Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-6365 James F. King, President Jill M. Doherty, Vice-President Peggy A. Dickerson Dave Bergen 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 OFSOUTHOLD Julie Tsai SCTM# 1000-59-1-21.1 Notes to file: In review of the application to construct a single family home on the above referenced parcel the Board made the following mitigations and changes to the application prior to approval: The Board reviewed the report from Senior Environmental Planner and LWRP coordinator, Mark Terry dated November 14, 2005. The following policy standards were mentioned in his report: 4.1, 5.4, 5.5, 6.1,6.3, 6.4, and 9.2. By requiring the following amendments to the project, we have found this application as modified to be consistent with those policy standards: The Board requires the house to be downsized from 60' X 35' two stow single family dwelling with foundation to a 20' X 45' one stow house on pilings. This substantial reduction in size mitigates the concerns raised with respect to policy standard numbered 4.1, "minimize loss of human life and structures from flooding and erosion hazards" by limiting the extent of the disturbance. Policy standard 6.3 is substantially advanced by limiting the extent of impact to the wetland. Policy standard 6.4 is likewise advanced by this limitation. Policy standard 9.2, if it was impacted at all by this proposed project, is also advanced by this reduction in scale. There shall be no excavation, no re-.qradinq, fill is only used for septic system. A 50' non- disturbance buffer shall remain natural and undisturbed. This measure substantially advances policy standard 4.1 by using native vegetation to prevent erosion and flooding, and placing severe imitations on activites that would contribute to these concerns. This limitation substantially advances policy standard 6.3 by reducing the impact on the wetlands. James F. King, President Jill M. Doherty, Vice-President Peggy A. Dickerson Dave Bergen John Holzapfel Town Hall 53095Route 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 YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE OFFICE OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES 72 HOURS PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE WORK, TO MAKE AN APPOINTMENT FOR A PRE-CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION. FAILURE TO DO SO SHALL BE CONSIDERED A VIOLATION AND POSSIBLE REVOCATION OF THE PERMIT. INSPECTION SCHEDULE Pre-construction, hay bale line 1st day of construction ½ constructed Project complete, compliance inspection. Board Of $outhold 'Town Trustees SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK SCTM~59-1-21.1 PERMIT NO ......... ~.6.5. ........ DATE: May 17, 2006 ISSUED TO JULIE TSAT ................................... Pursuant to the provisions of Chapter ~1~ pf ~e Sfafe of New Yo& 19~2~ and fhe Soumma town ~ramanee eh- third '."RE~TIN~ AND ~E PLAOIN~ OF OBSTRUO!~S IN AND ON TOWN WATERS AND PUBLIC. ~DS and-f~ REMOVAL OF SAND, ~VEL' OR OTHER MATERIALS.~M ~NDS .UNDER TOWN 'WA~RS;~L and in a~c~danoe wdh 'the Resol~ion of ~e Boerd ~dopted et e meeting held on ~Q~....'_, end in consideration of the sum of $....~P~.0P.._. peld by . ._..3u~ ~.~...~.~ .................................................................................................. : ........... ~ ......... ~e~e~d ' ' ~ Y. end subject to the of ........................................ ;..: ............... ~ ........................... ~' Terms ~nd ~n&hons hsted on the revere d~e ·hereof, of Southold To~' Tms~es ~uthorizes ~nd ~ermi~ the follow1.~. We~nd pe~it to ~nstruct ~ 45'X 20' single-f~m[ly dwelling on pUings wi~ ~n ~ohed raised deo~ ~nd s~ni~ system, ~ ~e ~nd~ons of ~ 50' non-distu~noe buffer, ~ells ~re ins~lle~ to ~n~in ~e roo~ runoff, ~ line of s~ked ~y b~les ~nd silt fen~ ~re inst311ed prior to ~nstmc~on ~nd m~in~Jned during ~ns~uo~, ~e h~y b~les ~re to be left in pl~ po~t ~nstruo~on, pe~ious driveway is to ~lw~y~ remain pe~ious, ~nd ~11 ~s depicted on the su~ey prepared by ~seph A. Ingegno I~st d~ted M~y 28 200~. ~. ,,, ~,~a,,~ w.n me defend sg~icetlons ~s pre.hied ,~e ~glnetlng iN WITNESS WHERE', ~e sdd Boerd 0f Trustees ~re- by ~u~s its ~r~r*t~ S~el So be e~xed, *n~ ~ese presen~ to be ~ub~ed b? ~'~lm~ of the s~M ~rd .,s of th~ d~te. !oh~ HOi~P~ef <nay> Tr:R~S ,nd C, ONDmONS James F. King, President Jill M. Doherty, Vice-President Peggy A. Dickerson Dave Bergen Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 F~x (631) 765-6641 October 18, 2006 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Mr. Robed Barratt 4295 Vanston Rd. Cutchogue, NY 11935 RE: JULIE TSAI 310 LAKE DR., SOUTHOLD SCTM#59-1-21.1 Dear Mr. Barratt: The Board of Town Trustees hereby rescind Permit #6365 and the related resolution of May 17, 2006 and hereby enact the following resolution regarding the public hearing held at its regular meeting on Wed., May 17, 2006 regarding the above matter: WHEREAS, Robert Barratt on behalf of JULIE TSAI applied to the Southold Town Trustees for a permit under the provisions of Chapter 275 of the Southold Town Code, the Wetland Ordinance of the Town of Southold, application dated October 7, 2005, and, WHEREAS, said application was referred to the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council and to the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program Coordinator for their findings and recommendations, and, WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held by the Town Trustees with respect to said application on May 17, 2006, 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 structure complies with the standards set forth in Chapter 275 of the Southold Town Code, WHEREAS, the above referenced lot is a legal building lot previously approved by the Town of Southold, and, WHEREAS, the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program Coordinator recommended the application be found Inconsistent due to the 100' setback as outlined in Chapter 275 of the Southold Town Code, and, WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees considered the presence of other homes and a commercial restaurant within close proximity to the lot, and, WHEREAS, the lot is not designated under areas to be protected in the publication prepared August 2004 and submitted by the Kenney's Beach Civic Association - Great Pond Wetland Preservation, and, WHEREAS, the original application called for a two story, four bedroom, single-family dwelling approximately 60' x 35' and driveway, and, WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees recognized the environmental concerns of the area and in response to these concerns, significantly down sized the structure to a single story 20' x 45' house, required the structure to be put on piles, required that no excavation shall take place, that no re-grading be permitted, that extra fill required for construction be strictly limited to the requirements of the sanitary system, and, resulted in substantial reduction to the original proposal, and, WHEREAS, all setbacks were maximized to include locating the sanitary system out of the Trustees jurisdiction with the exception of the septic tank, and, WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees maximized the non-disturbance area, requiring a 50' non-disturbance area adjacent to the wetlands, to remain natural and undisturbed, and, WHEREAS, the Conservation Advisory Council recommended approval considering the area had already been compromised with construction of homes of similar or greater square footage in the immediate area, and, WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the project as proposed will not affect the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the town, NOW THEREFORE BE IT, RESOLVED, that the Trustees have mitigated all environmental and coastal concerns to the maximum extent practical and based upon the imposition of Best Management Practice requirements referred to above, as set forth in greater detail in the Trustees' file on this application, the Board of Trustees deems the proposed action, as modified, to be Consistent with the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program pursuant to Chapter 268-5 of the Southold Town Code, and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees approve the application of JULIE TSAI to construct a 45'X 20' one story, single-family dwelling on pilings with an attached raised deck and sanitary system, with the conditions of a 50' non-disturbance buffer, drywells are installed to contain the roof run-off, a line of staked hay bales and silt fence are installed prior to construction and maintained during construction, the hay bales are to be left in place post construction, pervious driveway is to remain pervious, and all as depicted on the survey prepared by Joseph A. Ingegno last dated May 28, 2006. Permit to construct and complete project will expire two years from the date of this permit. Inspections are required at a fee of $50.00 per inspection. (See attached schedule.) Fees: $100.00 Very truly yours, JaYmes F. Kin? President, Board of Trustees JFK/hkc Cc: Patricia Finnegan, Town Attorney Julie Tsai M~ Robert Barra~ PE 4295 Vanston Road Cutchogue, NYl1935 Tel 631 875 0275 Fax 631 734 2730 Southold Town Board of Trustees Town Hail 53095 Route 25 PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 Attention Ms. Jill Doberty- Board Member July 21st, 2006 Subject: 310 Lake Drive Southold NY SCTM# 1000-59-1-21.1 Dear Jill, I received Mr. King's letter documenting the board's action regarding the subject application in today's mail, and I have forwarded same to Ms. Tsai. I checked at the board's office and Lauren confirmed that they had received Ms. Tsai's check for the $100.00 fee mentioned in the letter. I have aiso forwarded a copy to the USDEC, for their information, see attachment. Again, please accept my thanks, Yours faith_fully, Robert Barratt Eur Ing Robert Barrat~ CEng FIMechE PE (NY & NJ) 4295 Vanston Road Cutchogue, NY 11935, USA Tel and fax, 631 734 2730 robertbarratt~optonline.net July 21 st, 2006 Attention Ms. Kendall P. Klett NYSDEC SUNY~STONY BROOK, Building 40 Stony Brook, NY 11790 Subject: Tsai Property, 310 Lake Drive, NY 11971, SCTM# 1000-59-1-21.1 Application # 1-4738-03534/00001 Dear Kendall, For your information I am attaching a copy of the Southold Board of Trustees letter approving the construction ora single family house on the subject lot We look forward to heating from you in due course Robert Barratt PE Cc Ms. Juiie Tsai (by email) All setbacks were maximized to include Iocatinq the sanitary system out of the Trustees jurisdiction with the exception of the septic tank. These siting requirements advance policy standards 4.1, 5.4 and 5.5 by limiting the disturbance of water quality standards. Drywells are required to contain roof runoff. This requirement will further policy standard 5.4 and 5.5 by limiting impacts from runoff into the wetlands and filtering the runoff before it reaches the potable water. A row of staked hay bales and silt fence is required durinq construction. This will advance Policy Standard 4.1,5.1,5.5, 6.6, 6.3, and 6.4 by limiting the movement of construction debris and runoff into the wetlands during construction. The Board requires the driveway to be made of pervious material. This requirement furthers policies 5.4, 5.5, and 6.3 by filtering rainwater and limiting the movement of rainwater possibly carrying toxins into the wetlands. James F. King, President Jill M. Doherty, Vice-President Peggy A. Dickerson Dave Bergen John Holzapfel Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Sauthold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 TO: BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Please be advised that your application dated reviewed by this Board at the regular meeting of following action was taken: has been and the ( V) Application Approved (see below) ( ) Application Denied (see below) ( ) Application Tabled (see below) If your application is approved as noted above, a permit fee is now due. Make check or money order payable to the Southold Town Trustees. The fee is computed below according to the schedule of rates as set forth in Chapter 97 of the Southold Town Code. The following fee must be paid within 90 days or re-application fees will be necessary. COMPUTATION OF PERMIT FEES: TOTAL FEES DUE: BY: James F. King, President Board of Trustees Telephone (631) 765-1892 CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 ~outhold, New York 11971-0959 At the meeting of the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council held Wed., May 10, 2006, the following recommendation was made: Moved by Peter Young, seconded by James Eckert, it was RESOLVED to recommend to the Southold Town Board of Trustees APPRVOAL of the Wetland Permit application of JULIE TSAI to construct a single-family dwelling and driveway. Located: 310 Lake Dr., Southold. SCTM#59-1-21.1 The CAC recommends Approval of the application, as applied for, however the Council does have concerns with the overall impact. Vote of Council: Ayes: All Motion Carried Town of Southold ~'~ Freshwater Wetlands Vacant Parcels as of 12103 ~ Vacant Vacant and Adjacent to ~ Public Protected Land / / / Town of Southold Sample Land Preservation Target Map · Development Rights ~ Private Protected Lands · Public Protected Lands Vacant Parcels as of 12/03 ~ Vacant Vacant and Adjacent to ~ Public Protected Land feb 8, 2006 Field inspectio0 feb 8, 2006 Field Ins feb 8, 2006 Field Ins James F. King, President Jill M. Doherty, Vice-President Peggy A. Dickerson Dave Bergen John Holzapfel 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 Southold Town Board of Trustees Field Inspection/Worksession Report Name of Applicant: Name of Agent: Date/Time: ~ { g>/O (o Property Location: SCTM# & Street Brief Description of proposed action: Type of area to be impacted, k/ Saltwater Wetland '~/Freshwater Wetland Sound Front Bay Front Distance of proposed work to edge of above: ~cc;f Town Code proposed work falls under: apt.97 Chapt. 