~ I ,~'"'-
[ ] APPROVED
[ ] APPROVED WITH DELAY*
E lizab~vil~l'?
Freedom of Information Officer
Accepting Clerk's Initials
D~
Hand c~,:r~ to
Yes V No
[ ] DENIED*
JAN 2 4 2008
$outimi.,i Iowa Cler~ ~
department? , f~)
Applicant s initia slllslslslslslslsls~
*If delayed or denied, see reverse side for explanation.
August 24, 2005
Southold Town Trustees
P.O.Box 1179
Southold Town Hall
Main Road,
Southold, NY 11971
PATRICIA C. MOORE
Attorney at Law
51020 Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
Tel: (631) 765-4330
Fax: (631) 765-4643
Re: Padovan Property
SCTM#1000-135-1-23 & 24.1
Margaret Rutkowski
Secretary
Dear President Krupski
and Board:
Enclosed are the following documents for the Board's
consideration:
4 o
Memorandum of Law
Cramer Consulting Group's Response to Louise Harrison's letter
Updated Full Environmental Assessment Form based on existing
plan
Survey last amended August 15, 2005
My yours,
~ore
PATRICIA C. MOORE
Attorney at Law
51020 Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
Tel: (631) 765-4330
Fax: (631) 765-4643
August 23, 2005
Southold Town Trustees
P.O.Box 1179
Southold Town Hall
Main Road,
Southold, NY 11971
To: President Krupski and Members of Board
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT
ANGELO AND JOSEPHINE PADOVAN
SCTM# 1000-135-1-23 & 24.1
Mr and Mrs Padovan own two vacant parcels (1000-135-01-23 & 24.1
along Long Island Sound which have been combined as one parcel for
development. The parcel is trapezoidal in shape and is 18,874 square
feet (a little less than one half acre). The topography of the
parcel rises to an elevation of 20' Mean Sea Level(MSL) and fronts on
Sound View Avenue. The parcel contains a beach cabana structure and
retaining walls existing prior to the enactment of Chapter 37 and
Chapter 97. The existing structures are 589 square feet.
The applicant proposes to construct a dwelling which will be
limited to no more then 25% of existing square footage of ground area
coverage. The applicant therefore has proposed a dwelling and
impervious surfaces which will not exceed 707 square feet. The
proposal is only a 20% increase in the square footage of the existing
structures, less than the 25% allowed in the statute. (Town Code
Section 37) The limited size of this structure, defined as a "non-
major addition", deems this application as permissible, subject to a
permit.
I. MINOR ADDITION TO EXISTING STRUCTURE
The code at 37-6 defines a ~major addition" as ~an addition to
a structure resulting in a twenty-five-percent or greater increase in
the ground area coverage..." The Trustees are prohibited from
granting a permit for a major addition to an existing structure in a
Coastal Erosion Hazard Area. The Trustees have authority to grant a
permit for a minor addition to an existing structure.
The proposed addition to the existing structures is limited to
less than 25% of existing structures. Existing structures is a
defined term: hA structure and appurtenances in existence...prior to
the effective date of the chapter". Chapter 37 was adopted by the
Southold Town Board in 1991. There is no dispute that the structures
on the Padovan property were in existence prior to 1991. The
applicant has stated that this structure was in existence prior to
zoning in 1957.
While the Coastal Erosion Hazard Law prohibits major additions,
the law specifically permits non-major additions to existing
structures in Bluff Area with a permit(see 37-17B(4)). The applicant
has submitted competent evidence that 37-17 is applicable:
1. Ail the homes within 1000 feet of the subject property along Sound
View Avenue fall within the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area designation.
The homes along Sound View Avenue over time have been constructed,
improved and renovated within the guidelines of Chapter 37. We
respectfully request the same fair treatment to Mr. and Mrs. Padovan.
2. The Town of Southold Trustees, Building Department and Zoning
Board of Appeals have repeatedly and routinely recognized this area
as a bluff and have issued permits to construct adjacent to the
~bluff". References to the proposed area as a ~beach" are contrary
to the definition of beach in Chapter 37, and the Town's prior
determinations which authorize permits from the Trustees for activity
~'adjacent to the bluff". Expert testimony has been provided proving
this is within the bluff area.
3. The proposed non-major addition to the existing structure will
only be 707 square feet. The Padovan's home is smaller than any home
along Sound View Avenue, and has been carefully designed to comply
with the standards in chapter 37. The purposes of Chapter 37 is not
to sterilize property.
4. At 37-4 the primary purposes of the Coastal
Law is to regulate the placement of structures
from areas of active erosion and to minimize
protective features.
Erosion Hazard Area
at a safe distance
impact on natural
There is no evidence of erosion at this or any proximate
distance from this parcel. Areas of erosion are identified as
~structural hazard areas". A structural hazard area is
identified as shorelands located landward of natural protective
features that have shorelines receding at a long-term average
annual recession rate of one foot or more per year. As the
Trustees already know and as confirmed by Robert McDonough,
Environmental Program Specialist for the Coastal Erosion
Management Unit of the State. There are no identified areas of
erosion meeting the definition of Structural Hazard Areas in any
portion of Southold. Therefore this application does not impact
issues of erosion.
The only relevant issue pursuant to the Coastal Erosion Hazard
Area Law is to preserve to the greatest extent practical the
natural protective features. By limiting the square footage of
additions to existing structures, the Law has a built in
regulatory control. In this case less than 4% of the property
is being developed. The majority of the property, 96% will
remain in a natural state and preserved. The plan prepared by
Young & Young protects the natural protective features
consistent with the typical conditions placed on permits granted
by the Trustees. The limited size of the house to less than 25%
of the existing structure will limit disturbance to only those
areas which have already been disturbed by the existing
structures. The development plan has been engineered to prevent
runoff. There is public water, natural gas and electricity
directly along Sound View Avenue. This very conservative
development plan preserves the property without sterilizing it.
Adjacent parcels have sold for over One Million dollars. Denial
of this perm/t will render this parcel unbuildable and
constitute a regulatory taking.
Reasonable conditions which the applicant would accept are 1.
Replant any affected vegetation 2. retain all runoff and 3. establish
non-disturbance buffers 4. developing the property in accordance with
the Young & Young survey last amended August 15, 2005
Wetland Permit
The proposed activity is 93.98 feet from the Tie Line along
approximate High Water Mark (Tidal Wetland Definition). The
retaining wall is for control of fill, not erosion, and is located
within 5 feet Seaward of the proposed structure. The property fronts
the Long Island Sound and the setback of the proposed structure is
landward of the line of neighboring structures. The proposed house
has a greater setback from the Long Island Sound MHW as is visible
from the aerial photographs than all homes within 2000 feet of the
subject property. It is also landward of the neighboring deck
constructed by the adjacent Condominium Association, and the Town
Beach parking area. (See 1976 & 1988 aerial in Cramer Consulting
report dated August 12, 2005)
The proposed dwelling will not substantially:
A. Adversely affect the wetlands of the Town (the dwelling will be
93.98 feet from the defined wetland)
B. Cause damage from erosion, turbidity or siltation: the plan has
addressed these issues with the engineered plan
C. Cause saltwater intrusion into the freshwater resources of the
Town (Not applicable)
D. Adversely affect fish, shellfish or other beneficial marine
organisms, aquatic life and vegetation or the natural habitat
thereof. (The activity is proposed more than 80' from MHW, 96% of
the property will be undisturbed and the activity of surrounding
properties creates ambient disturbance. This parcel is not isolated,
it is surrounded by development.)
E. Increase the danger of flood and storm-tide damage (The existing
structures and surrounding homes have survived multiple storms
without incident. The location of the structures almost 100 feet
from Mean High Tide reduces danger of flood and storm tide damage.
F. Adversely affect navigation on tidal waters or the tidal flow of
waters (Not applicable)
G. Change the course of any channel or the movement or flow of any
waters. (Not Applicable - aerial photographs of 1976 and 1978 show a
very stable area)
H Weaken or undermine the lateral support of other lands in the
vicinity. (The surrounding properties are developed and show no
evidence of weakening or undermining lateral support, only 4% of the
parcel is to be developed, the 96% is preserved in the natural state
and provides a greater buffer then any other waterfront parcel within
2000 feet of the subject parcel)
I. Otherwise adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the
people of the Town. (The development of this property with 96%
preservation of the natural features, at no cost to the Town
taxpayers, outweighs any impact to the Town. The neighboring
Condominium residents have in the past asked Mr. Padovan to top the
trees to give them views with complete disregard for the environment.
They or their guests have used the parcel as a toilet and left
garbage and trespassed on his private property. The dwelling is less
intrusive than more than 600 square feet of decking and the
activities of 50 motel owners and their guests.)
J. Adversely affect the aesthetic value of the wetland and adjacent
areas. (This is a residential parcel which exceeds in size and road
frontage of many of the parcels along Sound View Avenue.)
Wherefore, the Trustees should grant a Coastal Erosion Permit
and Wetland permit to construct a dwelling and impervious surfaces
which will not exceed 20% increase of existing structures, with
sanitary and retaining wall as shown on Young & Young survey last
dated August 15, 2005.
TOWN OFSOUTHOLD
BOARD OFTRUSTEES
PERMIT APPLICATION OF ANGELO PADOVAN
TO: PRESIDENT ALBERT J. KRUPSKI, JR., AND THE MEMBER
OF THE BOARD
SEP - 8 2005
$outhold Towr~
Board ef Trustees
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN RESPONSE TO APPLICANT PADOVAN'S
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR PERMIT
This memorandum of law is submitted to the Board in response to the memorandum filed
in support of the application of Angelo Padovan for a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion
Permit to construct a single-family dwelling, sanitary system, gravel driveway and bulkhead.
The application should be denied in its entirety because the applicant has failed as a matter of
law to demonstrate that he is entitled to the requested permits.
NATURE OF THE CASE
This is an application for a Wetland Permit pursuant to Chapter 97 of the Town Code and
a Coastal Erosion Management Permit pursuant to Chapter 37 of the Town Code. The applicant
proposes to build a multiple story structure along the Long Island Sound on property that has
been designated as a Coastal Erosion Hazard Area and that falls within the jurisdiction of the
Town's Wetland Law.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The undersigned relies on the Statement of Facts previously submitted.
ARGUMENT
The applicant has failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to the requested permits.
Specifically, the application should be rejected for the following reasons:
A. The proposed project does not satisfy the criteria set forth in Town Code §37-11. The
applicant has not shown that the project is: 1) reasonable and necessary, considering reasonable
alternatives and the extent to which the proposed activities requires a shoreline location; 2) not
likely to cause a measurable increase in erosion at the proposed site and at other locations; and 3)
prevents, if possible, or minimizes adverse effects on natural protective features and their
functions and protective values, existing erosion protection structures and natural resources. Id.
B. The applicant's consultant, Mr. Cramer claims the project site sits in a dune area.
Cramer Report of May 7, 2005 at 5. If that is the case, "[e]xcavating, grading or mining" is
prohibited. Town Code §37-16(A). Even in a secondary due area, such activity must not
diminish the erosion protection afforded by [the dunes]." Town Code §37-16(B). The applicant
has not shown that there will be no excavating or grading in the dune area or that the project will
avoid diminishing the existing erosion protection.
C. The applicant's consultant states that a portion of the project involves bluff area.
Cramer Report at 5. If that is correct, only minor alterations to the bluff are permitted. Town
Code §37-17(B). Here, the project calls for significant excavation and modification to the bluff
which is prohibited.
D. The Town's consultant, Ms. Heather Tetrault, considers this site to be beach area.
Tetrault Letter of January 19, 2005. All development is prohibited in beach area unless
specifically provided for elsewhere in the Code. Town Code §37-15.
E. The proposed project does not satisfy the criteria set forth in Town Code §97-28 for a
Wetland Permit. In particular, the applicant has failed to show that the project will not cause
damage from erosion, turbidity or siltation, will not weaken lateral support to other lands in the
vicinity, and will not otherwise adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the
People of the Town.
2
F. The proposed project does not even meet the minimum set back requirements. The
proposed residence will sit 93 feet from the high water mark which is less than the required 100
feet. Town Code §97-12(D)(1). The proposed bulkhead is even closer to the high water mark.
This set back is a minimum requirement that has not been met.
G. The applicant has not sufficiently addressed the issue of erosion. In his initial report,
Mr. Cramer states that the proposed bulkhead will "provide additional erosion protection."
Cramer of Report of May 7, 2005 at 5. In his latest submission he claims there is no erosion.
Cramer Report of August 12, 2005 at 3. How can the bulkhead provide erosion protection if
there is no erosion? Furthermore, the conclusion that there is no erosion conflicts with the
findings of Ms. Louise Harrison and the Conservation Advisory Council. See Harrison Report of
June 15, 2005 and CAC Letter of January 11, 2005.
H. The applicant has failed to show that he is entitled to the bulkhead. To be so entitled
under the Town's Wetland Law, the applicant must show that there is a likelihood of extreme
erosion and that there will be no increase in erosion to the neighboring properties. Town Code
§97-28. Again, the applicant's consultant now seems to take the position that there is no erosion
on the proposed project site. If that is the case, no bulkhead is permitted. Furthermore, Mr.
Cramer casually dismisses the conclusion in Ms. Harrison's report that the bulkhead will
contribute to erosion on neighboring property. He calls the bulkhead a "small retaining wall"
designed to contain fill and not to protect against erosion. This, of course, contradicts his prior
assertion that it will provide erosion protection. More importantly, if that is the purpose for the
"retaining wall", then it simply is not a "reasonably necessary" structure and should not be
allowed.
3
· I. The Conservation Advisory Council has recommended that the project be disapproved.
CAC Letter of January 11, 2005.
J. The Town's Senior Environmental Planner and Local Waterfront Revitalization
Program (LWRP) Coordinator has determined that the project is inconsistent with various policy
standards established by the program.
K. Both the memorandum in support of the application and Mr. Cramer's report are
littered with improper and questionable factual assertions. Factual assertions in the record
should be in the form of sworn statements or testimony and should, of course, be made by
persons having knowledge of the facts asserted. They should also be relevant.
In this case, the memorandum and reports submitted by the applicant contain numerous
factual assertions that are not based on personal knowledge, are irrelevant and inaccurate. For
example, the memo describes the neighboring property as a "motel" when it is in fact a
condominium. The memo describes members of the association using the site as a toilet, a trash
can and trespassing on the property. The memo also accuses the Condo Association members of
being environmentally insensitive. The author of the memorandum does not reveal the basis for
this information but she presumably did not witness any of this alleged activity herself. There
certainly is no independent evidence to support these accusations in the record.
Mr. Cramer's report also contains assertions that are not based on personal knowledge.
He attempts to explain how certain "wrack" ended up at the base of a bluff by referring to
conduct involving Mr. Padovan. However, again, Mr. Cramer presumably was not there when
this alleged activity occurred and Mr. Padovan himself never provided this information.
Finally, the assertions about the conduct of the Condo owners, their deck and the
structures on neighboring properties are ultimately irrelevant. Many of the structures referred to
,?:
were built in a different era when regulations were not in place to protect against the type of
activity proposed by this applicant. Also, the "my neighbor did it" and "he is a big jerk" line of
argument should not sway this Board one bit. The focus of this Board should be on the project at
hand and the pertinent regulations.
L. Threats of litigation and references to "regulatory takings" should not deter this Board
from enforcing the Town's regulations. It is true that property owners have certain basic
property rights. However, all property owners in Southold Town are subject to regulations
regarding the extent and manner of development on their property. The enforcement of those
regulations should not be dictated by the extent to which a property owner is willing to threaten
or pursue litigation. Rather, the enforcement should be based solely on the criteria in the Town
Code and the discretion of the Board members who are entrusted with this important
responsibility.
CONCLUSION
The applicant has failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to a Wetland Permit or Coastal
Erosion Permit. Therefore, the applicant's request should be denied.
Dated: Jamesport, New York
September g, 2005
Respectfully Submitted,
Attorney for North Fork Condo Assn.
P.O. Box 2021
Jamesport, NY 11947
(631) 722-4744
Thomas W. Cramcr, Principal
P.O. Box 5535
Miller Place, New York 11764
Tclcphonc (631)476~0984 Fax (631) 476-6933
August 12, 2005
Patricia Moore, Esq.
51020 Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
Re:
Padovan @ Southold
Response to Letter of Conservation and Natural Areas Planning - 6/15/05
Dear Ms. Moore:
As per your request, I have reviewed the above referenced letter addressed to Lars Johnson, Esq.
and prepared by Louise Harrison. While Ms. Harrison opines that there are inaccuracies in my
original report of May 7, 2005, I have reviewed her comments and find that they are inaccurate
or based on false assumptions. The comments provided by Louise Harrison do not result in the
need for any revisions to my original document.
