Loading...
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