37 other Type of Application: __ Wetland __ __Emergency Info needed: ~/ ~xr~'~.~ ~o~.., Coastal Erosion Amendment Administrative ModificationS: ~ %, Conditions: Present Were~J.King /J.Doherty d--P.Dickerson __ ,/Other: / D. Bergen/J.Holzapfel Mailed/Faxed to: Date: Mr. Robert Barratt PE 4295 Vanston Road Cutchogue, NY 11935 Tel 631 875 0275 Fax 631 734 2730 Southold Town Board of Trustees Town Hall 53095 Route 25 PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 January 31, 2006 Subject: 310 Lake Drive, Southold, NY, SCTM# 1000-59-1-21.1 Members of the Board of Trustees, I should like to take this oppommity to thank the board for the additional guidance you gave me at the December meeting. The board requested that the proposed positions of the leaching pools be flagged to supplement the flagging of the wetlands boundary and building envelop that Ms. Tsai had completed prior to the December meeting. In addition she has further revised the answers to the "Developed Coast Policy" portion of her application in accordance with Mr. Terry's letter dated November 14th, 2005. A copy of the revised document is attached for your information and action. It is my pleasure to transmit this material on Ms. Tsai's behalf and I look forward to hopefully meeting with you at the January meeting. Yours faithfully, Robert Ban:att 310 Lake Drive, Southold NY 11971- 4117 View' looking Northwest from Lake Drive, Photo#1 Jutie Tsai Application to Southold Board of Trustees 310 Lake Drive, Southold NY I 1971 - 4 l 17 View looking Southwest from Lake Drive, Photo #2 Julie Tsai Application to Southold Board of Trustees Telephone (631) 765-1892 Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL TOWN OF SOUTHOLD At the meeting of the Southoid Town Conservation Advisory Council held Wed., November 9, 2005, the following recommendation was made: Moved by Tom Schlichter, seconded by Don Wilder, it was RESOVLED to TABLE the Wetland Permit application of JULIE TSAI to construct a single-family dwelling and driveway. Located: 310 Lake Dr., Southold. SCTM#59-1-21.1 The CAC Tables the application because there is evidence of a wetland immediately behind the proposed building envelope that was not flagged and/or indicated on the survey. The CAC recommends the wetlands be flagged and included on the survey for a further review. Vote of Council: Ayes: All Motion Carried 059 PLANI~HNG BOARD MEMBERS JERILYN B, WOODHOUSE Chair KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN H. SIDOR GEORGE D. SOLOMON JOSEPH L. TOWNSEND PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hail 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: February 9, 2006 R.e~ Request for Wetland Permit for Julie Tsai SCTM#1000-59-1-21.1 JULIE TSAI requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling and driveway. Located: 310 Lake Dr., Southold. SCTM# 1000- 59-1-21.1 The proposed action is located within a Globally and State Rare Habitat Maritime Dune and Marine Interdnnal Swale. The proposed setback from the wetland in the habitat complex is 55 feet; 100 feet or more is required. The proposed structure is located in "Flood Zone AE Zone Elevation 11'. The proposed structure is landward of the Costal Erosion Hazard Line. Public water supply is proposed. 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 INCONSISTENT with the denoted following Policy Standards and therefore is INCONSISTENT with the LWRP. Due to lot size and coverage of protected features, there is minimal to no ability to further the LWRP policies outlined below. Note that the property is included within an area identified as geologically and ecologically significant that occurs from the Great Pond Wetland to Goldsmith Inlet in the Town of Southold. Vegetative communities in the area, including the parcel; consists of maritime dune, maritime interdunal swale, and shrub swamp. The York State Natural Heritage Program classifies the maritime dune community as "G4-S3". The "G" designates the Global rank and the "S" the state rank. Globally, the maritime dune community is considered to be "apparently secure globally, though it may be quite rare in parts of its range, especially in the periphery (Edinger et al., 2002). The "S3' rank indicates that the maritime dunes are considered rare in New York with limited range. Similarly, the maritime interdunal swale community is classified as "G3-G4-S2" which designates the community as more rare than the maritime dune community. Note, that the rank of S2 is the highest rank of rarity in New York State (Lamont, 2004). The site is expected to contain protected species associated with these community types. In 2004 the New York Natural Heritage Program further identified these maritime interdunal swale and maritime dune communities as significant natural communities from a statewide perspective. Additionally, the report acknowledges that the dune/swale complexes are extremely rare on the north shore of Long Island and states that "any development within the maritime dunes would likely reduce the landscape ranking factor for the maritime interdunal swale~ reduce the overall quality of occurrence~ and threaten its long term viability"(Edinger~ 2004). The site is also geologically unique lacking the significant bluff systems that dominant the north shoreline of the Town of Sonthold. Conversely, the area is comprised of a low primary dune system, interdunal swale and secondary dune systems, a rare geologic community. The proposed home would be constructed on a secondary dune system (see attached 1930 aerial). Chapter 97 regulates activities within dune systems. Chapter 37 defines a secondary dune system as: SECONDARY DUNE -- The major dune immediately landward of the primary dune. The waterward limit of a secondary dune is the landward limit of its fronting primary dune. The landward limit of a "secondary dune" is twenty-five (25) feet landward of its landward toe. Permitted activities on secondary dunes include; B. In secondary dune areas: (1) All depositions must be of clean sand of a compatible type and size, and all grading must be performed so as to increase the size of, or restore, a dune or former dune area. (2) Excavating, grading or mining must not diminish the erosion protection afforded by them. (3) Non-major additions to existing structures are allowed on secondary dunes pursuant to a coastal erosion management permit. (4) Permitted construction, reconstruction, restoration or modifications must be built on adequately anchored pilings such that at least three (3) feet of open space exists between the floor joists and the surface of the secondary dune; and the permitted activity must leave the space below the lowest horizontal structural members free of obstructions. The area with the proposed site included, contains the largest representation of these above rare community types in the Town of Southold. The ecological significance of this site has qualified it as a listed priority parcel for acquisition within the Town of Southold and is being considered for Significant Fish and Wildlife Habitat Status from the New York State Department of State. For example, the installation of gutters, leaders, dry-wells, pervious driveway; non-disturbed, non-fertilized buffers, cleating limits etc... The most applicable policies include: Policy Standard 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. 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. 5. Manage development in floodplains outside of coastal hazard areas so as to reduce adverse environmental effects, minimize the need for future structural flood protection measures, or expansion of existing protection measures and to meet federal flood insurance program standards. There is no ability to further this policy due to lot size and percent cover of flood zones and protected natural features (secondary dunes). Policy Standard 5.4 Limit the potential for adverse impacts of watershed development on water quality and quantity. Protect water quality by ensuring that proposed expansion or intensification of existing watershed development results in: 1. protection of areas that provide important water quality benefits 2. maintenance of natural characteristics of drainage systems, and 3. protection of areas that are particularly susceptible to erosion and sediment loss Limit the individual impacts associated with development to prevent cumulative water quality impacts which would lead to a failure to meet water quality standards. Two of the most effective water quality protection measures include[ retaining natural vegetation buffers and maintaining maximum distance separation from a water body. The 55 foot setback proposed from the wetland system is a variance request of 65% of the 100 foot required and may not be sufficient to protect the surrounding surface water quality. There is no ability to increase the distance separation due to the percent cover of protected features. The impacts of the on-site septic system in relation to groundwater quality are unknown. Not all homes in the area are serviced by public water. Therefore~ there is no ability to accurately assess this policy and subpolicy. Policy Standard 5.5 Protect and conserve the quality and quantity of potable water. Prevent contamination of potable waters by limiting discharges of pollutants to maintain water quality according to water quality classification, and limiting, discouraging or prohibiting land use practices that are likely to contribute to contravention of surface and groundwater quality classifications for potable water supplies. Prevent depletion of existing potable water supplies by limiting saltwater intrusion in aquifers and estuaries, through conservation methods or restrictions on water supply use and withdrawals, and by allowing for recharge of potable aquifers. C. Limit cumulative impact of development on groundwater recharge areas to ensure replenishment of potable groundwater supplies. See response to policy 5.4 above. 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. Avoid adverse changes to the Long Island Sound and the Peconic Bay ecosystems that would result from impairment of ecological quality as indicated by: 1. Physical loss of ecological components Physical loss is often the most obvious natural resource impairment to identify. It usually results from discrete actions, such as filling or excavating a wetland or clearing an upland forest community prior to development. 2. Degradation of ecological components Degradation occurs as an adverse change in ecological quality, either as a direct loss originating within the resoume area or as an indirect loss originating from nearby activities. Degradation usually occurs over a more extended period of time than physical loss and may be indicated by increased siltation, changes in community composition, or evidence of pollution. 