The following is a response to each of the comments made by Ms. Harrison:
Maior Proiect
Ms. Harrison makes a point as to the inclusion of the proposed retaining wall in the calculations
of the proposed structures, more specifically how the retaining wall's inclusion will bring the
area of proposed structures over 25% of the existing. This would result in the project being a
major addition under {}37-6. Considering this, I asked the engineer to review his calculations and
include similar existing structures to the retaining wall in his calculations. As such, the plan has
been revised to reflect the following: I _ -~ fi~ ~t--f~ f~c>
Area of Existing Be 187 sqfi t
AreaofExistingDeck~ ~ 229sqff- ~ ~ ~ ~¢.~6~--;'1C
Area of Existing Stairs: 110 sqft ]
Area of Existing Walk: 44 sqfi
Area of Existin~ Railroad Tie Wall: 19 sqff
Total Area of Existing Structures: 589 sqft
Since Ms. Harrison raised the issue of the proposed retaining wall in the calculations for
structures, the engineer has reconsidered the existing conditions. An existing railroad tie wall is
now included in the revised calculations. This retaining wall increases the existing structures on
site by 19 square feet.
In addition, the proposed structures on site were also reviewed and recalculated. The proposed
retaining wall was included in the calculations and portions of the previously proposed paved
surfaces were eliminated. The following is a detail breakdown of the 193 square feet of
"Proposed Area Building" and "Proposed Area Impervious Site Improvements" shown on the
site plan. This breakdown was provided by the engineer.
Area of Proposed House: 514 sqft
Area of Existing Railroad Tie Wall (remaining): 1 sqfi
Area of Proposed Retaining Wall: 93 sqft
Area of Proposed Stairs: 36 sqft
Area of Proposed Walk: 63 sqft
Total Area of Existing Structures: 707 sqft
Including retaining wall in the calculations increases the square footage of existing structures on
site. Including in the calculations the proposed retaining wall and with modification of the
proposed activities on site there is a decrease in the total square footage of proposed structures.
Therefore, the proposed percentage of increase of structures on the site has decreased from
24.2% to 20.0%. The following are the percentage calculations:
(Proposed Structures - Existing Structures) / Existing Structures -- Percent of Increase
Old Plan: (708 sqft - 570 sqft) / 570 sqft = 24.2%
New Plan: (707 sqft - 589 sqft) / 589 sqft = 20.0%
Under {}37-6 a "Major Addition" is defined as an addition of 25% or greater increase in ground area
coverage of the structures existing on site. Therefore, at 20.0%, the proposed project would be a
nonmajor addition and would be allowable in a bluff area under {}35-17.B.4).
Areas of Active Erosion
Ms. Harrison talks about the groin field located west of the subject site. The nearest groin to the
subject property is located approximately 200 feet to the west of the subject property (300 feet
from the structure). There are approximately nine (9) groins within 2,000 feet west of the site, at
various intervals. Most are constructed seaward ora bulkhead, starting approximately 500 feet
west of the site. The two eastern most groins are within 100 feet of each other and are
approximately 100 feet in length. The groins are low profile (less than 2 feet high) and do not
extend much, if at all, past low tide. These groins were constructed prior to 1976; copies of the
1976 and 1988 aerials are provided as attachments.
As can be seen on the aerials, the littoral drift in the area is from west to east. Given this
predominate movement of water, sand would accumulate on the west site of the groins and be
scoured from the east site. This condition would continue until such time as sufficient deposits
on the west side extend to the tip of the groin and then sand would "by pass" the groin and the
currents would once again deposit sand to the east. In effect, a state of equilibrium would be
established.
2
A review of the historic and current aerials illustrates the accumulation of the sand on the west
side and the scouring to the east of the groins. However, the overall beach profile and width
appear to have changed very little, if at all, since 1976. This suggests that the sand is by passing
the groins under normal conditions. Furthermore, because of the low, short nature of the groins,
the effects of scouring to the east of them appear on the aerials to be localized to immediately
adjacent to the groins. The beach width in front of the project site has remained at approximately
the same width since 1976.
Ms. Harrison states that because pebbles and cobbles are located to the seaward side of the
dunes, this represents a sign that the beach is a high-energy wave environment. It is unclear as to
what point she is trying to make, as a beach is a high-energy environment and the entire beach at
this site has pebbles and cobbles. In addition, as is the nature of a dune, there is expected to be
some erosion on the dune's face as waves reach it during storm events. During an inspection on
July 6, 2005, minor disturbance to the face of the dune was observed; however, it was not
significant. I have included photographs that illustrate the conditions.
Ms. Harrison also commented on wrack that was found behind some black cherry trees at the
base of the bluff, which she suggests was caused by water reaching "up to and behind the
elevation of the proposed structures". This statement is entirely incorrect. The wrack that she is
referring to was observed and photographed (attached) in the field during my July inspection.
This wrack was not deposited by waves but was, in fact, placed there by Mr. Padovan. Over the
years Mr. Padovan has made an effort to rake and clean the beach in front of his property
removing wrack, trees and other debris which he then placed on a compost pile on his site. It is
this compost pile that Ms. Harrison is referring to. Mr. Padovan's cleaning efforts would also
explain the cobbles at the base of the dunes, as the raking action would expose them.
Ms. Harrison also opines on the 'fortification" of the site; she talks about blocks being stacked
under the deck and tree stumps arranged at the seaward edge of the vegetated areas and branches
piled high on the property. Again, the conclusions drawn from the observations are extremely
erroneous. The Belgian blocks were extra material left over from a landscaping project and were
stacked in a decorative manner under a portion of the deck in order to store them. The stumps
and branches are part of Mr. Padovan's cleaning efforts of the beach and have been cut and
stored for his future use as firewood. Again, photographs are provided of the actual conditions.
Ms. Harrison also suggests that the dates and soil profile of soil core samples should be provided.
It seems irrelevant to provide this information since it was stated in my previous report that there
was nothing except sand in the soil samples that were taken to a depth of 2'. Be that as it may,
soil samples were taken on March 15, 2005 and field investigations were carried out in February,
March and April of 2005.
With regard to the permanence of the dune, Ms. Harrison claims that assumptions in my report
that attest to the permanence of the dunes are without any basis. It is recognized throughout my
report that the dune dynamic system, through the cycles of many years, could be found in various
configurations in both width and height. While the dunes are dynamic, their existence can be
demonstrated over a significant period of time. The fact is that a dune in this area has been a
relatively persistent, natural, protected feature. Again, the historic 1976 and 1988 aerials show
the existence of dunes ora similar size and configuration as exist today in front of the structure.
Retaining Wall Bulkhead
Ms. Harrison states that the proposed retaining wall is inconsistent with the findings that there is
no active erosion taking place on the property. The proposed retaining wall is not intended to
stem erosion. The retaining wall is designed and proposed to contain fill for the construction of
the sanitary system. Secondarily, it provides a level area in front of the building. Again, a
review of the historic aerial photographs demonstrates there has been no active erosion on the
site since 1976. The entire area in front of and around the existing structures has remained
vegetated for the past 30 years. With regard to the need for a 3' clearance below a retaining
wall, Ms. Harrison is mistaken as to the retaining wall being located in the dune area of the site.
As discussed in my May 2005 report, the retaining wall is located at the base of the bluff on site,
not in the dune area.
With regard to the retaining wall causing further erosion of nearby properties, the retaining wall
is located outside of areas of active erosion. It is true that bulkheads exposed to areas of high
wave energy would and do impact adjacent properties. However, the proposed is a small
retaining wall set back behind a dune in an area that has not experienced any active erosion in
over thirty (30) years. As was suggested in my report, additional sand and plantings of beach
grass into dune areas would help to improve the already protective aspects of the existing dune.
Severe Slopes
Ms. Harrison states that the environmental report that 25% slopes are not severe. If Ms. Harrison
reviewed the document she would note that the area on the site has a much greater slope, over
76%. In fact, my May 2005 report states "On the east, in the area of the existing/proposed
structures, the grade changes from 20' MSL to 8' MSL in a distance of approximately 45 ', with a
grade of approximately 26%. On the western edge of the property the slope is more severe, with
a grade approximately 76%. No activities areproposed in the severe slope area of the site and it
will remain natural ". With regard to the site, no activities are proposed in the severest slope
areas. It is recognized that the existing structure is located on a bluff area and the proposed
structure will alter it. Nevertheless, the area of the bluffto be altered is not the severest slope on
the site. As stated in the report, the existing structure and the proposed additions are on a
relatively level portion that resulted from historic grading of the site. It is acknowledged that the
May report could have read, "No activities are proposed in the most severe slope area of the site
and it will remain natural".
Massive Site Alterations
Ms. Harrison apparently does not understand nor has she carefully read the report that was
prepared. There will be grading, excavation, and fill on the site. Construction will require the
alteration of a portion of the site where the existing structures are and where impacts and grading
have taken place in the past. Indeed this area will be significantly altered; however, as stated in
the report, the most severe slopes on the site will not be disturbed.
4
Attorney's Representations
Ms. Harrison has also provided comments on the EAF that was submitted with the application.
As per your request, I have reviewed the EAF as to accuracy. I have attached a revised EAF Part
I that addresses the revised site layout as well as some changes that would make the EAF more
clear. Below are the responses to Ms. Harrison's specific comments.
Page 3, Item 2: The approximate acreages have been revised to reflect the new plans and to
refine the various categories.
Page 3, Item 3(a): The question in the EAF refers to "soil types". The soil types on the site are
identified in the Suffolk County Soil Survey as Riverhead Sandy Loam and Beach. Both of
these soil types are defined as being well drained. No change to the EAF is required.
Page 3, Item 5: The EAF has been revised to reflect the percentage of area for the various slopes.
The EAF was inaccurate in stating the site contained no slopes greater than 10%. However, the
statement made by Ms. Harrison that "much of the site has extreme slopes far exceeding 25%" is
also incorrect. Only 18% of the site has slopes that exceed 25%. The areas on the site of the
severest slopes will remain undisturbed as part of the proposed action.
Page 5, Items 3(a), (b), & (c): While the submitted EAF may not have been wrong, it is
suggested that it be revised to state that the site will be landscaped after construction activities
and the topsoil and subsoils be stockpiled for use in the "reclamation".
Page 6, Item 5: There are no trees on site greater than 100 years old. This has been determined
by field inspections. No change to the EAF is necessary.
Page 7, Item 20: The question in the EAF asks: "Will project produce operating noise exceeding
local ambient noise levels?" The key word is "operating"; there may be short-term noise from
construction but it is not expected to exceed ambient noise. However, the long-term "operation"
of the house will be consistent with the ambient noise. While Ms. Harrison says there may be
adverse impacts on piping plovers it is unclear as to her point. The site plan does acknowledge
that there are piping plovers to the east of the site, in front of existing homes. Ms. Harrison's
reference to the proposed sanitary system and line of hay bales/silt fence is totally unclear. I also
note that Ms. Harrison states that the Nature Conservancy reported that the nest was
unsuccessful.
Page 7, Item 23: The SCDHS design flow for a single-family home is 300 GPD. The EAF has
been revised to reflect this number. However, considering that the proposed house may be used
as a summer residence, the actual flow would be significantly less. With regard to the bluff
stability and the sanitary system, the system has been designed to meet SCDHS' stringent design
requirements, particularly with regard to slopes. As a result, no impacts are expected to the slope
or bluff.
Aside from the comments above, I have found several responses in the EAF that should be
changed to better illustrate the potential impacts of the project. The attached is a revised EAF
that should be submitted to the Town to aid them in their SEQRA review.
5
I hope the above has been of some assistance. If there is any oth n~o~;ion 1 can provide
please feel free to contact me.
J )~h-oiffa~ W. Cramer, ASLA
~'VC/elMr Angelo Padovan
August 24, 2005
Southold Town Trustees
P.O.Box 1179
Southold Town Hall
Main Road,
Southold, NY 11971
PATRICIA C. MOORE
Attorney at Law
51020 Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
Tel: (631) 765-4330
Fax: (631) 765-4643
Re: Padovan Property
SCTM#1000-135-1-23 & 24.1
Marg~etRu~owski
Secretary
Dear President Krupski
and Board:
Enclosed are the following documents for the Board's
consideration:
Memorandum of Law
Cramer Consulting Group's Response to Louise Harrison's letter
Updated Full Environmental Assessment Form based on existing
plan
Survey last amended August 15, 2005
PATRICIA C. MOORE
Attorney at Law
51020 Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
Tel: (631) 765-4330
Fax: (631 ) 765-4643
August 23, 2005
Southold Town Trustees
P.O.Box 1179
Southold Town Hall
Main Road,
Southold, NY 11971
To: President Krupski and Members of Board
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT
ANGEL0 AND JOSEPHINE PADOVAN
SCTM~ 1000-135-1-23 & 24.1
Mr and Mrs Padovan own two vacant parcels (1000-135-01-23 & 24.1
along Long Island Sound which have been combined as one parcel for
development. The parcel is trapezoidal in shape and is 18,874 square
feet (a little less than one half acre). The topography of the
parcel rises to an elevation of 20' Mean Sea Level(MSL) and fronts on
Sound View Avenue. The parcel contains a beach cabana structure and
retaining walls existing prior to the enactment of Chapter 37 and
Chapter 97. The existing structures are 589 square feet.
The applicant proposes to construct a dwelling which will be
limited to no more then 25% of existing square footage of ground area
coverage. The applicant therefore has proposed a dwelling and
impervious surfaces which will not exceed 707 square feet. The
proposal is only a 20% increase in the square footage of the existing
structures, less than the 25% allowed in the statute. (Town Code
Section 37) The limited size of this structure, defined as a ~non-
major addition", deems this application as permissible, subject to a
permit.
I. MINOR ADDITION TO EXISTING STRUCTURE
The code at 37-6 defines a "major addition" as nan addition to
a structure resulting in a twenty-five-percent or greater increase in
the ground area coverage..." The Trustees are prohibited from
granting a permit for a major addition to an existing structure in a
Coastal Erosion Hazard Area. The Trustees have authority to grant a
permit for a minor addition to an existing structure.
The proposed addition to the existing structures is limited to
less than 25% of existing structures. Existing structures is a
defined term: ~A structure and appurtenances in existence...prior to
the effective date of the chapter". Chapter 37 was adopted by the
Southold Town Board in 1991. There is no dispute that the structures
on the Padovan property were in existence prior to 1991. The
applicant has stated that this structure was in existence prior to
zoning in 1957.
W~nile the Coastal Erosion Hazard Law prohibits major additions,
the law specifically permits non-major additions to existing
structures in Bluff Area with a permit(see 37-17B(4)). The applicant
has submitted competent evidence that 37-17 is applicable:
1. Ail the homes within 1000 feet of the subject property along Sound
View Avenue fall within the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area designation.
The homes along Sound View Avenue over time have been constructed,
improved and renovated within the guidelines of Chapter 37. We
respectfully request the same fair treatment to Mr. and Mrs. Padovan.
2. The Town of Southold Trustees, Building Department and Zoning
Board of Appeals have repeatedly and routinely recognized this area
as a bluff and have issued permits to construct adjacent to the
~'bluff". References to the proposed area as a ~beach" are contrary
to the definition of beach in Chapter 37, and the Town's prior
determinations which authorize permits from the Trustees for activity
~adjacent to the bluff". Expert testimony has been provided proving
this is within the bluff area.
3. The proposed non-major addition to the existing structure will
only be 707 square feet. The Padovan's home is smaller than any home
along Sound View Avenue, and has been carefully designed to comply
with the standards in chapter 37. The purposes of Chapter 37 is not
to sterilize property.
4. At 37-4 the primary purposes of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area
Law is to regulate the placement of structures at a safe distance
from areas of active erosion and to minimize impact on natural
protective features.
no
There is no evidence of erosion at this or any proximate
distance from this parcel. Areas of erosion are identified as
~'structural hazard areas". A structural hazard area is
identified as shorelands located landward of natural protective
features that have shorelines receding at a long-term average
annual recession rate of one foot or more per year. As the
Trustees already know and as confirmed by Robert McDonough,
Environmental Program Specialist for the Coastal Erosion
Management Unit of the State. There are no identified areas of
erosion meeting the definition of Structural Hazard Areas in any
portion of Southold. Therefore this application does not impact
issues of erosion.
The only relevant issue pursuant to the Coastal Erosion Hazard
Area Law is to preserve to the greatest extent practical the
natural protective features. By limiting the square footage of
additions to existing structures, the Law has a built in
regulatory control. In this case less than 4% of the property
is being developed. The majority of the property, 96% will
remain in a natural state and preserved. The plan prepared by
Young & Young protects the natural protective features
consistent with the typical conditions placed on permits granted
by the Trustees. The limited size of the house to less than 25%
of the existing structure will limit disturbance to only those
areas which have already been disturbed by the existing
structures. The development plan has been engineered to prevent
runoff. There is public water, natural gas and electricity
directly along Sound View Avenue. This very conservative
development plan preserves the property without sterilizing it.
Adjacent parcels have sold for over One Million dollars. Denial
of this permit will render this parcel unbuild&ble and
constitute a regulatory taking.
Reasonable conditions which the applicant would accept are 1.
Replant any affected vegetation 2. retain all runoff and 3. establish
non-disturbance buffers 4. developing the property in accordance with
the Young & Young survey last amended August 15, 2005
Wetland Permit
The proposed activity is 93.98 feet from the Tie Line along
approximate High Water Mark (Tidal Wetland Definition). The
retaining wall is for control of fill, not erosion, and is located
within 5 feet seaward of the proposed structure. The property fronts
the Long Island Sound and the setback of the proposed structure is
landward of the line of neighboring structures. The proposed house
has a greater setback from the Long Island Sound MHW as is visible
from the aerial photographs than all homes within 2000 feet of the
subject property. It is also landward of the neighboring deck
constructed by the adjacent Condominium Association, and the Town
Beach parking area. (See 1976 & 1988 aerial in Cramer Consulting
report dated August 12, 2005)
The proposed dwelling will not substantially:
A. Adversely affect the wetlands of the Town {the dwelling will be
93.98 feet from the defined wetland)
B. Cause damage from erosion, turbidity or siltation: the plan has
addressed these issues with the engineered plan
C. Cause saltwater intrusion into the freshwater resources of the
Town (Not applicable)
D. Adversely affect fish, shellfish or other beneficial marine
organisms, aquatic life and vegetation or the natural habitat
thereof. (The activity is proposed more than 80' from MHW, 96% of
the property will be undisturbed and the activity of surrounding
properties creates ambient disturbance. This parcel is not isolated,
it is surrounded by development.)
E. Increase the danger of flood and storm-tide damage (The existing
structures and surrounding homes have survived multiple storms
without incident. The location of the structures almost 100 feet
from Mean High Tide reduces danger of flood and storm tide damage.
F. Adversely affect navigation on tidal waters or the tidal flow of
waters (Not applicable)
G. Change the course of any channel or the movement or flow of any
waters. (Not Applicable - aerial photographs of 1976 and 1978 show a
very stable area)
H Weaken or undermine the lateral support of other lands in the
vicinity. (The surrounding properties are developed and show no
evidence of weakening or undermining lateral support, only 4% of the
parcel is to be developed, the 96% is preserved in the natural state
and provides a greater buffer then any other waterfront parcel within
2000 feet of the subject parcel)
I. Otherwise adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the
people of the Town. (The development of this property with 96%
preservation of the natural features, at no cost to the Town
taxpayers, outweighs any impact to the Town. The neighboring
Condominium residents have in the past asked Mr. Padovan to top the
trees to give them views with complete disregard for the environment.
They or their guests have used the parcel as a toilet and left
garbage and trespassed on his private property. The dwelling is less
intrusive than more than 600 square feet of decking and the
activities of 50 motel owners and their guests.)
J. Adversely affect the aesthetic value of the wetland and adjacent
areas. (This is a residential parcel which exceeds in size and road
frontage of many of the parcels along Sound View Avenue.)
Wherefore, the Trustees should grant a Coastal Erosion Permit
and Wetland permit to construct a dwelling and impervious surfaces
which will not exceed 20% increase of existing structures, with
sanitary and retaining wall as shown on Young & Young survey last
dated August 15, 2005.
617.20
Appendix A
Stale Envfronmental Quality Review
FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
p~imse: The full EAF is designed to belp app#cants and aejencies determlne, in an ordaty mann~, whether a Pr~ or ~ ~
be significant. The question of whether an ect~on may be significant is not always easy to answer. Frequently, there are aspects of
a project that are sub~ or unmeasorable, it is aiso understood that those who determine significance may have little or r~ formal
knowledge of the environment or may not be technically expert in environmental analysis. In addition, many who have knowledge
in one pa~cuisr area may not be aware of the broed~ concerns affecting the question of significance,
The full EAF is intonded to pr~vide a ~ w~eby a~p#cants and agancies can be assured that the de~em~k~:)n p~caes
has beerl ordelty, compreJ~ensive in na~ul~, ~.~t flexible enou(jh to allow il~Toduction of iofolmatk:)l~ to fit a project or acl~]l~*
Full FAF ~: The full EAF is comprised of three parts:
Pa~tl: Provides objecUve data and infurmation about a givan project and its site. By ldentJfying basic project data, itassists
a reviewer in U~e analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3.
Part2: Focuses on identifying the range of pessible impacts that may occur fmm a project or action. It provides guidance
as to wheU~er an impact is like~t to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a potentially-large impact. The
form also ider~r~s whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced.
Part 3: If any impact in Part 2 is identified as potentially-large, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the impact is
actually irr~oortant.
THIS AREA FOR LE~)_A_G_F~I.G~ USE ONLY
DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE - Type 1 and Unlisted Actions
Ide~ the I~ions of EAF enmpletad for trois peoject: D Part 1 E]Part2 E]Part3
Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts 1 and 2 and 3 if appropriate), and any other suplx~'dng information, and
considering both the magnitude and i~nce of each impact, it is reasonably de~ermined by the lead agency that:
DA. The p~oject will nnt resuR in any large and important impact(s) and, therefore, is one which will not have a
significant impact on the environment, therefore a i,c,ja~;.e deeimatJon will be pm~ered.
F'~B. could have effect on the envfronment, there will not be a signif'~ant effect
Although
the
for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required, therefore
r'~c. result in and impacts Ulat have a signir~ant impact on the
The
p~oject
one
large
important
may
*A Conditioned Negative DeclaraUon is only valid for Unlisted Actions
Padavea Residence
Name of Act~n
Thistles
Name of Lead Agency
Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency
Titl~ of Responsible Off'~er
S~gnature of Resrx)nsible Off'~cer in Lead Agency
Signature of Preparer (If different from responsible officer)
Date
Page I of 21
PART 1-PROJECT INFORMATION
Prepared by Project Sponsor
NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect on the
environment. Please complete the entire to~m, Parts A through E. Answers to these questions wilt be considered as part of the
applica~3~ for approval and may be subject to ftm~n~ verification and public review, Provide any additional information you believe
will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3.
It Is expected that completion of the full FAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve new studies,
research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and specify each instance.
Name of Action ,amgclo padavan
Locet~ of Action (include Street Addres& Mon~ipa~y and Count/)
Sound View Avenue, Southold
Name of Applicant/Sponsor An~gelo Padavan
Address c/o Pstficia C. Mo~c, Esq.
City/PO 51020 Main Road, Soutflold State NY Zip Code 11971
Business Telephone 631-765-4330
Name of Owner (if different) A~gclo Padavan
Address
C~IPO
State Zip Code
Business Telephone
Dascription of Action:
Comt~uct minor addition (less than 25% of the existing structu~) to existing struct~c.
Page 2 of 21
Please Complete Each Question--indicate N.A. if not applicable
A. SITE DESCRIPTION
Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas.
1. Present Land Use: r"'l Urban [] Industrial [] Commercial
r~ Residential (suburban) r"'l Rural (non-farm)
2. Total acreage of project area: 0.43 acres.
APPROXIMATE ACREAGE PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION
Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) [~'*~ ~r~=~-~T~¢~ 0.1:239 acres 0.0742 acres
Forested 0.0126 acres 0.0438 acres
Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) __ acres __ acres
Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24,25 of ECL) __ acres __ acres
Water Surface Area __ acres __ acres
Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) ~.~.. ~,~, ~ tx,~z-~ __ acres 0.0158 acres
Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces 0.0135 acres 0.0!62 acres
Other (Indicate type) beach and dunes 0.28 acres 0.28 acres
What is predominant soil type(s) on project site?
a. Soil drainage: r~ Well drained 100 % of site
Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? [] Yes
r"lMederately well drained __% of site.
r'~Poorly drained __% of site
If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NYS Land
Classification System? acres (see 1 NYCRR 370),
[] No
a. What is depth to bedrock (in feet)
5. Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes:
r~0-10% 71% r~lo_ 15% 4% r~ 15% or greater 25 %
6. Is project substantially contiguous to, or contain a building, site, or district, listed on the State or National Registers of
Historic Places? r"-] Yes r~ No
7. Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? [] Yes [~'lNo
8. What is the depth of the water table? !6 (in feet)
9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? ~lYes ~'1 No
10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? [] Yes [~1 No
Page 3 of 21
1 1. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered?
Accordin(~ to:
r"'l Yes [~]No
i aentif~ each species:
12, Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations?
Describe:
Beach, Dune & Bluff
1 3. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? r'~ Yes r~No
i f ~tes. explain:
14. Does tl~ present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? r~Yes [~]No
15. Streams within or contiguous to project area:
a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary
16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area:
Long Island Sound
b, Size (in acres):
[~ro~Pn~lr~ line is the mean high water line of Long Island Sound. No portion of the property contains open water of Long Island
Page 4 of 21
17. Is the site served by existing public utilities? [] Yes [] No
a. If YES, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? [] Yes
b. If YES, will improvements be necessary to allow connection?
DNo
DYes []No
18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and
304? r-lYes [~No
19. Is the site located in or substantiali~ contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL,
and 6 NYCRR 6177 r~Yes ~JNo
20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes?
1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate).
a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor:
0.43 acres.
r-'lYes [] No
b. Project acreage to be developed: 0.02 acres initially; 0.02 acres ultimately.
c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped: 0.36 acres.
d. Length of project, in miles: n/a (if appropriate)
e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed. -25 %
f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing I ; proposed I
g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour: ]0 per da)' (upon completion of project)?
h.
If residential: Number and type of housing units:
One Family
Initially beach hous
Ultimately 1
Two Family Multiple Family Condominium
i. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure: -35 height; 23 width;
j, Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? 185 ft.
How much natural material (i.e. rock, earth, etc.) will be removed from the site? __
Will disturbed areas be reclaimed []Yes r--'lNo D~N/A
a. If yes, for what intended purpose is the site being reclaimed?
IDisturbed areas from construction of single family hoesc will be landscaped.
23 length.
0 tons/cubic yards.
b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? [] Yes [] No
c, Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? [] Yes [] No
4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site?
+/- 0.06 acres.
Page 5 of 21
5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project?
E]Yes [~No
6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction: $ months, (including demolition)
If multi-phased:
b.
d.
Will blasting occur during construction? r~ Yes r~ No
Number of jobs generated: dudng construction __
Total number of phases anticipated __ (number)
Anticipated date of commencement phase 1: __ month __ year, (including demolition)
Approximate completion date of final phase: __ month __ year.
Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? ~'] Yes [] No
g.
10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project 0
1 1. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? r'-I Yes
if yes, explain:
12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? [] Yes ~'] No
a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industdal, etc) and amount
b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged
4; after project is complete
I~No
13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? [] Yes [] No Type residential sanitary waste
1 4. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? r~ Yes r~lNo
If yes, explain:
15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? [] Yes r"-] No
16. Will the project generate solid waste? [] Yes [] No
a. If yes, what is the amount per month? 0.1 tons
b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? [] Yes [] No
c. If yes, give name Cutchoguc Trans. Sm. ; location Cutchogue
d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? [] Yes
~lNo
Page 6 of 21
e. If yes, explain:
17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? E]Yes r~No
a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? tons/month.
b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? years.
18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? E]Yes ~lNo
19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? [] Yes [] No
20, Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? F~Yes ~r~No
21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? [] Yes F~ NO
If yes, indicate type(s)
Residential use of electricity, gas or oil for heating.
22. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity n/a gallons/minute,
23. Total anticipated water usage per day 300 gallons/day.
24. Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? [] Yes [~] No
If yes, explain:
Page 7 of 21
25. Approvals Required: Type Submittal Date
City, Town, Village Board
~-"1 Yes [] No
City, Town, Village Planning Board r'-I Yes [] No
City, Town Zoning Board
]Yes [] NO
Average setback
Individual single family
house sanitary permit
Trustees
NYSDEC
City, County Health Department []Yes [--] No
Other Local Agencies
]Yes N No
Other Regional Agencies
DYes [~ No
State Agencies [] Yes [] No
Federal Agencies r-~ Yes r~ No
C. Zoning and Planning Information
1. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? ~lYes [] No
If Yes, indicate decision required:
r~ zoning amendment [] Zoning variance [] New/revision of master plan
[~ Site p,an [-'1 Special use permit [] Resource management plan
r-~ Subdivision
r~ Other
Page 8 of 21
2. What is the zoning classification(s) of the site?
IR-40 ................
3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning?
I I msid~tce
4. What is the proposed zordng of the site?
I 1 residence
5. ~ is ti'~ maximum potenti~ d~-mt o~ the site if de~k~d as p~rmitt~l t~t ~ prooor~ ~on~n~.
I I residence
~. Is tr~ proposal action consistent ~ t~ mcommendod usos in adopt~l local land u~e plans? [] ¥~s
7. What am the predominant land use(s) and zoning classif'~,_.atio~s within a Y, mile radius of proposed action?
E]No
residential
8. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses with a Y~ mile?
9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land. how many lots are proposed? n/a
a. What is t~e minimum lot size pmposecr?
r~lYes [] No
Page 9 of 21
10. Will pmposecl ectio~ require any authorization(s) for the forma~on of sewer or water districts? [] Yes [] No
1 1. W'~II the proposed actio~ create a demand for any community [x-ovided se~ices (recreation, education, police, fire protection?
a. If yes, is existing capacity suff'~ie~t to handle projected demand?
I
12. Will the proposed action result in the generati~ of traffk: significantly above present levels?
a. if yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic. [~Ye~
[~] Yes [] No
r~ Yes [~ No
[-I o
Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adve~e impacts
associated with your proposal, please dtscuss ~Jch impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid them.
E. Ve~ficatie~
I certify that the informatio~ provided above is true to the best of my knowledge.
ApplicantJSpons~
Signature
T~e
Page 10 of 21
PATRICIA C. MOORE
Attorney at Law
51020 Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
Tel: (631) 765-4330
Fax: (631) 765-4643
Margaret Rutkowski
Secretary
August 24, 2005
Southold Town Trustees
P.O.Box 1179
Southold Town Hall
Main Road,
Southold, NY 11971
Re: Padovan Property
SCTM#1000-135-1-23 & 24.1
Dear President Krupski
and Board:
Enclosed are the following documents for the Board's
consideration:
Memorandum of Law
Cramer Consulting Group's Response to Louise Harrison's letter
Updated Full Environmental Assessment Form based on existing
plan
Survey last amended August 15, 2005
ry yours,
e
PATRICIA C. MOORE
Attorney at Law
51020 Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
Tel: (631) 765-4330
Fax: (631) 765-4643
August 23, 2005
Southold Town Trustees
P.O.Box 1179
Southold Town Hall
Main Road,
Southold, NY 11971
To: President Krupski and Members of Board
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT
ANGEL0 AND JOSEPHINE PADOVAN
SCTM# 1000-135-1-23 & 24.1
Mr and Mrs Padovan own two vacant parcels (1000-135-01-23 & 24.1
along Long Island Sound which have been combined as one parcel for
development. The parcel is trapezoidal in shape and is 18,874 square
feet (a little less than one half acre). The topography of the
parcel rises to an elevation of 20' Mean Sea Level(MSL) and fronts on
Sound View Avenue. The parcel contains a beach cabana structure and
retaining walls existing prior to the enactment of Chapter 37 and
Chapter 97. The existing structures are 589 square feet.
The applicant proposes to construct a dwelling which will be
limited to no more then 25% of existing square footage of ground area
coverage. The applicant therefore has proposed a dwelling and
impervious surfaces which will not exceed 707 square feet. The
proposal is only a 20% increase in the square footage of the existing
structures, less than the 25% allowed in the statute. (Town Code
Section 37) The limited size of this structure, defined as a ~non-
major additionH, deems this application as permissible, subject to a
permit.
I. MINOR ADDITION TO EXISTING STRUCTURE
The code at 37-6 defines a ~major addition" as ~an addition to
a structure resulting in a twenty-five-percent or greater increase in
the ground area coverage..." The Trustees are prohibited from
granting a permit for a major addition to an existing structure in a
Coastal Erosion Hazard Area. The Trustees have authority to grant a
permit for a minor addition to an existing structure.
The proposed addition to the existing structures is limited to
less than 25% of existing structures. Existing structures is a
defined term: UA structure and appurtenances in existence...prior to
the effective date of the chapter". Chapter 37 was adopted by the
Southold Town Board in 1991. There is no dispute that the structures
on the Padovan property were in existence prior to 1991. The
applicant has stated that this structure was in existence prior to
zoning in 1957.