3. Functional loss of ecological components Functional loss can be indicated by a decrease in abundance 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. Protect and restore ecological quality by adhering to the following measures. 1. Maintain values associated with natural ecological communities. Each natural ecological community has associated values which contribute to the ecological quality of the Town of Southold. These values should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. 2. Retain and add indigenous plants to maintain and restore values of natural ecological communities. a. Protect existing indigenous plants from loss or disturbance to the extent practical. b. Include use of suitable indigenous plants in the landscaping plans for new development and in redevelopment projects where loss or disturbance of existing indigenous plants could not be prevented during construction. Avoid fragmentation of ecological communities and maintain corridors to facilitate the free exchange of biological resources within and among communities. a. Each individual resource area should be maintained as a complete contiguous areas to protect the area's natural resource values. Specifically, actions that would fragment the ecological community into separate ecological islands should be avoided. b. Where fragmentation of ecological communities has already occurred, the adverse effects of fragmentation can be mitigated by maintaining or providing connecting corridors to allow exchange of biological resources. Maintain ecological integrity of particular locales by maintaining structural and functional attributes, including normal variability, to provide for self-sustaining systems. Avoid permanent adverse change to ecological processes. Reduce adverse impacts on ecological quality due to development. 1. Reduce adverse effects of existing development. 2. Mitigate impacts of new development. Vegetative communities in the area, including the parcel; consists of maritime dune, maritime interdunal swale, and shrub swamp. The York State Natural Heritage Program classifies the maritime dune community as "G4-S3". The "G" designates thc Global rank and the "S" the state rank. Globally, the maritime dune community is considered to be" apparently secure globally, though it may be quite rare in parts of its ranger especially in the periphery (Edinger et al., 2002). The "S3" rank indicates that the maritime dunes are considered rare in New York with limited range. Similarly, the maritime interdunal swale community is classified as "G3-G4-S2" which designates the community as more rare than the maritime dune community. Note~ that the rank of S2 is the highest rank of rarity in New York State (Lamont, 2004). The site is expected to contain protected species associated with these community types. The proposed action will result in a physical loss of a maritime dune ecosystem. Degradation and functional loss of a rated habitat complex. In 2004 the New York Natural Heritage Program further identified these maritime interdunal swale and maritime dune communities as significant natural communities from a statewide perspective. Additionally~ the report acknowledges that the dune/swale complexes are extremely rare on the north shore of Long Island and states that "any development within the maritime dunes would likely reduce the landscape ranking factor for the maritime interdunal swale, reduce the overall quality of occurrence, and threaten its long term viability"(Edinger, 2004). Policy Standard 6.3 Protect and restore tidal and freshwater wetlands. Comply with statutory and regulatory requirements of the Southold Town Board of Trustees laws and regulations for all Andros Patent and other lands under their jurisdiction 1. Comply with Trustee regulations and recommendations as set forth in Trustee permit conditions. Comply with statutory and regulatory requirements of the State's wetland laws. Comply with the regulatory requirements of the Freshwater Wetlands Act for the protection of mapped freshwater wetlands. Comply with the regulatory requirements of the Tidal Wetlands Act for the protection of mapped tidal wetlands including coastal fresh marsh; intertidal marsh; coastal shoals, bars and flats; high marsh or salt meadow; littoral zones; and formerly connected tidal wetlands. Prevent the net loss of vegetated wetlands according to the following measures. Use the measure resulting in the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative. 1. Avoid placement of fill in or excavation of vegetated wetlands: a. Choose alternative sites which would not result in adverse impacts on wetlands. b. Reduce scale or intensity of development to avoid excavation or fill. c. Choose design alternatives which would avoid excavation or fill. Minimize adverse impacts resulting from unavoidable fill, excavation, or other activities by: a. reducing scale or intensity of use in order to limit inc¢rsion into wetland areas b. designing projects to result in the least degree of adverse wetland impacts Provide compensatory mitigation for adverse impacts which may result from unavoidable fill, excavation or other activities remaining after all appropriate and practicable minimization has been accomplished. a. Restore former wetlands or create new tidal wetlands according to the following priorities: (i) restore former wetlands or create new tidal wetlands in areas adjacent or contiguous to the site (ii) where restoration of former wetlands in areas adjacent or contiguous to the site is not appropriate or practicable, restore former wetlands in close physical proximity and in the same watershed, to the extent possible (iii) where restoration of former tidal wetlands is not appropriate or practicable, create new tidal wetlands in suitable locations as determined by sediment, exposure, shoreline characteristics, and water regime; include consideration of loss of resource values which may exist at the mitigation site Creation of new non-tidal ficeshwater wetlands is generally not suitable for compensatory mitigation for loss of natural wetland. Where wetlands are restored or tidal wetlands created: (i) Provide equivalent or greater area of mitigation wetland. Base the actual area of wetland provided on the following factors: characteristics of the mitigation site, proposed wetland creation or restoration methods and designs, and quality of the wetland restored or created relative to the wetland lost. (ii) Provide equivalent or greater value or benefit to that of the wetland area lost, as defined by class of freshwater wetland, as ranked in 6 NYCRR Part 664 or, tidal wetland zones, as described in 6 NYCRR Part 661. (iii) A lesser area of mitigation wetland may be allowed in cases where the mitigation wetland and its benefits would clearly be a greater value than the wetland lost. (iv) Guarantee success of the compensatory mitigation. Wetland mitigation is considered successful if functional attributes of the wetland have been reached and maintained, including a plant density which approaches the design density. (a) Carry out mitigation in accord with a compensatory plan which details wetland creation or restoration measures. Base compensatory plans on establishment of a natural, self-regulating wetland. (b) Monitor and report on progress of the wetland mitigation according to a prescribed plan. (c) Provide a suitable performance bond or other surety instrument guaranteed to an appropriate agency or organization to assure successful completion of the mitigation. When a series of small, unavoidable wetland losses requires mitigation, combine mitigation projects to create larger contiguous wetland areas whenever the resulting ecological value would be greater than that achieved through pursuing discrete, separate efforts. Protect wetland functions and associated benefits regardless of the availability of compensatory mitigation. (i) Do not fill, excavate, or dredge vegetated wetland areas which: (a) support endangered or threatened species of plants or animals (b) have not been subjected to significant impairment, or (c) are part of a natural resource management area, including refuges, sanctuaries, reserves, or areas designated as Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats, based on wetland values. (ii) Do not fill, excavate, or dredge vegetated wetland areas when the wetland loss would result in significant impairment of the remaining wetland area. (iii) Retain functions and benefits associated with vegetated and non-vegetated wetlands. Provide adequate buffers between wetlands and adjacent or nearby uses and activities in order to ensure protection of the wetland's character, quality, values, and functions. The adequacy of the buffer depends on the following factors: 1. Potential for adverse effects associated with the use. Uses such as those involving hazardous materials, on-site sewage disposal, or mineral extraction have high potential for adverse effects and may require substantial buffer. 2. The nature and importance of the wetland and its benefits. Substantial buffers may be necessary to avoid adverse effects from adjacent or nearby uses based on the nature of the land use and the characteristics of the affected wetland. 3. Direction and flow of surface water between a use and adjacent or nearby wetland. Buffer widths may be reduced in areas where drainage patterns normally do not lead directly to the wetland and where adverse affects on the wetland, other than those due to runoff, are not likely. 4. Buffer width necessary to achieve a high particulate filtration efficiency of surface runoff as determined by vegetative cover type, soil characteristics, and slope of land. 5. Other management measures or design alternatives to protect wetlands from adverse effects where site constraints do not allow sufficient buffer width. Maintain buffers to ensure that adverse effects of adjacent or nearby development are avoided: 1. Maintain buffers to achieve a high filtration efficiency of surface runoff. 2. Avoid permanent or unnecessary disturbance within buffer areas. 3. Maintain existing indigenous vegetation within buffer areas. Restore tidal wetlands and freshwater wetlands, wherever practical, to foster their continued existence as natural systems by: 1. reconstructing lost physical conditions to maximize wetland values, 2. adjusting altered chemical characteristics to emulate natural conditions, 3. manipulating biological characteristics to emulate natural conditions through re-introduction of indigenous flora and fauna, and 4. protecting lands adjacent to wetlands from alterations so as to maximize natural buffers to wetlands. The proposal house is located within the maritime dune system and within 55 feet of a wetland system that comprises the maritime interdunal swale. The on-site disposal system is located 100' from the wetland system but within the maritime dune community. The mandated setback for a structure is 100 feet. Due to lot size and percent cover of the ranked habitats and protective natural features (secondary dune) there is no ability to meet this policy. Policy Standard 6.4 Protect vulnerable fish, wildlife, and plant species, and rare ecological communities. Protect vulnerable fish and wildlife species. 1. Vulnerable fish and wildlife species are those listed in regulation 6 NYCRR Part 182.5 as Endangered Species, Threatened Species, and Special Concern Species. 2. Review existing species records and field survey proposed development sites, at the appropriate times, for the presence of listed species or conditions that meet their habitat requirements. 3. Protect habitat of listed species identified through field surveys or other methods during all stages of their life cycles. Protect 1. vulnerable plant species. Vulnerable species are those listed in regulation 6 NYCRR Part 193.3 as Endangered Species, Threatened Species, Exploitable Vulnerable Species, and Rare Species. Review existing species records and field survey proposed development sites, at the appropriate times, for the presence of listed species or conditions that meet their habitat requirements. Protect habitat identified by the occurrence of a listed species during all stages of their life cycles. There is a known occurrence of endangered and threatened plant species in the immediate vicinity. It is unknown if such species occur on site. Therefore there is no ability to determine if the action meets the above policy and subpolicy. Protect rare ecological communities. 