While the Coastal Erosion Hazard Law prohibits major additions,
the law specifically permits non-major additions to existing
structures in Bluff Area with a permit(see 37-17B(4)). The applicant
has submitted competent evidence that 37-17 is applicable:
1. Ail the homes within 1000 feet of the subject property along Sound
View Avenue fall within the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area designation.
The homes along Sound View Avenue over time have been constructed,
improved and renovated within the guidelines of Chapter 37. We
respectfully request the same fair treatment to Mr. and Mrs. Padovan.
2. The Town of Southold Trustees, Building Department and Zoning
Board of Appeals have repeatedly and routinely recognized this area
as a bluff and have issued permits to construct adjacent to the
~bluff#. References to the proposed area as a ~beach" are contrary
to the definition of beach in Chapter 37, and the Town's prior
determinations which authorize permits from the Trustees for activity
~adjacent to the bluff". Expert testimony has been provided proving
this is within the bluff area.
3. The proposed non-major addition to the existing structure will
only be 707 square feet. The Padovan's home is smaller than any home
along Sound View Avenue, and has been carefully designed to comply
with the standards in chapter 37. The purposes of Chapter 37 is not
to sterilize property.
4. At 37-4 the primary purposes of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area
Law is to regulate the placement of structures at a safe distance
from areas of active erosion and to minimize impact on natural
protective features.
There is no evidence of erosion at this or any proximate
distance from this parcel. Areas of erosion are identified as
~structural hazard areas". A structural hazard area is
identified as shorelands located landward of natural protective
features that have shorelines receding at a long-term average
annual recession rate of one foot or more per year. As the
Trustees already know and as confirmed by Robert McDonough,
Environmental Program Specialist for the Coastal Erosion
Management Unit of the State. There are no identified areas of
erosion meeting the definition of Structural Hazard Areas in any
portion of Southold. Therefore this application does not impact
issues of erosion.
The only relevant issue pursuant to the Coastal Erosion Hazard
Area Law is to preserve to the greatest extent practical the
natural protective features. By limiting the square footage of
additions to existing structures, the Law has a built in
regulatory control. In this case less than 4% of the property
is being developed. The majority of the property, 96% will
remain in a natural state and preserved. The plan prepared by
Young & Young protects the natural protective features
consistent with the typical conditions placed on permits granted
by the Trustees. The limited size of the house to less than 25%
of the existing structure will limit disturbance to only those
areas which have already been disturbed by the existing
structures. The development plan has been engineered to prevent
runoff. There is public water, natural gas and electricity
directly along Sound View Avenue. This very conservative
development plan preserves the property without sterilizing it.
Adjacent parcels have sold for over One Million dollars. Denial
of this Dermit will render this parcel unbuildable and
constitute a regulatory taking.
Reasonable conditions which the applicant would accept are 1.
Replant any affected vegetation 2. retain all runoff and 3. establish
non-disturbance buffers 4. developing the property in accordance with
the Young & Young survey last amended August 15, 2005
Wetland Permit
The proposed activity is 93.98 feet from the Tie Line along
approximate High Water Mark (Tidal Wetland Definition). The
retaining wall is for control of fill, not erosion, and is located
within 5 feet seaward of the proposed structure. The property fronts
the Long Island Sound and the setback of the proposed structure is
landward of the line of neighboring structures. The proposed house
has a greater setback from the Long Island Sound MHW as is visible
from the aerial photographs than all homes within 2000 feet of the
subject property. It is also landward of the neighboring deck
constructed by the adjacent Condominium Association, and the Town
Beach parking area. (See 1976 & 1988 aerial in Cramer Consulting
report dated August 12, 2005)
The proposed dwelling will not substantially:
A. Adversely affect the wetlands of the Town (the dwelling will be
93.98 feet from the defined wetland)
B. Cause damage from erosion, turbidity or siltation: the plan has
addressed these issues with the engineered plan
C. Cause saltwater intrusion into the freshwater resources of the
Town (Not applicable)
D. Adversely affect fish, shellfish or other beneficial marine
organisms, aquatic life and vegetation or the natural habitat
thereof. (The activity is proposed more than 80' from MHW, 96% of
the property will be undisturbed and the activity of surrounding
properties creates ambient disturbance. This parcel is not isolated,
it is surrounded by development.)
E. Increase the danger of flood and storm-tide damage (The existing
structures and surrounding homes have survived multiple storms
without incident. The location of the structures almost 100 feet
from Mean High Tide reduces danger of flood and storm tide damage.
F. Adversely affect navigation on tidal waters or the tidal flow of
waters (Not applicable)
G. Change the course of any channel or the movement or flow of any
waters. (Not Applicable - aerial photographs of 1976 and 1978 show a
very stable area)
H Weaken or undermine the lateral support of other lands in the
vicinity. (The surrounding properties are developed and show no
evidence of weakening or undermining lateral support, only 4% of the
parcel is to be developed, the 96% is preserved in the natural state
and provides a greater buffer then any other waterfront parcel within
2000 feet of the subject parcel)
I. Otherwise adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the
people of the Town. (The development of this property with 96%
preservation of the natural features, at no cost to the Town
taxpayers, outweighs any impact to the Town. The neighboring
Condominium residents have in the past asked Mr. Padovan to top the
trees to give them views with complete disregard for the environment.
They or their guests have used the parcel as a toilet and left
garbage and trespassed on his private property. The dwelling is less
intrusive than more than 600 square feet of decking and the
activities of 50 motel owners and their guests.)
J. Adversely affect the aesthetic value of the wetland and adjacent
areas. (This is a residential parcel which exceeds in size and road
frontage of many of the parcels along Sound View Avenue.)
Wherefore, the Trustees should grant a Coastal Erosion Permit
and Wetland permit to construct a dwelling and impervious surfaces
which will not exceed 20% increase of existing structures, with
sanitary and retaining wall as shown on Young & Young survey last
dated August 15, 2005.
Thomas W. Cramcr, Principal
P.O. Box 5535
MiLler Place, New York 11764
Tclcphonc (631)476~0984 Fax (631) 476-6933
August 12, 2005
Patricia Moore, Esq.
51020 Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
Re~
Padovan @ Southold
Response to Letter of Conservation and Natural Areas Planning - 6/15/05
Dear Ms. Moore:
As per your request, I have reviewed the above referenced letter addressed to Lars Johnson, Esq.
and prepared by Louise Harrison. While Ms. Harrison opines that there are inaccuracies in my
original report of May 7, 2005, I have reviewed her comments and find that they are inaccurate
or based on false assumptions. The comments provided by Louise Harrison do not result in the
need for any revisions to my original document.
The following is a response to each of the comments made by Ms. Harrison:
Maior Project
Ms. Harrison makes a point as to the inclusion of the proposed retaining wall in the calculations
of the proposed structures, more specifically how the retaining wall's inclusion will bring the
area of proposed structures over 25% of the existing. This would result in the project being a
major addition under §37-6. Considering this, I asked the engineer to review his calculations and
include similar existing structures to the retaining wall in his calculations. As such, the plan has
been revised to reflect the following:
Area of Existing Beach Cottage: 187 sqfi
Ama of Existing Deck: 229 sqfi
Area of Existing Stairs: 110 sqfi
Area of Existing Walk: 44 sqfi
Area of Existing Railroad Tie Wall: 19 sqfi
Total Area of Existing Structures: 589 sqft
Since Ms. Harrison raised the issue of the proposed retaining wall in the calculations for
structures, the engineer has reconsidered the existing conditions. An existing railroad tie wall is
now included in the revised calculations. This retaining wall increases the existing structures on
site by 19 square feet.
In addition, the proposed structures on site were also reviewed and recalculated. The proposed
retaining wall was included in the calculations and portions of the previously proposed paved
surfaces were eliminated. The following is a detail breakdown of the 193 square feet of
"Proposed Area Building" and "Proposed Ama Impervious Site Improvements" shown on the
site plan. This breakdown was provided by the engineer.
Area of Proposed House: 514 sqfi
Ama of Existing Railroad Tie Wall (remaining): 1 sqfi
Ama of Proposed Retaining Wall: 93 sqft
Area of Proposed Stairs: 36 sqft
Area of Proposed Walk: 63 sqtt
Total Area of Existing Structures: 707 sqft
Including retaining wall in the calculations increases the square footage of existing structures on
site. Including in the calculations the proposed retaining wall and with modification of the
proposed activities on site them is a decrease in the total square footage of proposed structures.
Therefore, the proposed pementage of increase of structures on the site has decreased from
24.2% to 20.0%. The following are the pementage calculations:
(Proposed Structures - Existing Structures) / Existing Structures = Percent of Increase
Old Plan: (708 sqft - 570 sqfi) / 570 sqft = 24.2%
New Plan: (707 sqft - 589 sqft) / 589 sqfi = 20.0%
Under §37-6 a "Major Addition" is defined as an addition of 25% or greater increase in ground area
coverage of the structures existing on site. Therefore, at 20.0%, the proposed project would be a
nonmajor addition and would be allowable in a bluff area under §35-17.B.4).
Areas of Active Erosion
Ms. Harrison talks about the groin field located west of the subject site. The nearest groin to the
subject property is located approximately 200 feet to the west of the subject property (300 feet
from the structure). There are approximately nine (9) groins within 2,000 feet west of the site, at
various intervals. Most are constructed seaward ora bulkhead, starting approximately 500 feet
west of the site. The two eastern most groins are within 100 feet of each other and are
approximately 100 feet in length. The groins are low profile (less than 2 feet high) and do not
extend much, if at all, past low tide. These groins were constructed prior to 1976; copies of the
1976 and 1988 aerials are provided as attachments.
As can be seen on the aerials, the littoral drift in the area is from west to east. Given this
predominate movement of water, sand would accumulate on the west site of the groins and be
scoured from the east site. This condition would continue until such time as sufficient deposits
on the west side extend to the tip of the groin and then sand would "by pass" the groin and the
currents would once again deposit sand to the east. In effect, a state of equilibrium would be
established.
A review of the historic and current aerials illustrates the accumulation of the sand on the west
side and the scouring to the east of the groins. However, the overall beach profile and width
appear to have changed very little, if at all, since 1976. This suggests that the sand is by passing
the groins under normal conditions. Furthermore, because of the low, short nature of the groins,
the effects of scouring to the east of them appear on the aerials to be localized to immediately
adjacent to the groins. The beach width in front of the project site has remained at approximately
the same width since 1976.
Ms. Harrison states that because pebbles and cobbles are located to the seaward side of the
dunes, this represents a sign that the beach is a high-energy wave environment. It is unclear as to
what point she is trying to make, as a beach is a high-energy environment and the entire beach at
this site has pebbles and cobbles. In addition, as is the nature of a dune, there is expected to be
some erosion on the dune's face as waves reach it during storm events. During an inspection on
July 6, 2005, minor disturbance to the face of the dune was observed; however, it was not
significant. I have included photographs that illustrate the conditions.
Ms. Harrison also commented on wrack that was found behind some black cherry trees at the
base of the bluff, which she suggests was caused by water reaching "up to and behind the
elevation of the proposed structures ". This statement is entirely incorrect. The wrack that she is
referring to was observed and photographed (attached) in the field during my July inspection.
This wrack was not deposited by waves but was, in fact, placed there by Mr. Padovan. Over the
years Mr. Padovan has made an effort to rake and clean the beach in front of his property
removing wrack, trees and other debris which he then placed on a compost pile on his site. It is
this compost pile that Ms. Harrison is referring to. Mr. Padovan's cleaning efforts would also
explain the cobbles at the base of the dunes, as the raking action would expose them.
Ms. Harrison also opines on the 'fortification" of the site; she talks about blocks being stacked
under the deck and tree stumps arranged at the seaward edge of the vegetated areas and branches
piled high on the property. Again, the conclusions drawn from the observations are extremely
erroneous. The Belgian blocks were extra material left over from a landscaping project and were
stacked in a decorative manner under a portion of the deck in order to store them. The stumps
and branches are part of Mr. Padovan's cleaning efforts of the beach and have been cut and
stored for his future use as firewood. Again, photographs are provided of the actual conditions.
Ms. Harrison also suggests that the dates and soil profile of soil core samples should be provided.
It seems irrelevant to provide this information since it was stated in my previous report that there
was nothing except sand in the soil samples that were taken to a depth of 2'. Be that as it may,
soil samples were taken on March 15, 2005 and field investigations were carried out in February,
March and April of 2005.
With regard to the permanence of the dune, Ms. Harrison claims that assumptions in my report
that attest to the permanence of the dunes are without any basis. It is recognized throughout my
report that the dune dynamic system, through the cycles of many years, could be found in various
configurations in both width and height. While the dunes are dynamic, their existence can be
demonstrated over a significant period of time. The fact is that a dune in this area has been a
relatively persistent, natural, protected feature. Again, the historic 1976 and 1988 aerials show
the existence of dunes of a similar size and configuration as exist today in front of the structure.
Retaining Wall Bulkhead
Ms. Harrison states that the proposed retaining wall is inconsistent with the findings that there is
no active erosion taking place on the property. The proposed retaining wall is not intended to
stem erosion. The retaining wall is designed and proposed to contain fill for the construction of
the sanitary system. Secondarily, it provides a level area in front of the building. Again, a
review of the historic aerial photographs demonstrates there has been no active erosion on the
site since 1976. The entire area in front of and around the existing structures has remained
vegetated for the past 30 years. With regard to the need for a 3' clearance below a retaining
wall, Ms. Harrison is mistaken as to the retaining wall being located in the dune area of the site.
As discussed in my May 2005 report, the retaining wall is located at the base of the bluff on site,
not in the dune area.
With regard to the retaining wall causing farther erosion of nearby properties, the retaining wall
is located outside of areas of active erosion. It is true that bulkheads exposed to areas of high
wave energy would and do impact adjacent properties. However, the proposed is a small
retaining wall set back behind a dune in an area that has not experienced any active erosion in
over thirty (30) years. As was suggested in my report, additional sand and plantings of beach
grass into dune areas would help to improve the already protective aspects of the existing dune.
Severe Slopes
Ms. Harrison states that the environmental report that 25% slopes are not severe. If Ms. Harrison
reviewed the document she would note that the area on the site has a much greater slope, over
76%. In fact, my May 2005 report states "On the east, in the area of the existing/proposed
structures, the grade changes from 20' MSL to 8' MSL in a distance of approximately 45 ', with a
grade of approximately 26%. On the western edge of the property the slope is more severe, with
a grade approximately 76%. No activities areproposed in the severe slope area of the site and it
will remain natural". With regard to the site, no activities are proposed in the severest slope
areas. It is recognized that the existing structure is located on a bluff area and the proposed
structure will alter it. Nevertheless, the area of the bluffto be altered is not the severest slope on
the site. As stated in the report, the existing structure and the proposed additions are on a
relatively level portion that resulted from historic grading of the site. It is acknowledged that the
May report could have read, "No activities are proposed in the most severe slope area of the site
and it will remain natural".
Massive Site Alterations
Ms. Harrison apparently does not understand nor has she carefully read the report that was
prepared. There will be grading, excavation, and fill on the site. Construction will require the
alteration of a portion of the site where the existing structures are and where impacts and grading
have taken place in the past. Indeed this area will be significantly altered; however, as stated in
the report, the most severe slopes on the site will not be disturbed.
Attorney's Representations
Ms. Harrison has also provided comments on the EAF that was submitted with the application.
As per your request, I have reviewed the EAF as to accuracy. I have attached a revised EAF Part
I that addresses the revised site layout as well as some changes that would make the EAF more
clear. Below are thc responses to Ms. Harrison's specific comments.
Page 3, Item 2: The approximate acreages have been revised to reflect the new plans and to
refine the various categories.
Page 3, Item 3(a): The question in the EAF refers to "soil types". The soil types on the site are
identified in the Suffolk County Soil Survey as Riverhead Sandy Loam and Beach. Both of
these soil types are defined as being well drained. No change to the EAF is required.
Page 3, Item 5: The EAF has been revised to reflect the percentage of area for the various slopes.
The EAF was inaccurate in stating the site contained no slopes greater than 10%. However, the
statement made by Ms. Harrison that "much of the site has extreme slopes far exceeding 25%" is
also incorrect. Only 18% of the site has slopes that exceed 25%. The areas on the site of the
severest slopes will remain undisturbed as part of the proposed action.
Page 5, Items 3(a), (b), & (c): While the submitted EAF may not have been wrong, it is
suggested that it be revised to state that the site will be landscaped after construction activities
and the topsoil and subsoils be stockpiled for use in the "reclamation".
Page 6, Item 5: There are no trees on site greater than 100 years old. This has been determined
by field inspections. No change to the EAF is necessary.
Page 7, Item 20: The question in the EAF asks: "Will project produce operating noise exceeding
local ambient noise levels?" The key word is "operating"; there may be short-term noise from
construction but it is not expected to exceed ambient noise. However, the long-term "operation"
of the house will be consistent with the ambient noise. While Ms. Harrison says there may be
adverse impacts on piping plovers it is unclear as to her point. The site plan does acknowledge
that there are piping plovers to the east of the site, in front of existing homes. Ms. Harrison's
reference to the proposed sanitary system and line of hay bales/silt fence is totally unclear. I also
note that Ms. Harrison states that the Nature Conservancy reported that the nest was
unsuccessful.
Page 7, Item 23: The SCDHS design flow for a single-family home is 300 GPD. The EAF has
been revised to reflect this number. However, considering that the proposed house may be used
as a summer residence, the actual flow would be significantly less. With regard to the bluff
stability and the sanitary system, the system has been designed to meet SCDHS' stringent design
requirements, particularly with regard to slopes. As a result, no impacts are expected to the slope
or bluff.
Aside from the comments above, I have found several responses in the EAF that should be
changed to better illustrate the potential impacts of the project. The attached is a revised EAF
that should be submitted to the Town to aid them in their SEQRA review.
/ )~h-oiffa~ W~ Cramer, ASLA
TWC/el / /
CC Mr Angelo Padovan / /
6
617.20
Appendix A
State Environmental Ouali~y Review
FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
Purpose: The full FAF is designed to help applicants and agencies datem~ine, in an ordady manner, whether a project or action may
be significant. The questior~ of whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer. Frequently, there are aspects of
a project that are subjeotJve or unmeasurable. It is also understood that those who determine sk:jnificance may have little or no formal
knowledge of the environment or ma)' not be technically expert in environmental analysis. In addition, ma~y who have knowledge
in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affecting the question of significance.
The full EAF is intended to provide a mettled whereby applicanta and ageecies can be assured that the determinotion process
has been ordedy, comprehensive in nature, )~t flexible enough to allow intreductJon of information to fit a project or action.
Full FAF Components: The full EAF is comprised of three parts:
Part 1: P~ovides objective date and information about a given project and its site. By identifying basic project data, it assists
a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3.
Prat 2: Focuses off identifying the range of possible impacts that may occur from a project or action. It provides guidance
as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a potentially-large impact. The
form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced.
Part 3: If any impact in Part 2 is identit'~cl as potentially-large, thee Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the impact is
actually important.
THIS AREA FOR ~ USE ONLY
DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE - Type I and Unlisted Actions
Upon review of the informatio~ recorded on this EAF (Parts I and 2 and 3 if appropriate), and any other supporting informatkm, and
ccxqsidering both the magnit~Jde and impoffance of each impact, it is reasonably determined by the lead agency that:
DA. The project will not result in any large and important impact(s) and, therefore, is one which will not have a
significant impact on the environment, tharefore a negative declaration will be pre~ared.
DB. Although the project could have a signif"m..~nt effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect
for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required, therefore
a CONDITIOelEO negative Gec~aratiou will be pmflared.*
[~C. The project may result in one or more large and important impacts that may have a significant impact on the
environment, therefore a positive declaration will be pre~aeed.
*A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions
Padavea Residence
Name of Actien
TnJstces
Name of Lead Agency
Print or Type Name of ReSpOn~ble Officer in Lead Agency
T~le of Responsible Officer
Signature of Responsible Off'~er in Lead Agency
Signature of Preparer (if different from responsible officer)
Date
Page 1 of 21
PART 1-PROJECT INFORMATION
Prepared by Project Sponsor
NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect on the
environment. Please complete the entire form, Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be considered as part of the
application for approval and may he subject to further verificaito~3 and public re~new. Provide any additional information you believe
will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3.
It is expected that completion of the full FAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve new studies,
research or investigation. If information requidng such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and specify each instance.
Name of Action Angclo Padavan
Location of Action (include Street Address, Municipality and County)
Sound View Avenue, Southold
Nama of Applicant/Sponsor Angelo Padavan
Address cio Patricia C. Mon~e, Esq.
Cily I PO 51020 Main Road, Southold State NY Zip Cede 11971
Business Telephone 631-765-.4330
Name of Owner (if dilferent) Angelo Padavan
Address
City / PO
Business Telephone
State Zip Code
Description of Action:
Construct minor addition (less than 25% of the existing structure) to existing stmctorc.
Page 2 of 21
Please Complete Each Question--Indicate N.A. if not applicable
A. SITE DESCRIPTION
Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas.
1. Present Land Use: r-'] Urban r'"] Industrial [] commercial r"-] Forest ~ Agriculture [] Other
r~ Residential (suburban) [] Rural (non-farm)
2. Total acreage of project area: 0.43 acres.
APPROXIMATE ACREAGE PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION
Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) L,~.t~I~-~D ~D~-~1~¢~[~ 0.1239 acres 0.0742 acres
Forested 0.0 ! ')6 acres 0.0438 acres
Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) __ acres __ acres
Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24,25 of ECL) __ acres __ acres
Water Surface Area __acres __ acres
Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) ¢j~.~_ F'z~u~c, ~, ~z~_~-5 __ acres 0.0158 acres
Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces 0.0135 acres 0.0162 acres
Other (Indicate type) beach and dunes 0.28 acres 0.28 acres
3. What is predominant soil type(s) on project site?
a. Soil drainage: F~ Well drained 100 % of site [] Moderately well drained __% of site.
r~Poorly drained __% of site
b, If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NYS Land
Classification System? acres (see I NYCRR 370),
4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? r~ Yes [] No
a. What is depth to bedrock (in feet)
5. Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes:
r"~0.10% 71% r~lo_ 15% 4% r~ 15% or greater 25
6. Is project substantia~ontiguous to, or contain a building, site, or district, listed on the State or National Registers of
Historic Places? [] Yes ~ NO
7. Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? II Yes [~]No
8. What is the depth of the water table? 16 (in feet)
9. Is site located over a primal, principal, or sole source aquifer? ~'lYes r'-'l No
10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? r~ Yes ~-~ No
Page 3 of 21
~11. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? r-]Yes [] No
Accordin~l to:
Identif~ each species:
I
1 2. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations?
Elves I--1No
Describe:
JBeach, Dune & Bluff
13. Is tho project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area?
r-]Yes []No
If yes, explain:
14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community?
,
15. Streams within or contiguous to project area:
UYes []No
Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributar~
1 6. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area:
Long Island Sound
b. Size (in acres):
IProperty line is the mean high water line of Long Island Sound. No portion of the property contains open water of Long Island
Sound.
Page 4 of 21
17. Is the site served by existing public utilities? [] Yes [] No
a. If YES, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? ][~ Yes
b. If YES, will improvements be necessary to allow connection?
D No
r"-lYes []No
18. Is the site located in an agricultural district
304? r~Yes r~No
19. Is the site located in or substantiall~contiguous to a
and 6 NYCRR 6177 r-~Yes ~]No
certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and
Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL,
Multiple Family
20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes?
B. Project Description
1, Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate).
a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor: 0.43 acres.
b. Project acreage to be developed: 0.02 acres initially; 0.02 acres ultimately.
c, Project acreage to remain undeveloped: 0.36 acres.
d. Length of project, in miles: ~/a (if appropriate)
e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed. -25 %
f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing I; proposed l
g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour: l0 per da), (upon completion of project)?
h. If residential: Number and type of housing units:
One Family Two Family
Initially beach hous
Ultimately 1
i. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure: -35 height;
j. Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is?
2. How much natural material (i.e. rock, earth, etc.) will be removed from the site?
3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed []Yes r-'lNo
a. If yes, for what intended purpose is the site being reclaimed?
J Disturbed areas from construction of single family house will be landscaped.
Condominium
23 width; 23 length.
185 ff.
0 tons/cubic yards.
b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? []Yes [] No
c, Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? [] Yes [] No
4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site?
+/- 0.06 acres.
Page 5 of 21
6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction: __
7. If multi-phased:
Will any mature forest (over 1(30 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project?
a. Total number of phases anticipated __ (number)
b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1: __ month __
c. Approximate completion date of final phase: -- month --
d.
months, (including demolition)
year, (including demolition)
year.
Is phase I functionally dependent on subsequent phases? F'--] Yes r-~ No
8. Will blasting occur during construction?r--Ii ] Yes r~ No
9. Number of jobs generated: during construction 4; after project is complete
10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project 0
1 1. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? r~ Yes F~ No
If yes, explain:
r'-I
12. is surface liquid waste disposal involved? L-J Yes ]'lNo
a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc) and amount
b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged
13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? [~ Yes [] NO Type
residential
14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? ~ Yes r~ No
If yes, explain:
15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 1OO year flood plain? [] Yes r~No
16. Will the project generate solid waste? [] Yes r"-] No
a, If yes, what is the amount per month? 0.1 tons
b. if' yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? [~ Yes [] No
c. If yes, give name Cutchoguc Trans. Sta. ; location Cutchoguc
d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? r-lYes
r~lNo
Page 6 of 21
e. If yes, explain:
17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? E]Yes [~]No
a, If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? -- tons/month.
b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? __ years.
18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? r-]Yes [] No
19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? r"-] Yes r~ No
20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? [] Yes [] No
21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? [] Yes [] No
If yes, indicate type(s)
Residential use of electricity, gas or oil for heating.
22. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity ~/g gallons/minute.
23. Total anticipated water usage per day 300 gallons/day.
24. Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? [] Yes [~ No
If yes, explain:
Page 7 of 21
25. Approvals Required: Type Submittal Date
City, Town, Village Board
E]Yes ~'~ No
City, Town, Village Planning Board r~Yes r~l No
city, Town Zoning Board
r~Yes r-"l No
Average setback
Individual single family
house sanitary permit
Trustees
NYSDEC
City, County Health Department [] Yes I-~ No
Other Local Agencies
]Yes r-'] No
Other Regional Agencies
E]Yes r~l No
State Agencies [] Yes [] No
Federal Agencies [] Yes r~] No
Zoning and Planning Information
Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? r~Yes r-'] No
if Yes, indicate decision required:
r-'l zoning amendment [] Zoning variance [] New/revision of master plan
r'~ site plan [] special use permit FI Resource management plan
r--1 Subdivision
r~ Other
Page 8 of 21
2. What is the zoning classification(s) of the site?
IR--40 ........... ................................
3. What is the maximum potential development of l~e site if developed as permitted by the present zoning?
I1 residence
4. What is the proposed zoning of the site?
I1residence
5. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning?
I 1 residence ....
6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? [] Yes [] NO
7. What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning dessifications within a Y4 mile radius of proposed action?
residential
Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses with a Y4 mile?
If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed7 ru'a
a. What is t~e minimum lot size proposed?
[~] Yes [] No
Page 9 of 21
1 1. Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided ser~ces (recreatk~, educatkm, police, fire protection?
a. If yes, is existing capacibJ sufficier~t to handle projected demand? [] Yes [] No
I I
12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traff~: significantly above present levels? I'1 Yes I I No
a. ff ye~, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additkmal traffic. [~lYes [] No
Attach any additional in[ormaUon as may be needed to Cladfy your project. If there are or may be any adverse impacts
associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid them.
£. VerificatJe~
I ceCdf7 that the information provided above is tnJe to the best of my kr~wledge.
Sk~na~Jre ~~'
Page 10 of 21
Aerial 1988.jpg (JPEG Image, 2148x3132 pixels)
I ,~¢9 6199/(15 2:34 PM j
TOWN OFSOUTHOLD
BOARD OFTRUSTEES
PERMIT APPLICATION OF ANGELO PADAVAN
TO: PRESIDENT ALBERT J. KRUPSKI, Jr., AND THE }
OF THE BOARD
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
1N OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION FOR PERMIT
This memorandum of law is submitted to the Board in opposition to the
application of Angelo Padavan for a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to
construct a single-family dwelling, sanitary system, gravel driveway and bulkhead. The
applicant's property is located at 22455 Soundview Ave, Southold, NY. The undersigned
represents the North Fork Beach Condominium Association, which is the administrative
arm of the condominium complex directly across Soundview Ave from the proposed
project. The application should be denied in its entirety because the applicant has failed
as a matter of law to demonstrate that he is entitled to the requested permits.
NATURE OF THE CASE
This is an application for a Wetland Permit pursuant to Chapter 97 of the Town
Code and a Coastal Erosion Management Permit pursuant to Chapter 37 of the Town
Code. The applicant proposes to build a multiple story structure along the Long Island
Sound on property that has been designated as a Coastal Erosion Hazard Area and that
falls within the jurisdiction of the Town's Wetland Law.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Angelo Padavan, is the owner of real property located on
Soundview Ave in Southold. The subject property sits against a bluff on the Long Island
Sound. The various experts who have reviewed the application have arrived at different
conclusions regarding the nature of the subject parcel. One such expert considers the
property to be dunes and bluff area while another has concluded that the project is a
"beach." Notwithstanding these divergent opinions, all parties agree that the proposed
project falls within the jurisdiction of the Town and requires both Wetland and Coastal
Erosion Management permits.
The applicant has submitted various documents in support of his application
including proposed plans, an environmental assessment form completed by the
applicant's attorney, and a report submitted by a consultant who purports to have
analyzed the project in light of the pertinent Town Code provisions. The project is
opposed by the North Fork Environmental Counsel and the North Fork Condominium
Association. In addition, the Conservation Advisory Council of the Town of Southold
has unanimously recommended that the proposed project be disapproved.
ARGUMENT
A. The Applicant is Not Entitled to a Coastal Erosion Management Permit
The Town's Coastal Erosion Hazard Area Law is designed to "[r]egulate, in
coastal areas subject to coastal flooding and erosion, land use and development activities
so as to minimize or prevent damage or destruction to man-made property, natural
protective features and other natural resources and to protect human life." Town Code
§37-4. No person may engage in regulated activity within the erosion hazard area
without a permit. Town Code §37-11. A permit will be issued only if the proposed
activity is: 1) reasonable and necessary, considering reasonable alternatives and the
extent to which the proposed activities requires a shoreline location; 2) not likely to cause
a measurable increase in erosion at the proposed site and at other locations; and 3)
prevents, if possible, or minimizes adverse effects on natural protective features and their
functions and protective values, existing erosion protection structures and natural
resources. Town Code §37-12.
In this case, the applicant seeks to build a large, multiple story structure in an
extremely sensitive area along the Long Island Sound. The applicant has failed to meet
his burden to show that he is entitled to the necessary permit.
First, the applicant has not articulated why this project is necessary. In fact, the
applicant points out that there already is a structure on the property. He also owns a large
home on the neighboring lot. There is nothing ambiguous about the term "necessary."
This project clearly is not necessary.
Next, the applicant has failed to show that the project will not cause an increase in
erosion at the proposed site or neighboring shoreline property. The only evidence to
support this factor is a short statement offered by the applicant's consultant that the
project "is not likely to cause any measurable increased erosion at the proposed site or at
other locations." See Report of Cramer Consulting Group at 6. However, this statement
is unsupported by analysis. The only comment from the consultant on this point is his
statement that the "northern retaining wall/bulkhead" will "provide additional erosion
protection to the bluff and structures if the dune area is overtopped during severe storm
events." Report at 5. The consultant does not explain how this "retaining wall/bulkhead"
will provide protection to the bluff or other neighboring property. Nor does he explain
how the project will protect other natural features.
In contrast, Ms. Louise Harrison of Conservation and Natural Areas Planning, has
submitted a report that explains how bulkheads and other man-made structures can
actually exacerbate erosion to surrounding properties. See Harrison Report at 2-3. She
notes that the proposed structure will in fact increase such erosion. Report at 2. Ms.
Harrison also states that there is evidence of water reaching up to and beyond the
elevation of the proposed structure. Report at 3. The Conservation Advisory Counsel
observed active erosion as well. CAC Recommendation. This information confirms that
further erosion is likely and that the proposed project will only contribute to this erosion.
Finally, the applicant has failed to show that the project prevents or minimizes
adverse effects on natural protective features and their functions and protective values,
existing erosion protection structures and natural resources. Again, Ms. Harrison points
out that the project virtually obliterates a portion of the existing bluff which is a natural
protective feature. Report at 3. This is precisely the type of project that the Town Code
is designed to prevent.
The proposed project also appears to run afoul of various other provisions of the
Town Code. For example, even if the project site is considered a secondary dune area as
suggested by the applicant's consultant, "[e]xcavating, grading or mining must not
diminish the erosion protection afforded by them." Town Code §37-16(B). Completely
eliminating certain portions of these protective dunes certainly does not meet this
standard. Also, such activity in a primary dune area is completely prohibited. Town
Code §37-16(A).