1. Rare ecological communities to be protected include: a. communities that qualify for a Heritage State Rank of S1 or S2; and b. communities that qualify for both a Heritage State Rank of S3, S4 or S5; and an Element Occurrence Rank of A. (See The Natural Coast for an explanation of Heritage State Ranks). 2. Review existing ecological community records and field survey sites potentially affected by proposed development for the presence of rare ecological communities. 3. Protect rare ecological communities. Use appropriate design and development of land and water uses that will integrate or be compatible with the identified ecological community. 4. Use the most up-to-date information available on the structure and the function of rare ecological communities as a factor in determining open space requirements of a project. Due to the size of the lot and percent coverage of protected habitats and natural features described above; there is no abili~, to meet this policy and sub-policies as it relates to this action. Policy Standard 9.2. Protect and provide public visual access to coastal lands and waters from public sites and transportation routes where physically practical. Avoid loss of existing visual access. 1. Limit physical blockage of existing visual access by development or activities due to the scale, design, location, or type structures. 2. Protect view corridors provided by streets and other public areas leading to the coast. 3. Protect visual access to open space areas associated with natural resources. Minimize adverse impact on visual access. 1. Provide for view corridors to the coast in those locations where new structures would block views of the coast from inland public vantage points. 2. Use structural design and building siting techniques to preserve or retain visual access and minimize obstruction of views. 3. Visual access requirements may be reduced where site conditions, including vegetative cover or natural protective features, block potential views. 4. Vegetative or structural screening of an industrial or commercial waterfront site is allowed if the resulting overall visual quality outweighs the loss of visual access. Due to the size of the lot and placement of the home on the highest point (secondary dune) there is no abili~ to meet or further this policy and subpolicies as it relates to this action. Please contact me at (631) 765-1938 if you have any questions regarding the above. 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 Southo]d, NY 11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cot. 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: November 14, 2005 Re: Request for Wetland Permit for Julie Tsai SCTM# 1000-59-1-21.1 JULIE TSAI requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling and driveway. Located: 310 Lake Dr., Southold. SCTM# 1000- 59-1-21.1 The proposed structure is located in "Flood Zone AE Zone Elevation 11". The proposed structure is landward of the Costal Erosion Hazard Line. Public water supply is proposed. 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. It is my determination that the LWRP Consistency Assessment Form submitted to your department dated 9/15/05, is incomplete. A recommendation cannot be given to the Board at this time. Please have the applicant assess if the proposed action will or will not support the LWRP policies and resubmit the form to your department. The most applicable policies are listed below. Note that the property is included within an area identified as geologically and ecologically significant that occurs from the Great Pond Wetland to Goldsmith Inlet in the Town of Southold. Vegetative communities in the area, including the parcel; consists of maritime dune, maritime interdunal swale, and shrub swamp. The York State Natural Heritage Program classifies the maritime dune community as "G4-S3". The "G" designates the Global rank and the "S" the state rank. Globally, the maritime dune community is considered to be "apparently secure globally, though it may be quite rare in parts of its range, especially in the periphery (Edinger et al., 2002). The "S3" rank indicates that the maritime dunes are considered rare in New York with limited range. Similarly, the maritime interdunal swale community is classified as "G3-G4-S2" which designates the community as more rare than the maritime dune community. Note, that the rank of S2 is the highest rank of rarity in New York State (Lamont, 2004). The site is expected to contain protected species associated with these community types. In 2004 the New York Natural Heritage Program further identified these maritime interdunal swale and maritime dune communities as significant natural communities from a statewide perspective. Additionally, the report acknowledges that the dune/swale complexes are extremely rare on the north shore of Long Island and states that "any development within the maritimes dunes would likely reduce the landscape ranking factor for the maritime interdunal swale~ reduce the overall quality of occurrence~ and threaten its long term viability"tEdim,er, 2004). The site is also geologically unique lacking the significant bluff systems that dominant the north shoreline of the Town of Southold. Conversely, the area is comprised of a low primary dune system, interdunal swale and secondary dune systems, a rare geologic community. The area with the proposed site included, contains the largest representation of these above rare community types in the Town of Southold. The ecological significance of this site has qualified it as a listed priority parcel for acquisition within the Town of Southold. As indicated above, the proposed action shall be evaluated as to whether the action will or will not support the LWRP policies. In addition, please have the applicant further identify any proposed best management practices that would further support the below policies, for example, the installation of gutters, leaders, dry-wells, pervious driveway; non-disturbed, non-fertilized buffers, clearing limits etc... The most applicable policies include: Policy Standard 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. 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. 5. Manage development in floodplains outside of coastal hazard areas so as to reduce adverse environmental effects, minimize the need for future structural flood protection measures, or expansion of existing protection measures and to meet federal flood insurance program standards. Policy Standard 5.4 Limit the potential for adverse impacts of watershed development on water quality and quantity. Protect water quality by ensuring that proposed expansion or intensification of existing watershed development results in: 1. protection of areas that provide important water quality benefits maintenance of natural characteristics of drainage systems, and protection of areas that are particularly susceptible to erosion and sediment loss Limit the individual impacts associated with development to prevent cumulative water quality impacts which would lead to a failure to meet water quality standards. Not all homes in the area are serviced by public water. Therefore, please address the following policy standard. Policy Standard 5.5 Protect and conserve the quality and quantity of potable water. Prevent contamination of potable waters by limiting discharges of pollutants to maintain water quality according to water quality classification, and limiting, discouraging or prohibiting land use practices that are likely to contribute to contravention of surface and groundwater quality classifications for potable water supplies. Prevent depletion of existing potable water supplies by limiting saltwater intrusion in aquifers and estuaries, through conservation methods or restrictions on water supply use and withdrawals, and by allowing for recharge of potable aquifers. C Limit cumulative impact of development on groundwater recharge areas to ensure replenishment of potable groundwater supplies. 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. Avoid adverse changes to the Long Island Sound and the Peconic Bay ecosystems that would result from impairment of ecological quality as indicated by: 1. Physical loss of ecological components Physical loss is often the most obvious natural resource impairment to identify. It usually results from discrete actions, such as filling or excavating a wetland or clearing an upland forest community prior to development. 2. 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. 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 likely to occur. Functional loss can also be manifested in physical terms, such as changes in hydrology. Protect and restore ecological quality by adhering to the following measures. 1. Maintain values associated with natural ecological communities. Each natural ecological community has associated values which contribute to the ecological quality of the Town of Southold. These values should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. 2. Retain and add indigenous plants to maintain and restore values of natural ecological communities. a. Protect existing indigenous plants from loss or disturbance to the extent practical. b. Include use of suitable indigenous plants in the landscaping plans for new development and in redevelopment projects where loss or disturbance of existing indigenous plants could not be prevented during construction. 3. Avoid fragmentation of ecological communities and maintain confidors to facilitate the free exchange of biological resoumes within and among communities. a. Each individual resource area should be maintained as a complete contiguous areas to protect the area's natural resource values. Specifically, actions that would fragment the ecological community into separate ecological islands should be avoided. b. Where fragmentation of ecological communities has already occurred, the adverse effects of fragmentation can be mitigated by maintaining or providing connecting corridors to allow exchange of biological resources. Maintain ecological integhty of particular locales by maintaining structural and functional attributes, including normal variability, to provide for self-sustaining systems. Avoid permanent adverse change to ecological processes. Reduce adverse impacts on ecological quality due to development. 1. Reduce adverse effects of existing development. 2. Mitigate impacts of new development. Policy Standard 6.3 Protect and restore tidal and freshwater wetlands. Comply with statutory and regulatory requirements of the Southold Town Board of Trustees laws and regulations for all Andros Patent and other lands under their jurisdiction 1. Comply with Trustee regulations and recommendations as set forth in Trustee permit conditions. B. Comply with statutory and regulatory requirements of the State's wetland Comply with the regulatory requirements of the Freshwater Wetlands Act for the protection of mapped freshwater wetlands. Comply with the regulatory requirements of the Tidal Wetlands Act for the protection of mapped tidal wetlands including coastal fresh marsh; intertidal marsh; coastal shoals, bars and flats; high marsh or salt meadow; littoral zones; and formerly connected tidal wetlands. Prevent the net loss of vegetated wetlands according to the following measures. Use the measure resulting in the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative. 1. Avoid placement of fill in or excavation of vegetated wetlands: a. Choose alternative sites which would not result in adverse impacts on wetlands. b. Reduce scale or intensity of development to avoid excavation or fill. c. Choose design alternatives which would avoid excavation or fill. Minimize adverse impacts resulting from unavoidable fill, excavation, or other activities by: a. reducing scale or intensity of use in order to limit incursion into wetland areas b. designing projects to result in the least degree of adverse wetland impacts Provide compensatory mitigation for adverse impacts which may result from unavoidable fill, excavation or other activities remaining after all appropriate and practicable minimization has been accomplished. a. Restore former wetlands or create new tidal wetlands according to the following priorities: (i) restore former wetlands or create new tidal wetlands in areas adjacent or contiguous to the site (ii) where restoration of former wetlands in areas adjacent or contiguous to the site is not appropriate or practicable, restore former wetlands in close physical proximity and in the same watershed, to the extent possible (iii) where restoration of former tidal wetlands is not appropriate or practicable, create new tidal wetlands in suitable locations as determined by sediment, exposure, shoreline characteristics, and water regime; include consideration of loss of resource values which may exist at the mitigation site b. Creation of new non-tidal freshwater wetlands is generally not suitable for compensatory mitigation for loss of natural wetland. c. Where wetlands are restored or tidal wetlands created: (i) Provide equivalent or greater area of mitigation wetland. Base the actual area of wetland provided on the following factors: characteristics of the mitigation site, proposed wetland creation or restoration methods and designs, and quality of the wetland restored or created relative to the wetland lost. (ii) Provide equivalent or greater value or benefit to that of the wetland area lost, as defined by class of freshwater wetland, as ranked in 6 NYCRR Part 664 or, tidal wetland zones, as described in 6 NYCRR Part 661. (iii) A lesser area of mitigation wetland may be allowed in cases where the mitigation wetland and its benefits would clearly be a greater value than the wetland lost. (iv) Guarantee success of the compensatory mitigation. Wetland mitigation is considered successful if functional attributes of the wetland have been reached and maintained, including a plant density which approaches the design density. (a) Carry out mitigation in accord with a compensatory plan which details wetland creation or restoration measures. Base compensatory plans on establishment of a natural, self-regulating wetland. (b) Monitor and report on progress of the wetland mitigation according to a prescribed plan. (c) Provide a suitable performance bond or other surety instrument guaranteed to an appropriate agency or organization to assure successful completion of the mitigation. When a series of small, unavoidable wetland losses requires mitigation, combine mitigation projects to create larger contiguous wetland areas whenever the resulting ecological value would be greater than that achieved through pursuing discrete, separate efforts. Protect wetland functions and associated benefits regardless of the availability of compensatory mitigation. (i) Do not fill, excavate, or dredge vegetated wetland areas which: (a) support endangered or threatened species of plants or animals (b) have not been subjected to significant impairment, or (c) are part of a natural resource management area, including refuges, sanctuaries, reserves, or areas designated as Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats, based on wetland values. (ii) Do not fill, excavate, or dredge vegetated wetland areas when the wetland loss would result in significant impairment of the remaining wetland area. (iii) Retain functions and benefits associated with vegetated and non-vegetated wetlands. Provide adequate buffers between wetlands and adjacent or nearby uses and activities in order to ensure protection of the wetland's character, quality, values, and functions. The adequacy of the buffer depends on the following factors: 1. Potential for adverse effects associated with the use. Uses such as those involving hazardous materials, on-site sewage disposal, or mineral extraction have high potential for adverse effects and may require substantial buffer. The nature and importance of the wetland and its benefits. Substantial buffers may be necessary to avoid adverse effects from adjacent or nearby uses based on the nature of the land use and the characteristics of the affected wetland. Direction and flow of surface water between a use and adjacent or nearby wetland. Buffer widths may be reduced in areas where drainage patterns normally do not lead directly to the wetland and where adverse affects on the wetland, other than those due to runoff, are not likely. Buffer width necessary to achieve a high particulate filtration efficiency of surface runoff as determined by vegetative cover type, soil characteristics, and slope of land. Other management measures or design alternatives to protect wetlands from adverse effects where site constraints do not allow sufficient buffer width. Maintain buffers to ensure that adverse effects of adjacent or nearby development are avoided: 1. Maintain buffers to achieve a high filtration efficiency of surface runoff. 2. Avoid permanent or unnecessary disturbance within buffer areas. 3. Maintain existing indigenous vegetation within buffer areas. Restore tidal wetlands and freshwater wetlands, wherever practical, to foster their continued existence as natural systems by: 1. reconstructing lost physical conditions to maximize wetland values, 2. adjusting altered chemical characteristics to emulate natural conditions, 3. manipulating biological characteristics to emulate natural conditions through re-introduction of indigenous flora and fauna, and 4. protecting lands adjacent to wetlands from alterations so as to maximize natural buffers to wetlands. Policy Standard 6.4 Protect vulnerable fish, wildlife, and plant species, and rare ecological communities. Protect vulnerable fish and wildlife species. 1. Vulnerable fish and wildlife species are those listed in regulation 6 NYCRR Part 182.5 as Endangered Species, Threatened Species, and Special Concern Species. 2. Review existing species records and field survey proposed development sites, at the appropriate times, for the presence of listed species or conditions that meet their habitat requirements. 3. Protect habitat of listed species identified through field surveys or other methods during all stages of their life cycles. Protect vulnerable plant species. 1. Vulnerable species are those listed in regulation 6 NYCRR Part 193.3 as Endangered Species, Threatened Species, Exploitable Vulnerable Species, and Rare Species. Review existing species records and field survey proposed development sites, at the appropriate times, for the presence of listed species or conditions that meet their habitat requirements. Protect habitat identified by the occurrence of a listed species during all stages of their life cycles. Protect rare ecological communities. 1. Rare ecological communities to be protected include: a. commtmities that qualify for a Heritage State Rank of S1 or S2; and b. communities that qualify for both a Heritage State Rank of S3, S4 or S5; and an Element Occurrence Rank of A. (See The Natural Coast for an explanation of Heritage State Ranks). 2. Review existing ecological community records and field survey sites potentially affected by proposed development for the presence of rare ecological communities. 3. Protect rare ecological communities. Use appropriate design and development of land and water uses that will integrate or be compatible with the identified ecological community. 4. Use the most up-to-date information available on the structure and the function of rare ecological communities as a factor in determining open space requirements of a project. Policy Standard 9.2. Protect and provide public visual access to coastal lands and waters from public sites and transportation routes where physically practical. Avoid loss of existing visual access. 1. Limit physical blockage of existing visual access by development or activities due to the scale, design, location, or type structures. 2. Protect view corridors provided by streets and other public areas leading to the coast. 3. Protect visual access to open space areas associated with natural resources. 4. Use Community Preservation Project Plan funds to obtain scenic easements to protect key scenic vistas from transportation corridors and other public sites. 5. Include public visual access criteria in the Conservation Opportunities Process. Minimize adverse impact on visual access. 1. Provide for view corridors to the coast in those locations where new structures would block views of the coast from inland public vantage points. 2. Use structural design and building siting techniques to preserve or retain visual access and minimize obstruction of views. 3. Visual access requirements may be reduced where site conditions, including vegetative cover or natural protective features, block potential views. Vegetative or structural screening of an industrial or commercial waterfront site is allowed if the resulting overall visual quality outweighs the loss of visual access. Protect visual access to the natural shoreline from the water. 1. Prevent loss of natural vegetation due to excessive land cleating and inappropriate non-native landscaping. Please contact me at (631) 765-1938 if you have any questions regarding the above. 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) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Office Use Only Coastal Erosion Permit Application :~etland Permit Application __ Administrative Perm/t AmendmenffTrans~r/Extension .~-'~Received Application: ~Received Fee:$ [.~ompleted Application I('h [ r-] 10~~ Incomplete SEQRA Classification: Type I Type II Unlisted Coordination:(date sent) \~WRP Consistency Assessment Form f~/I ~]0~~' , ..-GAC Referral Sent: l0 ]/alC~~ ' ~"Date of Inspection: I I I'q I ~ Receipt of CAC Reporti ~ ' Lead Agency Determination: Technical Revie~v: --,~ublic Hearing Held: __Resolution: Name of Applicant Address ~ ~P~EaM Phone Number:( Suffolk County Tax Map Number: 1000 - Property Location: ~olO (provide LILCO Pole #, distance to cross streets, and location) AGENT: ~. ~, (If applicable) Address: 4-~q~ ~/~q~J~-"ro~ ~..~ 3oard of Trustees Applica{ Land Area (in square feet): Area Zoning:. GENERAL DATA Previous use of property: Intended use of property: Prior permits/approvals for site improvements: Agency Date ~ No prior permits/approvals for site improvements. Has any permit/approval ever been revoked or suspended by a governmental agency? v/ No Yes If yes, provide explanation: Project Description (use attachments if necessary):_ of Trustees Applica~n Purpose of the proposed operations: WETLAND/TRUSTEE LANDS APPLICATION DATA Area of wetlands on lot: ~-4~-~-c[ square feet Percent coverage of lot: ~o % Closest distance between nearest existing structure and upland edge of wetlands: ~ feet Closest distance between nearest proposed structure and upland edge of wetlands: ~ feet Does the project involve excavation or filling? No ~ Yes If yes, how much material will be excavated? ~t3 cubic yards How much material will be filled? ~:~ cubic yards of which material will be removed or deposited: I/~ Depth Proposed slope throughout the area of operations: ! : '2.0 Manner in which material will be removed or deposited: 'To ~:~v~'~ ~.~'~ ~tP~ To F__L.£ I0 I feet 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): of Trustees Applica~ 7 COASTAL EROSION APPLICATION DATA Purposes of proposed activity: ~u ~1o~..~i I~l tooI I~ol::F.E fl.. Are wetlands present within 100 feet of the proposed activity? No v~ Yes Does the project involve excavation or filling? No ~/ Yes If Yes, how much material will be excavated? ~JO (cubic yards) How much material will be filled? Manner in which material will be removed or deposited: 'To t:o~ ~. ~J~.~ ~.tL .(cubic yards) R~- q,,~u~eq q Et_e. lO t Describe the nature and extent of the enviromnental impacts reasonably anticipated resulting from implementation of the project as proposed. (Use attachments if necessary) PROJECT ID NUMBER PART 1 - PROJECT INFORMATION 1. APPLICANT / SPONSOR 3.PROJECT LOCATION: Municipality 617.20 APPENDIX C STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM for UNLISTED ACTIONS Only ( To be completed by Applicant or Project Sponsor) 2. PROJECT NAME SEQR 4. PRECISE LOCATION: Street Addess and Road intersections, Prominent landmarks etc -or provide map ~l'~'n..Tt~ '~I~j,.~'Z? ~E.~,T O~= ~o~'r~4w~"ST CO~-~'(L.. 0~: I¢-.~.l~f..