Furthermore, the Town's own consultant, Ms. Heather Tetrault, considers this site
to be beach area. Tetrault Letter of January 19, 2005. If that is the case, all development
is prohibited unless specifically provided for elsewhere. Town Code §37-15.
Additionally, the applicant's consultant states that a portion of the project
involves bluffarea. Cramer Report at 5. If that is correct, only minor alterations to the
bluff is permitted, and only nonmajor additions to existing structures on the bluff is
permitted. Town Code §37-17(B). Here, the project calls for significant excavation and
modification to the bluff. Moreover, the addition is not to a structure on the bluffper se
but to a structure that, according to the applicant's consultant, sits on a dune area.
Therefore, it is not authorized.
B. The Applicant is Not Entitled to a Wetland Permit
The proposed project clearly falls within the jurisdiction of the Town's Wetland
Law. Town Code §97-12(C). The applicant is therefore required to obtain a permit.
Town Code §97-20. The applicant fails to demonstrate that he is entitled to the necessary
permit.
To obtain such a permit, the applicant must establish that his project meets all the
specific requirements and is consistent with the policies behind the Wetland Law. The
Town's Wetland Law is designed to protect against erosion and damage from flooding.
Town Code §97-12(B). As noted above, this project does not serve that end.
Additionally, the proposed structure does not even meet the basic set back
requirements under the Code. The proposed residence is only 80 feet from the High
Water Mark as opposed to the required 100 feet. Town Code §97-12(D)(1). The
applicant admits that his project does not meet this requirement. Cramer Report at 6.
The setback provisions represent an absolute minimum. Therefore, on its face, the
application should be denied.
In addition, the Board may issue a permit only if it determines that the project will
not cause damage from erosion, turbidity or siltation, will not weaken lateral support to
other lands in the vicinity, and will not otherwise adversely affect the health, safety and
general welfare of the People of the Town. Town Code §97-28. The applicant has failed
to meet these standards as he has not sufficiently addressed the likely erosion problems
and potential adverse effects on neighboring property. This very real risk militates
against granting the application.
Finally, the Wetland Law provides that a bulkhead on the Sound "shall only be
permitted when the likelihood of extreme erosion is demonstrated and it shall not
increase erosion on neighboring properties." Town Code §97-27(B). Even the
applicant's consultant claims that there is no active erosion on the site. Cramer Report at
6. Therefore, the applicant must concede that the bulkhead is not appropriate. On the
other hand, if there is extreme erosion, the project should be denied in its entirety under
the Coastal Erosion Law.
CONCLUSION
The applicant has failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to a Wetland Permit or
Coastal Erosion Permit. The proposed project simply does not meet the standards for
obtaining such permits. Therefore, the applicant's request should be denied.
Respectfully Submitted,
L s
Attor¥/ey for the North Fork
Condominium Association
P.O. Box 2021
Jamesport, NY 11947
(631) 722-4744
Thomas W. Cramcr, Principal
P.O. Box 5535
Miller Place, New York 11764
Tclcphonc (631)476-0984 Fax (631) 476-6933
Albert J. Krupski, Jr., President
Town of Southold Board of Trustees
PO Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Re: Angelo Padovan
SCTM # 1000-135-1-23 & 24.1
May 7, 2005
Dear Mr. Krupski:
Mr. Padovan and his attomey have retained my services to review the above-referenced
appligation and to provide my professional opinion with regard to the site and proposed project
as it relates to the coastal erosion hazard area. By way of introduction, I have provided the
Board with a copy of my curriculum vitae (attached). In addition, I have been a consultant to the
Town of Southold in the past, preparing planning studies, environmental impact statements and
environmental and planning reviews for various projects and rezoning for the Town of Southold.
I have also provided similar services to private individuals throughout Long Island and have
provided consulting services to numerous municipalities and State agencies. Furthermore, 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 Coastal Erosion Hazard Program which, like
Southold's, is based on the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation's
(NYSDEC) Part 505, the Coastal Erosion Management Regulations.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION-'
Presently there exist on site the following structures (as shown on the survey prepared by Young
& Young):
Deck
Stairs
Walk
Total
187 square feet
229 square feet
110 square feet
44 square feet
570 square feet
All of the structures predate 1991, the effective date of the Town's Chapter 37, Coastal Erosion
Hazard Areas.
The proposed project is for a three-bedroom home with associated sanitary system, parking area,
and stairs. The new footprint for the home would be 514 square feet in size plus the other
impervious structures on site which are 194 square feet, for a total of 708 square feet.
This is an increase of 138 square feet from the existing conditions or a 24.2% increase of the
existing conditions. Since the increase is less than 25%, the proposal would be considered a
non-major addition as defined under §37-6.
The NYSDEC has set the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area boundary on the north side of Sound
View Avenue in this area. The entire project and parcel falls within the Coastal Erosion Hazard
Area's boundaries.
SITE CONDITIONS:
The parcel is trapezoidal in shape, situated on Long Island Sound, and is 18,874 square feet in
area. The southern portion, fronting on Sound View Avenue, rises to an elevation of 20' Mean
Sea Level (MSL). The northern portion of the site is beach, with the north property line being
Mean High Water (MHW). The Mean Low Water (MLW) is approximately 45' further to the
north. The existing structures are located on the wooded slope in the southeast comer of the site.
There are several landforms on the site as it transitions from Long Island Sound to Sound View
Avenue; these are beach, dune, and bluffs. The landforms are defined in the Code (Chapter 37),
as well as accepted practice.
A beach is defined by Code as follows:
"BEACH-~ The zone of unconsolidated earth that extends landward from the
mean low-water line to the waterward toe ora dune or bluff, whichever is most
waterward. Where no dune or bluff exists landward of a beach, the landward limit
ora beach is one hundred (lO0) feet landward from the place where there is a
marked change in material or physiographic form or from the line of permanent
vegetation, whichever is most waterward. Shorelands subject to seasonal or more
frequent overwash or inundation are considered to be "beaches. "''
In accordance with the Code's definition of a beach, a beach would extend to a dune or bluff; if
neither were present, it would extend 100 feet landward ora marked change in topography,
vegetation, etc. On this site, both a dune and bluff are considered present.
A small, low dune system exists at the bottom of the slope adjacent to Sound View Avenue. The
landward edge of the dune is approximately at the 8' contour line and extends north to the "Limit
of Beach/Edge of Dunes" as shown on the Young & Young survey. This area ranges in width
from approximately 30' on the east property line to 10' on the west. In the Code, a dune is
defined as follows:
"DUNE -- A ridge or hill of loose, windblown or artificially placed earth, the
principal component of which is sand".
Dunes are further discussed in the Code, under {}37-16, as follows:
"Dunes prevent overtopping and store sand for coastal processes. High,
vegetated dunes provide a greater degree of protection than low, unvegetated
ones. Dunes are of the greatest protective value during conditions of storm-
induced high water. Because dunes often protect some of the most biologically
productive areas as well as developed coastal areas, their protective value is
especially great. The key to maintaining a stable dune system is the establishment
and maintenance of beachgrass or other vegetation on the dunes and assurance of
a supply of nourishment sand to the dunes ".
On site, this dune area is thickly vegetated with beach grass, suggesting the permanent nature.
As stated previously this particular formation is small and low on site. In other locations, such
as those on the ocean, dunes are typically larger and classic in formation. This is a result of
wider beaches, higher winds and smaller sand grain sizes that allow for more movement and
deposition of material in those locations.
Because of the minimal source of sand and the cobble (stone) beaches on the north shore of
Long Island, dunes are typically smaller. In this case, the initial development probably started
with depositing of material through wave action during storm events. This raised the elevations
and allowed vegetation to take hold. The vegetation then allowed for the trapping and
depositing of wind blown sand within the current dune area. Soil core samples were taken in a
number of locations within the dune area on site. All of the samples taken reveled sand
throughout the dune; no cobbles, stones or other material were found. The presence of only sand
on site supports that the fact that the low ridge of the dune was established by wind.
Attached are several photographs that illustrate the existing conditions on and adjacent to the
site. Photo "A" shows the beach and dune area. The wrack line, starting in the lower right hand
comer, is the approximate MHW and property line. The storm beach extends from the MHW
line to the drift line (starting in the lower left hand comer). This is the landward demarcation of
the beach and the point at which material is deposited during storm events. Large materials,
such as tree trunks, are clearly visible in the photo. This line is also the separation line between
the beach and the dune area.
Photo "B" shows the dune area, from the east property line looking west. The area is heavily
vegetated with beach grass. In the center of the photograph, and the dune, snow has
accumulated in the shallow area between the low sand ridges. While small and shallow, this
type of topographic formation is typical of more classic and complex dune systems.
The third physiographic form on the site is the bluffwhich is adjacent to Sound View Avenue
and runs along the site's southern property line.
A bluff is defined in Chapter 37 as follows:
"BLUFF -- Any bank or cliff with a precipitous or steeply sloped face adjoining a
beach or a body of water. The waterward limit of a bluff is the landward limit of
its waterward natural protective feature. Where no beach is present, the
waterward limit o fa bluff is mean low water. The landward limit is twenty-five
(25)feet landward of the receding edge or, in those cases where there is no
discernible line of active erosion, twenty-five (25)feet landward of the point of
inflection on the top of the bluff. The "point of inflection" is that point along the
top of the bluff where the trend of the land slope changes to begin its descent to
the shoreline ".
The bluff, while not as high as those to the west at Horton Point (+60' elevation), does represent
a protective feature on the site. The bluff on site is an eroded remnant of the terminal moraine as
the ground elevation drops from Horton Point to Hashamomonk Beach to the east. This
landform is, as stated, a previously eroded slope and is now wooded. The protective feature of
the dune in front has allowed vegetation to stabilize the slope. On the east, in the area of the
existing/proposed structures, the grade changes from 20' MSL to 8' MSL in a distance of
approximately 45', with a grade of approximately 26%. On the western edge of the property the
slope is more severe, with a grade approximately 76%. No activities are proposed in the severe
slope area of the site and it will remain natural.
This wooded slope includes a mix of tree and shrub species. Again, Photo "B" illustrates this
area on the extreme left hand side of the photo. Photo "C" (looking west) and Photo "D"
(looking east) show close-ups of the front of the existing structure and the trees adjacent and in
front of it. As can be seen in Photo "D', the existing structures to the east of the subject site
extend well seaward from the existing/proposed structures.
In the past the bluff most likely extended to the east further, considering the topography
surrounding the existing house(s) to the east. The area immediately east was apparently
modified, probably at the time of construction of those houses. No bluff now exists to the east.
Like the houses to the east, the construction of the existing structure on site modified the
previous bluff to allow a level area to situate the original site improvements on the bluff's face.
However, the modification to the bluff was not severe and the site represents the eastem end of
the bluff in the area.
IMPACTS OF ACTION ON COASTAL EROSION HAZARD AREA:
As stated previously, the proposed activities are within the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area
boundaries. Therefore, permits are required under Chapter 37. The proposed action is for the
addition of 24.2% to the existing structures, and is considered a "non-major addition". While a
"non-major addition" is not defined in the Code, a "major addition" is defined under {}37-6 as
"an addition to a structure resulting in a twenty-five-percent or greater increase in the ground
area coverage... ". Therefore, since the addition(s) is not greater than 25% for the footprint they
are not major additions, hence non-major additions.
Article II of Chapter 37 establishes regulations for activities in land and water areas in the Costal
Erosion Hazard Areas of the Town. Regulations for the three land areas of the site are set forth
here.
In accordance with §37-15, there are no proposed activities within the beach area of the site.
§37-16 provides regulations for activities within a dune area. As stated, the dune area provides
protection from wave action and stores sand for coastal processes. This vegetated area on site
will protect the existing/proposed structures as it has protected the bluff in the past. Likewise,
no activities are proposed directly within the dune area. However, under §37-6 definition of
"primary dune" the landward limit of the dune extends 25 feet landward of the landward toe of
the dune, in this case the 8' contour. Therefore, most of the existing/proposed structures would
be regulated under §37-16.
§37-16A(5) states that, "Non-major additions to existing structures are allowed on prima~
dunes pursuant to a coastal erosion management permit and subject to permit conditions
concerning the location, design and potential impacts of the structure on the primary dune ".
Since the addition is for a 24.2% expansion (non-major) and it is not within the dune area
directly, the proposed activities would be permissible activity.
The regulation for the bluffportion of the property is found under §37-17. §37-17A lists
activities that are prohibited on the bluffs. The proposed project does not include any prohibited
activities. Activities specifically allowed on bluffs are defined under §37-17B. Similar to the
dune regulations, §37-17B(4) states that: "Non-major additions to existing structures are
allowed on bluffs, pursuant to a coastal erosion management permit ". Again, since the
proposed expansions are for only 24.2% of the footprint, a non-major addition, the proposed
activities would be permissible.
§37-17B(1) allows: "Minor alteration of a bluff done in accordance with conditions stated in a
coastal erosion management permit issued for new construction, modification or restoration of
an erosion protection structure". The proposed activity will include minor alterations to the
bluffto construct the additions. As part of the project mitigation, measures such as gutters,
leaders and dry wells to contain runoff and retaining walls to contain and limit fill on the site are
proposed. The northern retaining wall/bulkhead set above the 8' contour line and adjacent to the
dune area will provide additional erosion protection to the bluff and structures if the dune area is
overtopped during severe storm events.
In addition, §37-17B(3) allows for: "New construction, modification or restoration of wallcways
or stairways done in accordance with conditions of a coastal erosion management permit. " The
project calls for the new construction of walkways and the modification/relocation of the
existing stairway on the site. The proposed activities would be permissible under the Code.
IMPACTS OF ACTION ON TOWN'S WETLAND LAW:
Chapter 97 of the Town of Southold's code has been adopted to protect, preserve, and properly
maintain and use the wetlands of the Town, considering reasonable economic and social
development. The proposed project falls within the jurisdiction of the Town's Wetlands Law,
administered by the Southold Board of Trustees.
No vegetated wetlands exist on the subject site.
The existing structure is located approximately 95 feet from the MHW line. The 25% expansion of the
structure is proposed to take place in line with the structure to the east. The proposed expanded
structure will therefore maintain the present setback from the MHW. This setback is 5 feet less than the
minimum setbacks as identified under §97-12D(1) for a residence. No impacts would be anticipated
from the proposed expansion.
A new sanitary system, meeting the Suffolk County Department of Health Services' standards, is
proposed for the expanded house. The septic tank (non-leaching) is proposed to be setback 104
feet from the MHW line and the nearest proposed sanitary leaching pool will be setback 120 feet
from the MHW line. These setbacks exceed the minimum setback requirements under §97-
12D(1) of 75 feet for a septic tank and 100 feet for a sanitary leaching pool.
The proposed project does conform to the "Construction and Operation Standards" as found in
§97-27. More specifically, §97-27A(3) states:
"New and remodeled homes. New and remodeled homes cannot be situated or
modified such that they project closer to the wetland boundary than homes on
either side of the lot".
The existing home to the east is closer to the wetlands boundary by approximately 5 feet, or a
total of 17 feet if the deck is included in the measurement. In addition, as noted above, the
proposed house will be expanded to the side and not closer to the wetlands than the existing
house.
It should be noted that there is a proposed "bulkhead" on the proposed plan, located immediately
north of the existing/expanded house, or approximately 88 feet from the MHW line. This
proposed structure is more properly referred to as a retaining wall since it does not separate
earthen material from water (as a bulkhead is defined under §97-11).
CONCLUSION:
In conclusion, I did not observe any active erosion on the several site visits, even after major
winter storm events. The action is considered reasonable and is not likely to cause any
measurable increased erosion at the proposed site or at other locations. Furthermore, the action
minimizes impacts to and avoids, as much as practical, any natural protective features on the
site. The 24.2% non-major additions are located on the bluff. However, these additions are in
an area of the bluffthat has been altered by past activities and they avoid the most severe slopes
on the site. No significant impacts are expected to the site or the surrounding areas with the
implementation of the proposed action.
The proposed action falls within areas defined as dune and bluff areas. Under {}37-16 and §37-
17 the proposed non-major additions to the structures are not prohibited and would be allowed
with the proper permits.
To accentuate the protective values of the dune system in the area, the Trustees may wish to
consider the modification of the permit to include the addition of dune augmentation and
planting. The applicant could provide a higher, planted dune to reduce the potential impacts
from erosion and to supply a sand source for coastal processes. Such a project modification
could be allowed under §37-1A(2 &3). This would be predicated on the ability to secure
necessary permits from the other regulatory agencies.
No impacts are expected to occur to the wetlands on or adjacent to the property. The project has
been designed to meet the standards of the Town's Wetlands Law.