(. ~ IS PROPOSED ACTION: [] New [] Expansion [] Modification/alteration 6. DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY: 7. AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED: Initially ~ ' ~ "~ acres Ultimately ~ ° ~ "~ acres 8. WiLL PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER RESTRICTIONS? [---]Yes [] No If no, describe briefly: 9 WHAT IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT? (Choose as many as apply.) C~ Residential ~] Industrial [~ Commercial r-~Agriculture [~ Park / Forest / Open Space ]Other (describe) 10. DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL, OR FUNDING, NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY (Federal, State or Local) ~E'~. ~Yes [] No If yes, list agency name and permit / approval: ~(>UTH-~bI..It~ ~ ~ g) ;[1= 'Tt2-US ~E~. C~. 11. DOES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID PERMIT OR APPROVAL? ]Yes 'J~lNo If yes. list agency name and permit / approval: 12 AS A RESULT OF PROPOSED ACTION WILL EXISTING PERMIT/ APPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATION? E]Yes I CERTIFY THAT THE iNFORMATiON PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE App,cant / Spo,so~ N~r.e ~_~--~-" //¢ '"'/--~/~/ Date: a ion i8 a Costal Aroa, and you aro a Btato ¢omplet~ the Coastal ABSB~Bment Form beforo proceedin~ with this asB*~sment 9 PART II - IMPACT ASSESSMENT (To be completed by Lead Agency) A. DOES ACTION EXCEED ANY TYPE I THRESHOLD IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617.4? If yes, coordinate the review process and use the FULL EAF~ r-~ Yes [~.0 B. WILL ACTION RECEIVE COORDINATED REVIEW AS PROVIDED FOR UNLISTED ACTIONS IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617.67 If No, a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency. C. COULD ACTION RESULT IN ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FOLLOWING: (Answers may be handwditen, if legible) Cl. Existing air quaifly, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, exisfing traffic pattern, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? Explain bdefly: C2. Ural or cultural resources or c , g g , Y g P Y C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species? Explain briefly: C4. A community's existing plans or goals as offic a y adop ed, o a change n use or intensity of use of land Er oiher natural resources? Explain briefly: C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action. Explain briefl'y': C6. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in C1-C57 Explain briefly: C7. Other mpacts ~ ~d ~ ~?n~e? ~ ?? ~ e !h~[ ~an!!~ el ~/p~ o! e~[~? Explain D[?fty! D WILL THE PROJECT HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS THAT CAUSED THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CRITICAL IS THERE, OR IS THERE LIKELY TO BE, CONTROVERSY RELATED TO POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS? If ~/es explain: r-iVes r-l.o! PART Ill - DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be completed by Agency) INSTRUCTIONS: For each adverse effect identified above, determine whether it is substantial, large, important or otherwise significant. Each effect should be assessed in connection with ils {a) setting (i.e. urban or rural); (b) probability of occurring; (c) duration; (d) irreversibility; (e) geographic scope; and (f) magnitude. If necessary, add attachments or reference supporting materials. Ensure that explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse impacts have been identified and adequately addressed. If question d of part ii was checked yes, the determination of significance must evaluate the potential impact of the proposed action on the environmental characteristics of the CEA. Check this box if you have identified one or more pete ngally large or significant adverse impacts which MAY occur. Then proceed directly to the FULl EAF and/or prepare a positive declaration. Check this box if you have determined, based on the information and analysis above and any supporfing documentation, that the proposed actior WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide, on attachments as necessary, the reasons supporting thi~ determination. Name of Lead Agency Date Title of Responsible Officer Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer (If different from responsible off~cer) 59-1-21.2 59-1-23.1 59-1-23.2 N~ 59-5-21 59-1-8 Maria Pile 105 Pennsylvania Ave. Crestwood, NY 10707 John Kassimatis 3735 Kenny's Rd. Southold, NY 11971 Daniel Fanvell 9 Wood Hollow Rd. Smithtown, NY 11787 William Lehner P.O. Box 104 Orient, NY 11957 Lynn Faught 2009 Belmont Rd. NW Washington DC 20009 Gerald Cruise 30 B~rstow Rd. Great Neck, NY 11021~2219 Joseph DeBartol 58 Drohan St. Huntington, NY 11743 Total Postage & Fees ................. City, State. ZIP+4 - 2.30 $ 4.42 Clerk: ~K~O N Certified Fee Return Rec~pt Fee (Endorsernent Required) 0.37 2.30 ~.42 UNIT ID: 0971 Posbnark Here Clerk: 11/02/O5 ~D Postage rE r-~ Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) r-~ Restricted Delivery Fee ,_13 (Endorsement Required) rq Total Postage & Fees $ 0,3? L~IT IDLO~71 ,em'k: 4.42 ~Au '$ ;orPOBoxNo. ~ ~0~3['~ ~tg,..,~.~J I~ CitY, State, ZIP+4 m ~3 Postage rl.J t-3 Cert fled Fee [:3 rl Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) r-1 Restricted Delivery Fee ,_13 (Endersemert Required) I-1 $ 0.~ [~IT ID: 0~71 Postage & Fees $ ~_~ Total ..................................................................... Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted De[ive~J Fee (Endorsement Requ,red) Total Postage & Fees tSent To % ............................. o~o~o~;." ~..~...~o ~ ~ ~....5.~. ......... ~u~,:'~,:~r~,~ ~- ~"~'"'2' ~'~' ~ .............. Postage r-i Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) ~3 Restricted Delivery Fee n (Endorsement Required) Total Postage & Fees 2.30 1i"~ $ 4.42 Ii, lIT I9:0971 Clerk: KKggRO 11102/05 Postage Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee =ndersement Requked) Restricted Delivery Fee Endorsement Required) Total Postage & Fees rpo~x~o, t~ I ~ 0,~ HIT ID= O~rT! 2.~ 1.5 Return Receipt Fee Endorsement Required) Restricted Delive~y Fee .~:~orsement Required} Total Postage & Fees Postage 0,37 Certified Fee Postage (Endomemen, Raguired) Restri~ed Delive~ Fee Postage Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) Total Postage & Fees 2.~0 ~/~ 1.35 orPOBoxNo, lO~ ~)~3 S~{ 4-~J ~J f A AV~' City, State, ZIP+4 Postage Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) Total Postage & Fees 0.37 $ Postage $_ 0._~ IUNIT ID: 0~1 Certifted Fee (E e q oRr ,~Umr t nRt eRCee ~Put, rFe~l~- i.'-~ ( ERned °s ~ir sCet ~de Dn ~l~Veeq~u i rFe'~ / Sent To /~£r'e~C~7~E~ ~'"' ....... ; .......... '~"-~-"-'3~ ............. [o~O~o. Ne. ~ ~ ....................................... City, State, ZIP+4 ................................................ 1 Postage Cedified Fee Return Receipt Fee Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee Endorsement Required) Total Postage & Fees USE Pesmge $ O.p]7~-~IT IB.' 0971 Co.fled Fee Return Receipt Fee ~[3 Here Postmark (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee ZF?[~0 (Endorsement Required) Total Postage & Fees NOTICE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER BOARD OF TRUSTEES, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD In the matter of applicant: SCTM# |ooo-- OSq-- Ool-- YOU ARE HEREBY G1VEN NOTICE: 1. That it is the intention of the undersigned to request a Permit from the Board of Trustees to: 2. That the property which is the subject of Environmental Review is located adjacent to your property and is described as follows: 3. That the project which is sut~ject to Environmental Review under Chapters 32, 37, and/or 97 of the Town Code is open to public comment on: ~f--O ~ I~ ~ b ~ Zoo'g' . 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: .-dtoct~ W'~ MAILING ADDRESS: PHONE#: Enc: Copy of sketch or plan showing proposal for your convenience. Name: PROOF OF MAILING OF NOTICE ATTACH CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPTS Address: John Kessimatis 46 Mulb~n~ Ave, Garden City Ny 11530 ~'/ Daniel Fauville 9 Woodhollow Rd, Smi~htown, NY 11787 ~ Maria Pile, 105 P~nmylvania Ave, Tuchahne, NY 10707 ,/ James Genovese, 591 Bicycle Path, Unit gA. Port Jeff Station NY 11776 Mafia Warble, 955 Lake Drive, Southold, NY 11971 Neal Lovett, Lone Hill Place, Dix Hills, NY 11746 Alexander Orr, 44 Wyatt Road, Gard~a City, NY 11530 Kenneth Richter, 354 Termc~ Ave, garden City, NY11530 John B~mhard, 44 Pine Track, Silver Springs, Oc~l~ FL 34472 Lynn Faugh[ 102 Ludlow Ct, Ca~, NC 275513 ~ Gerald Ouise, 30 Bm~tow Rd, Unit #IF, Great Neck, NY 11021 ~/ John Lmson, 9 Highland Ave, St James, NY 11780 Marlo Disanto, 1919 W 8~St~ Brooklyn, NY11223 2005 Bo~rd of Trustees STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK N'f I t q'b~' , being duly swum, deposes and says that on the ~.~ r~' day of O~.-t ob ay ,20 Or~, deponent mailed a tree copy of the Notice · set forth, in the Board of Trustees Application, directed to each of the above named persons at the addresses set opposite there respective names; that the addresses set opposite the names of said persons are the address of said persons as shown on the current assessment roll of the Town of Southold; that said Notices were mailed at the United States Post Office at .5~,0 ,--~c-t~ ~ ¥ , that said Notices were mailed to each of said persons by (certified) (~~lalq NOTARY PUBLIC-STATE OF NEW YORK No. O1FE611 Z508 Qualified In Suffolk County Commission Expires Octobe~ 25, 2008 Swum to be£ore me this ~ ~ my of 0do¢ . ,20 v Notary Pu.~c ~ TEST ttO~ DATA SURVEY OF LOT 1 ~ SUBDIVISION MAP MADE Fb CONSTANTINE P. GEORGIOP(~L SITUATED AT SOUTHOLD IOWN OF 50UTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK 5.C. TAX No. 1000-59-01-21.1 Joseph A. Ing~ Land S ur v ey'6'r Board of Trustees Application County of S~traSlk ~t~,.q> State of New York x3B~_~. 'T s ~ I BEING DULY SWORN DEPOSES AND AFFIRMS THAT HE/SHE IS THE APPLICANT FOR THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PERMIT(S) AND THAT ALL STATEMENTS 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 AGREES TO HOLD THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD AND THE TOWN TRUSTEES HARMLESS AND FREE FROM ANY AND ALL DAMAGES AND CLAIMS ARISING UNDER OR BY VIRTUE OF SAID PERMIT(S), IF GRANTED. IN COMPLETING THIS APPLICATION, I HEREBY AUTHORIZE THE TRUSTEES, THEIR AGENT(S) OR REPRESENTATIVES(S), TO ENTER ONTO MY PROPERTY TO INSPECT THE PREMISES 1N CONJUNCTION WITH REVIEW OF THIS APPLICATION. - ~t~ure >3 Notary Public, $mc¢ ot ~'4ew York No. 01WO6119560 Qualified in Queens Coun~o Commission Expires Nov 2~,-'~ 'i, .'' " OBoard of Trustees ApplicOn AUTHORIZATION (where the applicant is not the owner) (print owner of property) residing at (mailing address) do hereby authorize ~-~ (Agent) to apply for permit(s) from the Southold Board of Town Trustees on my behalf. Owner ' s/ghature ) APPLICANT/AGENT/REPRESENTATIVE TRANSACTIONAL DISCLOSURE FORM The Town of Southold's Code of Ethics prohibits conflicts of interest on the hart of town officers and emnlovees. The oumose of !his form is to provide information which can alert the town of ~ossible conflicts of interest and allow it to take whatever action is necossarv to avoid same. YOUR NAME: ,,~ ~ 1., I. ~. '~'S~I (Last name, first name,~niddle initial, unless you are applying in the name of someone else or other entity, such as a company. If so, indicate the other person's or company's name.) NAME OF APPLICATION: (Cheek all that apply.) Tax grievance Building Variance Trustee Change of Zone Coastal Erosion Approval of plat Mooting Exemption from plat or official map. Planning Other (lf"Other', name the activily.) Do you personally (or through your company, spouse, sibling, parent, or child) have a relationship with any officer or employee of the Town of Southold? "Relationship" includes by blood, marriage, or business interest. "Business interest" means a business, including a partnership, in which the town officer or employee has even a partial ownership of(or employment by) a corporation in which the town officer or employee owns more than 5% of the shares. YES NO )lete the balance of this form and date and sign where indicated. Title Or Describe the appropriate line scribe in the space provided. The ,r his or her spouse, sibling, parent, or child is (check all that apply): A) the owner of /o of the shares of the corporate stock of the applicant (when the app __.B) the legal or beneficial interest in a non-corporate entity (when the applicant is not a corporation); x_ C) an officer, director, partner, or employe'~ tbe applicant; or ~D) the actual applicant. ~ DESCRIPTION OF RELATIONSHIP ~ , the Town of Southold between yourself (the applicant/agent/representative) and the town officer or employee. Either check Form TS 1 Submitted this day of 'x`, 200 Signature ~x Print Name '~ ]© ' Tow~ of 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" or "no", then the proposed action will affect the achievement of the LWRP policy standards and conditions contained in the consistency review law. Thus~ each answer must be explained in detail~ listing both supporting and non- suooortiw, facts. 