I hope the above has been of assistance in your decision-making process. IfI can provide any
additional information or answer any questions, I will be pleased to do so.
Very truly yours,
Thomas W. Cramer, ASLA
TWC:alc
CC: Mr. Angelo Padovan
Mrs. Patricia Moore, Esq.
7
,,V~ o~oqd
,,H,, o~oqd
Photo
CURRICULUM VITAE
Thomas W. Cramer, ASLA
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, Cramcr 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 Brookhavcn,
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:
· 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 and FEIS for the 1996 Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Town of Brooldaaven, 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.
12
Revisions to Existing Town of Brookhaven Codes. 1995-1997. Including 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.
Draft 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.
· GEIS 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.
13
Professional & Other Organizations:
past and present
· Bo'sun Supplies, President. Mail order & Interact 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.
14
ELI~BETH A. NEVII,I~E
TOWN C 1 A,]ItK
OFFICE ()V TIlls; TOWN (!1.1~'IlK
T()\VN (Yl~', ()k lilt)IA)
4
APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC ACCESS TO RECORDS
INSTRUCTIONS: Please complete Section I of this form and give to Town Clerk's
Office (agency Freedom of Information Officer). One copy will be returned to you
in response to your recluest, or as arq interim response.
SECTION I.
TO: ~
(Department or . ', if known, that has the information you are rectuestin}~-~
RECORD YOU WISH 'fO INSPECT: (Describe the record sought. If possible, suppl~
date, file title, tax maI) nLimber, 81lei any other pertinent i~formation.)
Address:
Mailing Address (if difierent fronl above):
I I APPROVED
I ] APPROVE[) WITH DELAY* I I DENIED*
RECE~'VED
[ reedom of Intormation Officer
* If delayed or denied see reverse side for explanation.
PATRICIA C. MOORE, A'i-i'ORNEY AT LAW
51020 Main Road, Southold, NY 11971 (631) 765-4330
TO
SUBJECT
Ro,~rd of Trustees
SIGNED
Louise Harrison 3
Curriculum Vitae
Clients, examples
Long Island Pine Barrens Society,
Manorville, NY
Three Village Community Trust
Setauket, NY
Southern Queens Park Association
St. Albans, NY
North Shore Land Alliance
Old Westbury, NY
Riverside Drive Neighborhood Coalition
Riverhead, NY
Middle Run Stream Coalition
Oyster Bay, NY
Avalon Park and Preserve
Head-of-the-Harbor, NY
Citizens Environmental Research
Institute
Farmingdale, NY
The Nature Conservancy
L! Chapter
Cold Spring Harbor, NY
Research, environmental analysis,
testimony preparation, constituent
organizing
Conscience Bay watershed
analysis, project development
Ecological site documentation and
waterfront access analysis
Ecological site documentation
Environmental impact analysis
Environmental impact analysis
Natural and historical resources
inventory, educational materials
Pollution prevention research;
author and editor of educational
publications
Natural areas ecological threats
analyses; preservation
management proposal
Pro Bono Environmental Assistance, examples
Newsday, Natural World SerJes (20o3), Melville, NY
Friends of Thompson-Detmer Farm, Setauket, NY
Three Village Hamlet Stud*/Task Force, Setauket, NY
Coalition for the Future of Stony Brook Village, Stony Brook, NY
Additional Skills
Print and television media publicity, promotional writing, public speaking,
communication of scientific concepts and information for general public, community
organizing, editing.
PC-proficient.
Louise Harrison 4
Curriculum Vitae
Featured in
Blair, Cynthia (2000, April-May). Making the most of the outdoors with your kids.
Long Island Parents & Children, April-May, 2000, pp.72-74.
Blair, Cynthia (1997, December 31). Louise Harrison: 'the ultimate accurate
resource.' The Village Times, December 31, 1997, p. 8.
Kaufman, Bill (2004, March 21). Winners: Louise Harrison/ecology activist.
Newsday, Sunday, March 21, 2004, Long Island Life (Smithtown edition), p.
G35.
Native America (2000, Autumn). Conservation spirit. Native America, the Nature
Information Paper 3(2), back cover.
Oyster Bay Enterprise-Pilot (2002, October 3). Friends of the Bay's environmental
activist: New Friends of the Bay director comes with strong credentials. Oyster
Bay Enterprise-Pilot, :~0(2), October 3, 2002.
Oyster Bay Guardian (2002, May 3). FOTB appoints new exec. director. Oyster Bay
Guardian, May 3, 2002, p.1.
Village Times Herald (2004, April 1). Harrison wins environmental award. The
Village Times Herald, 2g($), April 1, 2004.
Mr. And Mrs. Padovan
22455 Soundview Avenue
Southold, NY
1000-135-1-23 & 24.1
1976 Aerial
The subject parcel is double wide parcel, contains a structure since the 1930's (survived the 1938
Hurricane)
The aerial shows the location of the house on the third parcel to the east before it was moved
closer to the road.
1977 Aerial
Structures as they are located on the properties today.
1988 Aerial
The structures located on the property prior to adoption of CZM legislation
0G/15/2005 08:42 8888888888 ~GE 85
Beach, near the project site, in the summer of 2004, although the nest was
unsuccessful.
Page 7, item 23: No information was provided on expected water usage. This
information is important in assessing the impact of the sanitary system recharge
rates, which can affect bluff stability.
Please also note that all Southold Town decision making concerning projects in the
coastal zone now should be consistent with the provisions of the Town's Local
Waterfront Revitalization Program. ! will be happy to present the findings of this
program as they relate to the Padovan project upon request.
! hope you find this information useful in representing the interests of your clients.
Sincerely,
Louise Harrison
Aerial 1988.jpg (JPEG Image, 2148x3132 pixels)
Ae~Sal 1976,jpg (JPEG Image, 693x996 p xe s)
6/22/05 2:29 PM
[~qA 6Z:g gO/Zg/9
(sNx;d 966x£69 'agetui 0114f) gd79£6I
.J
IE6E~¥E
Soutimtr~
Bo~rd ol Tnlstees
n~rJ
I
Albert J. Krupski, President
James King, Vice-President
Artie Foster
Ken Poliwoda
Peggy A. Dickerson
Town Hail
53095 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971-0959
Telephone (631) 765-1892
Fax (631) 765-6641
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
November 16, 2005
Patricia C. Moore, Esq.
51020 Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
Re: ANGELO PADAVAN
SOUNDVIEW AVE., SOUTHOLD
SCTM# 135-1-23, 24.1
Dear Ms. Moore:
The Board of Trustees took the following action during its regular meeting held on Wed.,
November 16, 2005 regarding the above matter:
WHEREAS, Patricia C. Moore as agent for ANGELO PADAVAN applied to the
Southold Town Trustees for a permit under the provisions of the Wetland Ordinance
under Chapter 97 of the Town Wetland Code and Chapter 37 of the Town Code of the
Town of Southold, application dated December 22, 2004 and
WHEREAS, said application was referred to the Southold Town Conservation Advisory
Council for their findings and recommendations, and,
WHEREAS, the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council recommended
DISAPPROVAL of this proposed application, and,
WHEREAS, several Public Hearings were held by the Town Trustees with respect to
said application at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be
heard, and,
WHEREAS, the Board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the
premises in question and the surrounding area, and,
WHEREAS, the Board has considered all the testimony and documentation submitted
concerning this application, and,
2
WHEREAS, the action is found to be INCONSISTENT with the Town of Southold Local
Waterfront Revitalization Program, and
WHEREAS, the existing permitted structure is a 10'x 14' shed, and the proposed house
is 708 square feet which is greater than 25% of the existing structure, and,
WHEREAS, In accordance with Chapter 37, Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas, Major
Additions are defined as greater than 25%, and are not allowed in the Coastal Erosion
Hazard Area, and,
WHEREAS, the existing structure is a storage shed, and not a habitable structure,
with no sanitary system, electric, insulation, or plumbing, and,
WHEREAS, the proposed house is located on the beach, as defined in Chapter 37, and
all development is prohibited on the beaches, and,
WHEREAS, the proposed house is INCONSISTENT with the following LWRP policy
standards: 3.'1,4.1, 4.2,5.1,5.3,6.'1, and 8.3. and is therefore inconsistent with the
Town of Southold's Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan, and,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE, under Chapter
37, the application of ANGELO PADAVAN to construct a single-family dwelling,
sanitary system, gravel driveway, and bulkhead, and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this determination should not be considered a
determination made for any other Department or Agency, which may also have an
application pending for the same or similar project.
Very truly yours,
Albert J. Krupski, Jr.
President, Board of Trustees
AJK: hkc
Thomas W. Cramer, Principal
P.O. Box 5535
Miller Place, New York 11764
Telephone (631)476-0984 Fax (631) 476~6933
August 12, 2005
Patricia Moore, Esq.
51020 Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
Re:
Padovan @ Southold
Response to Letter of Conservation and Natural Areas Planning - 6/15/05
Dear Ms. Moore:
As per your request, I have reviewed the above referenced letter addressed to Lars Johnson, Esq.
and prepared by Louise Harrison. While Ms. Harrison opines that there are inaccuracies in my
original report of May 7, 2005, I have reviewed her comments and find that they are inaccurate
or based on false assumptions. The comments provided by Louise Harrison do not result in the
need for any revisions to my original document.
The following is a response to each of the comments made by Ms. Harrison:
Ma,ior Proieet
Ms. Harrison makes a point as to the inclusion of the proposed retaining wall in the calculations
of the proposed structures, more specifically how the retaining wall's inclusion will bring the
area of proposed structures over 25% of the existing. This would result in the project being a
major addition under {}37-6. Considering this, I asked the engineer to review his calculations and
include similar existing structures to the retaining wall in his calculations. As such, the plan has
been revised to reflect the following:
Ama of Existing Beach Cottage: 187 sqft
Area of Existing Deck: 229 sqft
Area of Existing Stairs: 110 sqft
Area of Existing Walk: 44 sqft
Area of Existing Railroad Tie Wall: 19 sqft
Total Area of Existing Structures: 589 sqft
Since Ms. Harrison raised the issue of the proposed retaining wall in the calculations for
structures, the engineer has reconsidered the existing conditions. An existing railroad tie wall is
now included in the revised calculations. This retaining wall increases the existing structures on
site by 19 square feet.
In addition, the proposed structures on site were also reviewed and recalculated. The proposed
retaining wall was included in the calculations and portions of the previously proposed paved
surfaces were eliminated. The following is a detail breakdown of the 193 square feet of
"Proposed Area Building" and "Proposed Area Impervious Site Improvements" shown on the
site plan. This breakdown was provided by the engineer.
Area of Proposed House: 514 sqft
Area of Existing Railroad Tie Wall (remaining): 1 sqft
Area of Proposed Retaining Wall: 93 sqft
Area of Proposed Stairs: 36 sqft
Area of Proposed Walk: 63 sqf~
Total Area of Existing Structures: 707 sqft
Including retaining wall in the calculations increases the square footage of existing structures on
site. Including in the calculations the proposed retaining wall and with modification of the
proposed activities on site there is a decrease in the total square footage of proposed structures.
Therefore, the proposed percentage of increase of structures on the site has decreased from
24.2% to 20.0%. The following are the percentage calculations:
(Proposed Structures - Existing Structures) / Existing Structures = Percent of Increase
Old Plan: (708 sqf~ - 570 sqft) / 570 sqft = 24.2%
New Plan: (707 sqft - 589 sql:t) / 589 sqft = 20.0%
Under {}37-6 a "Major Addition" is defined as an addition of 25% or greater increase in ground area
coverage of the structures existing on site. Therefore, at 20.0%, the proposed project would be a
nonmajor addition and would be allowable in a bluffarea under {}35-17.B.4).
Areas of Active Erosion
Ms. Harrison talks about the groin field located west of the subject site. The nearest groin to the
subject property is located approximately 200 feet to the west of the subject property (300 feet
from the structure). There are approximately nine (9) groins within 2,000 feet west of the site, at
various intervals. Most are constructed seaward of a bulkhead, starting approximately 500 feet
west of the site. The two eastern most groins are within 100 feet of each other and are
approximately 100 feet in length. The groins are low profile (less than 2 feet high) and do not
extend much, if at all, past low tide. These groins were constructed prior to 1976; copies of the
1976 and 1988 aerials are provided as attachments.
As can be seen on the aerials, the littoral drift in the area is from west to east. Given this
predominate movement of water, sand would accumulate on the west site of the groins and be
scoured from the east site. This condition would continue until such time as sufficient deposits
on the west side extend to the tip of the groin and then sand would "by pass" the groin and the
currents would once again deposit sand to the east. In effect, a state of equilibrium would be
established.
A review of the historic and current aerials illustrates the accumulation of the sand on the west
side and the scouring to the east of the groins. However, the overall beach profile and width
appear to have changed very little, if at all, since 1976. This suggests that the sand is by passing
the groins under normal conditions. Furthermore, because of the low, short nature of the groins,
the effects of scouring to the east of them appear on the aerials to be localized to immediately
adjacent to the groins. The beach width in front of the project site has remained at approximately
the same width since 1976.
Ms. Harrison states that because pebbles and cobbles are located to the seaward side of the
dunes, this represents a sign that the beach is a high-energy wave environment. It is unclear as to
what point she is trying to make, as a beach is a high-energy environment and the entire beach at
this site has pebbles and cobbles. In addition, as is the nature of a dune, there is expected to be
some erosion on the dune's face as waves reach it during storm events. During an inspection on
July 6, 2005, minor disturbance to the face of the dune was observed; however, it was not
significant. I have included photographs that illustrate the conditions.
Ms. Harrison also commented on wrack that was found behind some black cherry trees at the
base of the bluff; which she suggests was caused by water reaching "up to and behind the
elevation of the proposed structures ". This statement is entirely incorrect. The wrack that she is
referring to was observed and photographed (attached) in the field during my July inspection.
This wrack was not deposited by waves but was, in fact, placed there by Mr. Padovan. Over the
years Mr. Padovan has made an effort to rake and clean the beach in front of his property
removing wrack, trees and other debris which he then placed on a compost pile on his site. It is
this compost pile that Ms. Harrison is referring to. Mr. Padovan's cleaning efforts would also
explain the cobbles at the base of the dunes, as the raking action would expose them.
Ms. Harrison also opines on the 'fortification" of the site; she talks about blocks being stacked
under the deck and tree stumps arranged at the seaward edge of the vegetated areas and branches
piled high on the property. Again, the conclusions drawn from the observations are extremely
erroneous. The Belgian blocks were extra material left over from a landscaping project and were
stacked in a decorative manner under a portion of the deck in order to store them. The stumps
and branches are part of Mr. Padovan's cleaning efforts of the beach and have been cut and
stored for his future use as firewood. Again, photographs are provided of the actual conditions.
Ms. Harrison also suggests that the dates and soil profile of soil core samples should be provided.
It seems irrelevant to provide this information since it was stated in my previous report that there
was nothing except sand in the soil samples that were taken to a depth of 2'. Be that as it may,
soil samples were taken on March 15, 2005 and field investigations were carried out in February,
March and April of 2005.
With regard to the permanence of the dune, Ms. Harrison claims that assumptions in my report
that attest to the permanence of the dunes are without any basis. It is recognized throughout my
report that the dune dynamic system, through the cycles of many years, could be found in various
configurations in both width and height. While the dunes are dynamic, their existence can be
demonstrated over a significant period of time. The fact is that a dune in this area has been a
relatively persistent, natural, protected feature. Again, the historic 1976 and 1988 aerials show
the existence of dunes of a similar size and configuration as exist today in front of the structure.
Retaining Wall Bulkhead
Ms. Harrison states that the proposed retaining wall is inconsistent with the findings that there is
no active erosion taking place on the property. The proposed retaining wall is not intended to
stem erosion. The retaining wall is designed and proposed to contain fill for the construction of
the sanitary system. Secondarily, it provides a level area in front of the building. Again, a
review of the historic aerial photographs demonstrates there has been no active erosion on the
site since 1976. The entire area in front of and around the existing structures has remained
vegetated for the past 30 years. With regard to the need for a 3' clearance below a retaining
wall, Ms. Harrison is mistaken as to the retaining wall being located in the dune area of the site.
As discussed in my May 2005 report, the retaining wall is located at the base of the bluff on site,
not in the dune area.
With regard to the retaining wall causing further erosion of nearby properties, the retaining wall
is located outside of areas of active erosion. It is true that bulkheads exposed to areas of high
wave energy would and do impact adjacent properties. However, the proposed is a small
retaining wall set back behind a dune in an area that has not experienced any active erosion in
over thirty (30) years. As was suggested in my report, additional sand and plantings of beach
grass into dune areas would help to improve the already protective aspects of the existing dune.
Severe Slopes
Ms. Harrison states that the environmental report that 25% slopes are not severe. If Ms. Harrison
reviewed the document she would note that the area on the site has a much greater slope, over
76%. In fact, my May 2005 report states "On the east, in the area of the existing/proposed
structures, the grade changes from 20' MSL to 8' MSL in a distance of approximately 45 ', with a
grade of approximately 26%. On the western edge of the property the slope is more severe, with
a grade approximately 76%. No activities areproposed in the severe slope area of the site and it
will remain natural". With regard to the site, no activities are proposed in the severest slope
areas. It is recognized that the existing structure is located on a bluff area and the proposed
structure will alter it. Nevertheless, the area of the bluff to be altered is not the severest slope on
the site. As stated in the report, the existing structure and the proposed additions are on a
relatively level portion that resulted from historic grading of the site. It is acknowledged that the
May report could have read, "No activities are proposed in the most severe slope area of the site
and it will remain natural ".
Massive Site Alterations
Ms. Harrison apparently does not understand nor has she carefully read the report that was
prepared. There will be grading, excavation, and fill on the site. Construction will require the
alteration of a portion of the site where the existing structures are and where impacts and grading
have taken place in the past. Indeed this area will be significantly altered; however, as stated in
the report, the most severe slopes on the site will not be disturbed.
4
Attorney's Representations
Ms. Harrison has also provided comments on the EAF that was submitted with the application.
As per your request, I have reviewed the EAF as to accuracy. I have attached a revised EAF Part
I that addresses the revised site layout as well as some changes that would make the EAF more
clear. Below are the responses to Ms. Harrison's specific comments.
Page 3, Item 2: The approximate acreages have been revised to reflect the new plans and to
refine the various categories.
Page 3, Item 3(a): The question in the EAF refers to "soil types". The soil types on the site are
identified in the Suffolk County Soil Survey as Riverhead Sandy Loam and Beach. Both of
these soil types are defined as being well drained. No change to the EAF is required.
Page 3, Item 5: The EAF has been revised to reflect the percentage of area for the various slopes.
The EAF was inaccurate in stating the site contained no slopes greater than 10%. However, the
statement made by Ms. Harrison that "much of the site has extreme slopes far exceeding 25%" is
also incorrect. Only 18% of the site has slopes that exceed 25%. The areas on the site of the
severest slopes will remain undisturbed as part of the proposed action.
Page 5, Items 3(a), (b), & (c): While the submitted EAF may not have been wrong, it is
suggested that it be revised to state that the site will be landscaped after construction activities
and the topsoil and subsoils be stockpiled for use in the "reclamation".
Page 6, Item 5: There are no trees on site greater than 100 years old. This has been determined
by field inspections. No change to the EAF is necessary.
Page 7, Item 20: The question in the EAF asks: "Will project produce operating noise exceeding
local ambient noise levels?" The key word is "operating"; there may be short-term noise from
construction but it is not expected to exceed ambient noise. However, the long-term "operation"
of the house will be consistent with the ambient noise. While Ms. Harrison says there may be
adverse impacts on piping plovers it is unclear as to her point. The site plan does acknowledge
that there are piping plovers to the east of the site, in front of existing homes. Ms. Harrison's
reference to the proposed sanitary system and line of hay bales/silt fence is totally unclear. I also
note that Ms. Harrison states that the Nature Conservancy reported that the nest was
unsuccessful.
Page 7, Item 23: The SCDHS design flow for a single-family home is 300 GPD. The EAF has
been revised to reflect this number. However, considering that the proposed house may be used
as a summer residence, the actual flow would be significantly less. With regard to the bluff
stability and the sanitary system, the system has been designed to meet SCDHS' stringent design
requirements, particularly with regard to slopes. As a result, no impacts are expected to the slope
or bluff.
Aside from the comments above, I have found several responses in the EAF that should be
changed to better illustrate the potential impacts of the project. The attached is a revised EAF
that should be submitted to the Town to aid them in their SEQRA review.
5
I hope the above has been of some assistance. Ifther tion I can provide
please feel free to contact me. ~~
TWC/el /,/~-om-a§ W~. Cramer, ASLA
CC: Mr. Angelo Padovan
617.20
Appendix A
State Environmental Ouality Review
FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
Purpose: ~he full EAF is designed to help applicants and agencies determine, in an orderly manner, whether a project or action may
be significant. The question of whethar an action may be significant is not always easy to answer. Frequently, there are aspects of
a pro~t ~ are subjective or unmeasurable. It is also understood that thase who determine significance may have litUe or ne formal
knowledge of the environment or may not be technically expert in environmental anal~is, in addition, many who have knowledge
in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affecting the question of significance.
The full FAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the determination process
has been orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible enough to allow in'ffoduetio~ of inforrnatJon to fit a project ar action.
Full EAF Comlx)nents: The full EAF is comprised of three parts:
Part 1: Provides objective data and information about a given project and its site. By identJ~iag basic project data, it assists
a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3.
Pair 2:
Focuses on identif~ag the range of= possible impacts that may occur from a project or action. It provides guidance
as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a potentially-large impact. The
form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced.
Part 3: If any impact in Part 2 is identified as potonfially-large, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the impact is
actually impertant.
THIS AREA FOR LEAD AGENCY USE ONLY
DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE - Type 1 and Unlisted Actions
upon review of the infurmation recorded on this EAF (Parts 1 and 2 and 3 if appropriate), and any other supporting information, and
considering both the magnitude and i~nee of each impact, it is reasueably determined by the lead agency that:
The prqject will not result in any large and important impact(s) and, therefore, is one which will not have a
significant impact on the environment, therefore a uegal~e declaration will be prepared.
Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect
for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required, therefore
a CONDITIONED negat~e ~tion w~ll be pm~ared.*
The project may result in one or more large and important impacts that may have a significant impact on the
environment, therefore a po~dve declamticn ~ be pre, amd.
*A Conditioned Negative Declara6on is only valid for Unlisted Actions
Padavea Resideaee
Tl'astees
Name of Action
Name of Lead Agency
Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency
Title of Respe~sible Officer
Signature of Preparer (If different from responsible officer)
Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency
Date
Page 1 of 21
PART 1-PROJECT INFORMATION
Prepared by Project Sponsor
NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect on the
environment. Please complete the entire form, Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be considered as part of the
application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any additional information you believe
will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3.
It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve new studies,
research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and specify each instance.
Name of Action Angelo Padavan
Location of Action (include Street Address, Municipality and County)
Sound View Avenue, Southold
Name of Applicant/Sponsor Angelo Padavan
Address eYo Patricia C. Moore, Esq.
City/PO 51020 Main Road, Southold State ~ Zip Cede 11971
Boainess Telephone 631-765-4330
Name of Owner (if different) Angelo Padavan
Address
City / PO State Zip Code
Business Telephone
Description (frAction:
Construct minor addition (less than 25% of the existing structure) to exist~g structure.
Page 2 of 21
Please Complete Each Question--Indicate N.A. if not applicable
A. SITE DESCRIPTION
Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas.
1. Present Land Use: [] Urban [] Industrial r-~ Commercia~ [] Forest [] Agriculture [] Other
r~ Residential (suburban)
]Rural (non-farm)
Total acreage of project area: 0.43 acres,
APPROXIMATE ACREAGE PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION
Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) t.~x~D .%,~rp i7.~--~1D¢~I~ 0.1239 acres 0.0742 acres
Forested 0.0126 acres 0.0438. acres
Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) __ acres acres
Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24,25 of ECL) __ acres acres
Water Surface Area acres __ acres
Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) ~t.r~.~.. P~,~,~. 4, tx.~z-5 __,acres 0.0158 acres
Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces 0.0]35 acres 0.0]62 acres
Other (Indicate type) beach and dunes 0.28 acres 0.28 acres
3. What is predominant soil type(s) on project site?
a. Soil drainage: r~well drained 100 % of site [] Moderately well drained % of site.
E~]Poorly drained __ % of site
b. If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group I through 4 of the NYS Land
Classification System? acres (see I NYCRR 370).
4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? r"-] Yes I~ No
a. What is depth to bedrock (in feet)
5. Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes:
r~0.10% 71% ~']10_ 15% 4% r-"] 15% or greater 25 %
6, Is project substantiall~ontiguous to, or contain a building, site, or district, listed on the State or National Registers of
Historic Places? ~ JYes r~] No
7, Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? [] Yes J~lNo
8. What is the depth of the water table? 16 (in feet)
9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? ~']Yes I-'"1 No
10, Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? r-] Yes [~l No
Page 3 of 21
11, Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? r-]Yes [] No
Accordin~ to:
Identif~ each species:
12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site. (i,e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations?
Describe:
Beach, Dune & Bluff
13. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area?
r-]Yes [] No
If ),es, explain:
14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? DYes
[]No
15. Streams within or contiguous to project area:
a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributa~j
16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area:
Long Island Sound
b. Size (in acres):
IProperty line is the mean high water line of Long Island Sound. No portion of the property contains open water of Long Island
Sound.
Page 4 of 21
1 7. Is the site served by existing public utilities? [] Yes [] No
a. If YES, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? [] Yes
b. If YES, will improvements be necessary to allow connection?
r-'i No
r-]Yes r~No
18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and
304? ~lYes [iNn
19. is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL,
and 6 NYCRR 6177 E~Yes r~No
20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes?
B.
1,
Project Description
Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate).
a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor:
b. Project acreage to be developed: 0.02 acres initially;
c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped: 0.36 acres.
d. Length of project, in miles: n/a (if appropriate)
r~Yes ~]No
0.43 acres.
0.02 acres ultimately.
e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed. -25
f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing I ; proposed
g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour: 10 per da), (upon completion of project)?
h. If residential: Number and type of housing units:
Two Family Multiple Family
One Family
beach hous
Initially
Ultimately
i. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure: -35 height;
j. Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is?
2. How much natural material (i.e. rock, earth, etc.) will be removed from the site?
3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed []Yes r-]No D'-IN/A
a. If yes, for what intended purpose is the site being reclaimed?
[ D;~turbed areas from consiTuction of single family house will be landscaped.
23 width;
185
0 tons/cubic yards.
Condominium
23 length,
b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? [] Yes [] No
c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? [~ Yes [] No
4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site?
+/- 0.06 acres.
Page 5 of 21
5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetabon be removed by this project?
r~Yes ~No
6. If single phase pro,ject: Anticipated period of construction: 8 months, (including demolition)
7. If multi-phased:
a. Total number o1" phases anticipated __ (number)
b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1: __ month __ year, (including demolition)
c. Approximate completion date of final phase: __ month __ year.
d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? r""'"l Yes m-] No
8. Will blasting occur during construction? r""l Yes F~ No
9. Number of.jobs generated: during construction 4; alter project is complete
10. Number ofjobs eliminated by this pro,ject 0
11. Will project require relocatfon of any pro,jects or facilitie¢ FI Yes F~ No
If yes, explain:
12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? I I Yes l'lNo
a, If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc) and amount
b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged
1 3, Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? FI Yes [] NO Type residential sanitary waste
1 4. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? r--lYes r~No
If yes, explain:
15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? F1 Yes
16, Will the project generate solid waste? [] Yes [] No
F1No
a. If yes, what is the amount per month? 0.1 tons
b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? [] Yes [] No
c. If yes, give name Cutchogue Trans. Sra. ; location Cutchogue
d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? []Yes
r~]No
Page 6 of 21
e. If yes, explain:
17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? F-lYes r~No
a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? __ tons/month.
b, If yes, what is the anticipated site life? __ years.
18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? r']Yes [] No
19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? [] Yes r~ No
20. Wili project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? []Yes ~No
21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? ~ Yes [] No
If yes. indicate type(s)
Residential usc of electricity, gas or oil for heating.
22. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity, n/a gallons/minute.
23. Total anticipated water usage per day 300 gallons/day.
24. Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? []Yes [] No
If ),es, explain:
Page 7 of 21
25. Approvals Required:
Type Submittal Date
City, Town, Village Board
r-'lYes [] No
City, Town, Village Planning Board r~Yes [] No
City, Town Zoning Board
r~'lYes r'-I No
Average setback
Individual single family
house sanitary permit
Trustees
NYSDEC
City, County Health Department [] Yes ~ No
Other Locat Agencies
r~'lYes [] No
Other Regional Agencies
]Yes [] No
State Agencies [] Yes [] NO
Federal Agencies r~ Yes [] No
C, Zoning and Planning Information
1. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? [~]Yes [] No
If Yes, indicate decision required:
[] Zoning amendment [] Zoning variance [] New/revision of master plan
[] Site plan [] Special use permit r~ Resource management plan
]Subdivision
]Other
Page 8 of 21
2. What is the zoning classification(s) of the site?
3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning?
I 1 residence
4. What is the proposed zoning of the site?
I 1 residence
5. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning?
6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? [] Yes [] No
7. What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a ~ mile radius of proposed action?
residential
8. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses with a '~ mile?
9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? n/a
a. What is the minimum lot size proposed?
J'~ Yes [] No
Page 9 of 21
10. Will proposed action require any authorization(s) fo' the formation of sewer o~ water districts? [] Yes [] No
1 1. Will the proposed action create a demand for any communit~j provided services (rer~eation, education, police, fire protection?
[]Yes ~'-~ No
a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? [] Yes [] No
1 2. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? [] Yes [] No
a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic. [] Yes [] No
D. Infmmationel Details
Atb3ch any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse impacts
associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid them.
I catify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge.
Page 10 of 21
TE~T HOIE ~ATA
~0O'
3 BEDROOM
RESIDENCE
FINISHED
GRADE
SANITARY NOTES
ALL CONSTRUCTION TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUFFOLK COUNTY
1200 GAL. SEPTIC TANK
HYdrAULIC
TOTAL LEACHING FIELD OF 2 POOLS
SECTION
SITE PLAN
N
S
Yo~xg & Young
400 Os~ra~dew Ave~ze, Riverl~ead, Ne~ York 11901
631-727-2303
'I~AINA~E DESICN ~,t~.ITE~IA ,~ OAL~.ULATION5
TOTAL ~EO VOLUME
TABULATION9
5Uf~.V[E¥OI~.'5 OE~TII=IOATION
E~!JILDINeD t;~.MIT
TF:~T HOLE 12ATA
APPalL 2, 2OOI
O O'
3 BEDROOM
RESIDENCE
SANITARY NOTES
067'
800'
1200 GAL. SEP~C TANK
H¥I2~AL)LIC
SOLID RIN
4" DIA PVC
PIPE
7.0
GROUND WA~R 40
TOTAL LEACHING FIELD OF 2 POOLS
SECTION
SITE PLAN
N
S
Young & Young
400 Ostr~nder Ave~e, R~verhe~d, Ne~ ¥owk 11901
6~ 1-727-2303
[2f~AINA~E PE5ICN C.f~.ITE'~-IA ,~ '",ALOULATION5
TOTAL ~. VOLUME = lSD O,F,
PF~OVI[2~I~ VOLUME
(I} ~' [PlA x E' [~EEP POOL5 = 211 OF
TABULATI
NOTE~
5U~,VEYO~','5 GER. TIFICATION
FOR
AN®ELO PA~O"YAN
At; 5og, t;holcl, To~n oF
Suffolk ~ount:~, N~ York
23
Lot 24 I
t3,UILDIN~ PE'R, MIT .CCJ~VEY
~P
'i~T MOL~= DATA
3 BEDROOM
RESIDENCE
SANJTARY NOTES
rim:
1200 GAL. SEP~C TANK
SOLID
0 67'
GROUND WA~R 4,0
TOTAL LEACHING RELD OF 2 POOLS
H'T'DR, AUL I C, SECTION
~ITE PLAN
N
Young & Young
l 1901
DRAINA®E DE~I~N GRITEtRIA ~
OALC, ULATION5
TABULATIONS
SURVEYOR'9 CERTIFI~,ATION
FOR
BIJILDIN5 PEEHIT SURVEY
BP
TE~T HOII= ~'ATA
SANITARY NOI~S
3 BEDROOM
RE~DENCE
PIPE
I 7.0
300 S.F.S.W,A.
TOTAL LEACHING FIELD OF 2 POOLS
1200 GAL. SEPllC TANK
H"f'P~AULIG 5EC, TION
I
SITE PLAN
N
S
Young & Yo'~g
Z~I~A, INA~E ~DDI~N Gt~ITtD~IA .* CALCULATION.G
PAVEMENT
TABULATION¢
NOTES
,,SUP. VE"C'OP-'S CE:~'.TIFICATION
AN®ELO PAZ~OVAN
AL Douthold, Tomn oF Douthold
Suffolk County, N~ ~ork
IOOO I~D Ol 2D
OOU~ TOX H~ D~strlct IO0O Sectlen J~ Block oJ Lot 24.1