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 SCTM# O~q 0ol 9.1. oo! PROJECT NAME The Application has been submitted to (check appropriate response): TownBoard ~ Planning Board [--] Building Dept. [] BoardofTrustees-~ 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) Co) Financial assistance (e.g. grant, loan, subsidy) (c) Permit, approval, license, certification: Nature and extent of action: 'TH ~f,J Location of action: Site acreage: Present l~d use: Present zo~ng cl~sification: 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: :~"U t, I I~ (b) Mailing address: (c) Telephone number: Area Code ( ) ~'1~ ~' "7 "7 ~ ~ ~ q I ~ (d) Application number, 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? D~;C.~ DEVELOPED COAST POLICY Policy 1. Foster a pattern of development in the Town of Southold that enhances comnmnity 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 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 ~ Not Applicable Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 3. Enhance visual quality and protect scenic resources throughout thc Town of Southold. See LWRP Section III - Policies Pages 6 through 7 for evaluation criteria [] Yes [] No [-~ Not Applicable Attach additional sheets if necessary 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 V~ 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 ~-~ Yes ~ No [] 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. ×N Ao~o]' Yes No ot pphcable 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. ~ 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 POLI 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 Peeonie Estuary and Town waters. See LWRP Section III - Policies; Pages 57 through 62 for evaluation criteria. [] Yes ~ No [-~ Not Applicable 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. [] rcs No [] Not Applicable PREPAREDBY g:ol~a-'~ f:,o,p...~.~'r-I p~ TITLE YXO... DATE ,'% Location of action:~ Site acreage: Present land use: Present zoning classification: 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 ( ) ~'~(o ~ "~ '? ~ -~ ~ at I [ (d) Application number, 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?_ I>t~ 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 evaloation criteria. [~Yes ~-~ No L7 NotApplieable Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 2. Protect and ~reserve historic and archaeological res6urces of the Town of Southold. See LwRp Section III - Policies Pages 3 through 6 for evaluation criteria [--] Yes [--] No ~ Not Applicable Developed Coast Policy Policy 1 Answer, Yes 310 Lake Drive is a 1.1 acre residential lot located in the popular Southold Town beach development to the west of Kenney's Road that is formed by Leeton Drive, West Drive, Lake Drive and the paper road Central Drive. Building the proposed house and septic system on this lot will help complete this important beach development thus assisting in fostering an established pattern of local development. This beach development includes many houses on half acre lots and many lots include some wetlands associated with the inteidunal swale. In the case of the subject lot, half of the lot area is wetlands while the remaining 0.55 acres represents one of the few remaining developable assets in this area, which if developed in a manner that does not violate the environment, will help complete this development and yield additional tax revenue to the town. It is proposed to take the following measures to mitigate the impact of bnilding the proposed single family home: · The septic system will be located mainly beyond the 100ft line from the wetlands boundary as identified by EN consultants. · The septic system will meet the full recommendations of the Suffolk County Health Department. · The natural elevation in the septic system area is approximately 7ft and it will be back-filled and covered with local sands to ensure adequate coverage of the septic system. · The lot including the area where the house and septic system is planned is brown silty sand over a layer of pale brown fine to coarse sand. Both possess high percolation rates. In order to further control the rainwater mn-off to the wetlands, the rainwater from the roof will be routed through a gutter and leader system to drywells located at the perimeter oftbe house. · The house will be a two story structure and will be built upon a piled foundation and a crawl space to minimize any excavation. · The driveway will be formed using crushed pervious bluestone or equivalent to ensure that any rainwater will be able to drain directly through the driveway into the underling sand. · The house footprint including the septic system will not exceed 20% of the lot area beyond the wetlands boundary. · The area from the wetlands boundary to the fifty foot line will be left as an un- disturbed buffer zone which will not be subject to any landscaping or soil treatments such as fertilizer application. · The houses to the north are not affected by the house's shadow, while the houses to the south have their primary view facing south across Great Pond. The houses to the East and West benefit from very large side setbacks well beyond the minimum required. · The house will be designed to meet the Southold building dept standards. Location of action:' Site acreage: I d'Z ~ l~< ~_q : Present land use: ~/g,C ~q-r' LAN,b Present zoning classification: 1~ 4, 0 ~ ~ If'an application for the.proposed action has been filed with the Town of Southotd agency, the following information shall be provided: (a) Name of applicant: (b) Mailing address: (c) Telephone number: Area Code ( ) ~-I~o ~' '7 '7 ~ '~ "~' (d) Application number, if any:. Will the action be directly undertaken, require funding, or.approval by a state or federal agency? Yes ~ No ~-q If yes, which state or federal agency? DEVELOPED COAST POLICY Policy 1. Foster a pattern of develoPment in the Town of Southold that enhances comnmnity 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 evalaation criteria. Yes [--] No ~-] Not Applicable Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 2. Protect and preserve historic and archaeological res{~urces of the Town of Southold. See LwRp Section III - Policies Pages 3 through 6 for evaluation criteria ' [--] Yes [-~ No ~ Not Applicable Developed Coast Policy Policy 1 Answer, Yes 310 Lake Drive is a 1 .lacm residential lot located in the popular Southold Town beach development to the west of Kenney's Road that is formed by Leeton Drive, West Drive, Lake Drive and the paper road Central Drive. Building the proposed house and septic system on this lot will help complete this important beach development thus assisting in fostering an established pattern of local development. This beach development includes many houses on half acre lots and many lots include some wetlands associated with the interdunal swale. In the case of the subject lot, half of the lot area is wetlands while the remaining 0.55 acres represents one of the few remaining developable assets in this area, which if developed in a manner that does not violate the environment, will help complete this development and yield additional tax revenue to the town. It is proposed to take the following measures to mitigate the impact of building the proposed single family home: · The septic system will be located mainly beyond the 100ft line from the wetlands boundary as identified by EN consultants. · The septic system will meet the full recommendations of the Suffolk County Health Department. · The natural elevation in the septic system area is approximately 7ft and it will be back-filled and covered with local sands to ensure adequate coverage of the septic system. · The lot including the area where the house and septic system is planned is brown silty sand over a layer of pale brown fine to coarse sand. Both possess high percolation rates. In order to further control the rainwater m-off to the wetlands, the rainwater from the roof will be routed through a gutter and leader system to drywells located at the perimeter of the house. · The house will be a two story structure and will be built upon a piled foundation and a crawl space to minimize any excavation. · The driveway will be formed using crushed pervious bluestone or equivalent to ensure that any rainwater will be able to drain directly through the driveway into the underling sand. · The house footprint including the septic system will not exceed 20% of the lot area beyond the wetlands boundary. · The area from the wetlands boundary to the fifty foot line will be left as an un- disturbed buffer zone which will not be subject to any landscaping or soil treatments such as fertilizer application. · The houses to the north are not affected by the house's shadow, while the houses to the south have their primary view facing south across Great Pond. The houses to the East and West benefit from very large side setbacks well beyond the minimum required. · The house will be designed to meet the Southold building dept standards. Mr. Robert Barratt PE 4295 Vanston Road Cutchogue, NY 11935 Tel 631 875 0275 Fax 631 734 2730 Southold Town Board of Trustees Town Hall 53095 Route 25 PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 November 23, 2005 Subject: 310 Lake Drive, Southold SCTM# 1000-59-1-21.1 Members of the Board of Trustees, Following the recem hearing on the subject application, it is my pleasure to submit the following additional information as requested: 1. Revised answer to Developed Coast Policy, Policyl from "not applicable" to 2. Detailed answer on separate attached sheet in accordance with the instructions. The board also requested that the wetlands boundary be re-flagged, Ms. Tsai is endeavoring to complete this work and I will advise your office when the work is completed. Yours faithfully, Robert Barratt Mr. Robert Barratt PE 4295 Vanston Road, Cutchogue, NY 11935 Southold Town Board of Trustees Town Hall 53095 Route 25 PO Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 October 6th, 2005 Subject: 310 Lake Drive, Southold, NY 11971-7911, SCTM# 1000-59-1-21.1 Members of the Board of Trustees, Following your pre-submission inspection my client, Ms. Julie Tsai, received a letter on 09/24/04 confirming that her plans to build a home at the subject address would be subject to, but not limited to, your approval. Since then she has prepared a suitable topographical survey showing the position of the wetlands as identified by EN Consultants following their "flagging" of the lot. It is now my pleasure to submit my client's application to seek approval to build a single- family house at the subject address. In accordance with the instructions I am enclosing: 1. My client's check in the amount of $250.00 2. Six copies of the application We look forward to hearing from you in due course, Sincerely, Robert Barratt PE OCT - 7 2005 S0tJti]0ld Town Board of Trt:slees Location of action: Site acreage: Present land use: Yg< A~l'r' LAN,b Present zoning classification: If au application for the.proposed action has been filed with the Town of Southold agency, the following information shall be provided: (a) Name of applicaut: :~J ~' I ~-. (b) Mailing address: ~ ~ R.~lqT~..E:E, RoAD I [~IVE~ H-tAD: t4~ IIq~,d[ (c) Telephone nUmber: Area Code ( ) ~-I (o ~- -/ "? ~ -- ~ (d) Application number, 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 develo'pment 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 5u a-77 Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 2. Protect and preserve historic and archaeological res6urces of the Town of Southold. See LwRp Section III - Policies Pages 3 through 6 for evaluation criteria ~-~ Yes ~ No i~ Not Applicable Developed Coast Policy Policy 1 Answer, Yes 310 Lake Drive is a 1.1 acre residential lot located in the popular Southotd Town beach development to the west of Kenney's Road that is formed by Leeton Drive, West Drive, Lake Drive and the paper road Central Drive. Building the proposed house and septic system on this lot will help complete this important beach development thus assisting in fostering an established pattern of local development. This beach development includes many houses on half acre .lots and many lots include some wetlands associated with the interdunal swale. In the case of the subject lot, half of the lot area is wetlands while the remaihing 0.55 acres represents one of the few remaining developable assets in this area, which if developed in a manner that does not violate the environment, will help complete this development and yield additional tax revenue to the town. It is proposed to take the following measures to mitigate the impact of building the proposed single family home: The septic system will be located mainly beyond the 100ft line from the wetlands boundary as identified by EN consultants. · The septic system will meet the full recommendations of the Suffolk County Health Department. · The natural elevation in the septic system area is approximately 7ft and it will be back-filled and covered with local sands to ensure adequate coverage of the septic system. The lot including the area where the house and septic system is planned is brown silty sand over a layer of pale brown fine to coarse sand. Both possess high pemolation rates. In order to further control the rainwater run-off to the wetlands, the rainwater fi.om the roof will be routed through a gutter and leader system to drywells located at the perimeter of the house. · The house will be a two story structure and will be built upon a piled foundation and a crawl space to minimize any excavation. · The driveway will be formed using crushed pervious bluestone or equivalent to ensure that any rainwater will be able to drain directly through the driveway into the underling sand. · The house footprint including the septic system will not exceed 20% of the lot area beyond the wetlands boundary. · The area from the wetlands boundary to the fifty foot line will be left as an un- disturbed buffer zone which will not be subject to any landscaping or soil treatments such as fertilizer application. · The houses to the north are not affected by the house's shadow, while the houses to the south have their primary view facing south across Great Pond. The houses to the East and West benefit fi.om very large side setbacks well beyond the minimum required. · The house will be designed to meet the Southold building dept standards. Eur lng Robert Barratt CEng FIMechE PE (NY & NJ) 4295 Vanston Road Cutchogue, NY 11935, USA Tel and fax, 631 734 2730 robertbarratt~optonline.net August 25th, 2006 Attention Ms. Kendall P. Klett NYSDEC SUNY@STONY BROOK, Building 40 Stony Brook, NY 11790 Subject: Tsai Property, 310 Lake Drive, NY 11971, SCTM# 1000-59-1-21.1 Application # 1-4738-03534/00001 Dear Kendall, Thank you for your letter of August 15, 2006. Please fred attached four copies of the revised plans as requested. We look forward to hearing from you in due course Robert Barratt PE Cc Ms. Julie Tsai (by email) ~ Southold Board of Trustees attention Jill Dohert~ /! PROPOSED CONC. RETAINING WALL DETAIL JUN - ~ 2006 Soetho'.d Tow~ Board of Trustees SURVEY OF LOT 1 SUBDIVISION MAP MADE FOR CONSTANTINE P. GEORGIOPOULOS FILE No. 7844 FILED JANUARY 29, 1985 SITUATED AT SOUTHOLD TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK S.C. TAX No. 1000-59-01-21.1 SCALE 1"=50' MARCH 8, 2005 MAY 20, 2005 ADDED PUEIUC WA~R DATA APRIL 5, 2006 ADDED PROPOSED HOUSE b~Y 28, 2006 REVISED PER TOWN TRUS3EES COMMENTS AREA = 48,991.08 sq. fL 1.125 ac. PROPOSED SEPTIC SYSTEM DETAIL (.OTTO SC~Z3 SEPTIC TANK (1) 5 ~L ~ ~, TEST HOLE DATA A. Ingegno Surveyor PHONE (S,T1)727-2090 Fox (6~1)727-1727 PROPOSED CONC. RETAINING WALL DETAIl SURVEY OF LOT 1 SUBDIVISION MAP MADE FOR CONSTANTINE P. GEORGIOPOULOS FILE No. 7844 FILED JANUARY 29, 1985 SITUA TED A T $OUTHOLD TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK S.C. TAX No. 1000-59--01-2111 SCALE 1"--50' MARCH 8, 2005 MAy 20, 2005 ADDED PUBLIC WATER DATA APRIL 3, 20D6 ADDED PROPOSED HOUSE MAY 28 2006 REVISED PER TOWN TRUSTEES COMMENTS AUGUST 21, 2066 REVISED AS PER N YS.O E.C. LETTER DATED 8/15/06 AREA = 48,,991.08 sq. ft. 1.125 ac. NOTES PROPOSED SEPTIC SYSTEM DETAIL TEST HOLE DATA Josep Land A. Ingegno yor PHONE (651)727-2090 Fax (631)727 1727 NOTES 1. The un-disturbed wetlands buffer zone must be at least 60 feet and the house will be reduced from 50ff long to 45ff, A wrap-around deck to encourage the occupants of the house to use this deck rather than the sand below. 2. House must be built on stilts to minimize drainage issues. 3. The septic tank should be moved as far a possible to the southwest in order to increase the 76ff dimension to approximately 90feet 4, The house will be limited to one storey with an observation deck akin to a widow's walk above the roof, PROPOSED CONC. RETAINING WALL DETAIL SURVEY OF LOT 1 SUBDIVISION MAP MADE FOE CONSTANTINE ?. GEORGIO?OULO$ FILE No. 7844 FILED JANUARY 29, 1985 SITUATED AT SOUTHOLD TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK S.C. TAX No, 1000-59-01-21.1 SCALE 1 ":50' MARCH 8, 2005 AREA = 48,991.08 sq. ff. 1.125 PROPOSED SEPTIC SYSTEM DETAIL TEST HOLE DATA ~- ~D ~ I Jose~ A. Ingegno Surveyor Mr. Robert Barratt PE 4295 Vanston Road Cutchogue, NY 11935 Tel 631 875 0275 Fax 631 734 2730 Southold Town Board of Trustees Town Hall 53095 Route 25 PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 Attention Ms. Jill Doherty- Board Member April 17th, 2006 Subject: 310 Lake Drive Southold NY SCTM# 1000-59-1-21.1 Dear Jill, Thank you for your further feedback last week, As we agreed, I and emailing the portion of Joe Ingegno's survey marked up to show the changes we discussed. I have contacted Mrs. Tsai, and she has advised me that she will attend the April 19th, 630PM meeting in person. Please accept my thanks for all the guidance that you and your fellow board members have provided over the past few months. Yours faithfully, Robert Barratt Cell 631 875 0275 Mr. Robert Barratt PE 4295 Vanston Road Cutchogue, NY 11935 Tel 631 875 0275 Fax 631 734 2730 Southold Town Board of Trustees Town Hall ~- . 53095 Route 25 PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 Attention Ms. Jill Doherty- Board Member April 7th, 2006 Subject: 310, Lake Drive, Southold, NY, SCTM# 1000-59-1-21.1 Dear Jill, Thank you for your feedback, Joe Ingegno has now visited the subject lot and has located the positions of Mr. Marsh's additional wetlands plants, and has both recorded them on his survey (copy attached) and re-visited the lot to position the stakes marking the proposed 1000 sq fi footprint of the house and the leaching pools; ready for the trustee inspection next week. I expect to be in contact next week. Yours faithfidly, Robert Barmtt Cell 631 875 0275 PROPOSED CONC. RI~TAININO WALL DETAIl APR - 7 2006 SURVEY OF LOT 1 SUBDIVISION MAP MADE FOR CONSTANTINE p. GEORGIOPOULOS FILE No. 7844 FtLED JANUARY 29, 1985 SITUATED AT SOUTHOLD TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK S.C. TAX No. I000-59-01-21.1 SCALE 1'=50' MARCH 8, 2005 MAy 20. 2005 ADDED PU8LIC WAI~ DATA AREA = 48,991.08 sq. ff. 1.125 oc. PROPOSED SEPTIC SYSTEM DETAIL ' '"'~-- ~ "' ~..4tL1 TEST HOLE DATA (TEST ~OLE DUC Eh' ~J~J~.fl~.g~lf~ ON A. Ingegno Land Surveyor P~N~ (651)727-20~0 Fax (631)727-1727 % PROPOSED CONC. RETAINING WALL DETAIL ~) SURVEY OF LOT 1 SUBDIVISION MAP MADE FOR CONSTANTINE P. GEORGIOPOULOS FILE No. 7844 FILED JANUARY 29. 1985 SITUA TED A T SOUTHOLD TOWN OF $OUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK S.C. TAX No. 1000-59-01-21.1 SCALE 1 "=50' MARCH 8, 2005 ~AY 20. 2003 ADDF-O PUBUC WATER DATA APRIL 5. 2006 ADOED PROPOSED HOUSE AREA = 48,99t.08 sq. ff. 1.125 Dc. PROPOSED SEPTIC SYSTEM DETAIL ~/*'/~' & · s' i~~ ~s~ '~/~/ Land Surveyor PHON[ (~1)727-20~0 Fox (6.~1)727-1727 g4--4zY[ Mr. Robert Barratt PE 4295 Vanston Road Cutchogue, NY 11935 Tel 631 875 0275 Fax 631 734 2730 Southold Town Board of Trustees Town Hail 53095 Route 25 PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 Attention Ms. Jill Doherty- Board Member February 20, 2006 Subject: 310 Lake Drive, Southold, NY, SCTM# 1000-59-1-21.1 Dear Jill, Thank you for your telephone call of Feb 28, 2006. As promised, the flags for the house position have been moved to accommodate the DEC flagging of the wetlands boundary and a sketch showing the position of the flags is attached. I look forward to your site inspection on March 15th,2006 Yours faithfully, Bob Barratt <%, I I TEST HOLE DATA ,1t1==_,, SURVEY OF LOT 1 SUBDIVISION MAt:' MADE FOR CONSTANTINE P. GEORGIOPOULOS SITUATED AT SOUTHOLD TOWN OF $OUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK S.C. TAX No. 1000-59-01-21.1 SCALE 1 "=50' MARCH 8, 2005 MAY 20, 2005 ADDED PUBUC WATER DATA AREA = 48,991.O8 sq. ff. 1.125 ac. Joseph A. Ingegno Land Surveyor PHONE (631)727-2090 F~x (631)727-1727 Mr. Robert Barratt PE 4295 Vanston Road Cutchogue, NY 11935 Tel 631 875 0275 Fax 631 734 2730 Southold Town Board of Trustees Town Hall 53095 Route 25 PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 Attention Ms. Jill Doherty- Board Member June 5th, 2006 JUN - 5 20]~ ~ Subject: 310 Lake Drive Southold NY SCTM# 1000-59-1-21.1 Dear Jill, I received the formal notification of approval regarding the subject application. I am attaching the final survey based upon your following recommendations: · The minimum distance from the footprint to the wetlands boundary will be at least 60 feet. · The house will be single story and the footprint will bo 45feet long by 20feet wide. · A 10 foot wide cantilevered wrap around deck will be permitted on the north and east sides to encourage the residents to stay out of the 50 foot undisturbed wetlands buffer zone. · Before construction commences a line of hay-bales will be set up at the buffer zone boundary and these will remain after construction until they eventually deteriorate. · The house will be built upon stilts and the gutter and leader system will direct rainwater to drywells. · The ddveway will be composed of crushed pervious stone. · The septic tank will be moved southwest in order to increase the dimension to the buffer from 76feet to 90feet The ground elevation local to the septic system will be raised and contained within a retaining wall to elevation 1 lft 1 in. Please accept my thanks for all the guidance that you and your fellow board members have provided over the past few months. YoursSalthfully, Robert Barratt Cell 631 875 0275 PROPOSED CONC. RETAINING WALL DETAIL (~) SURVEY OF LOT 1 SUBDIVISION MAP MADE FOR CONSTANTINE P. GEORGIOPOULOS FILE No. 7844 FILED JANUARY 29, 1985 SITUATED AT SOUTHOLD TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK S.C. TAX No. 1000-59-01-21.1 SCALE 1 "=50' MARCH 8, 2005 MY 20, 2005 ADDED PUBLIC WA~R DATA APRIL 3. 2006 ADDED PROPOSED HOUSE MAY 28, 2006 REVISED PER TOWN TRUSSES COMMENTS AREA = 48,991.08 sq. ft. 1.125 ac. PROPOSED SEPTIC SYSTEM DETAIL (UOTm SC~L9 TEST HOLE DATA L ............ L ?PROVEI~ ,ARD OF ' '~ JWN OF SOt! " A. Ingegno Surveyor PHOH[ (~St)727-20gO Fax (650727 1727 NOTES 1. The un-disturbed wetlands buffer zone must be at least 60 feet and the house will be reduced from 50ff long to 45ff. A wrap-around deck to encourage the occupants of the house to use this deck rather than the sand below. 2, House must be built on stilts to minimize drainage issues. 3. The septic tank should be moved as far a possible to the southwest in order to increase the 76ff dimension to approximately 90feet 4. The house will be limited to one storey with an observation deck akin to a widow's walk above the roof. PROPOSED CONC. RETAINING WALL DETAIL SURVEY OF LOT 1 SUBDIVISION MAP MADE FOE CONSTANTINE P. GEORGIOPOULOS FILE No. 7844 FILED JANUARY 29, 1985 SITUATED AT SOUTHOLD TOWN OF $OUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK S.C. TAX No. 1000-59-01-21.1 SCALE 1 "=50' MARCH 8, 2005 MAY 20, 2005 ADDED PUDUC WATER DATA APRrL 5. 2006 ADDED PROPOSED HOUSE AREA = 48,991.08 sq. ff, 1.125 ac. PROPOSED SEPTIC SYSTEM DETAIL i riff TEST HOLE DATA Land Surveyor PHONE (631)727-2090 Fox (631)727-t727 PROPOSED CONC. RETAINING WALL DETAIl SURVEY OF LOT 1 SUBDIFI$10N MAP MADE F0!~ CONSTANTINE P. GEORGIOPOULOS FILE No. 7844 FILED JANUARY 29, 1985 SITUA TED A T SGUTHGLD TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YOLK S.C. TAX No. 1000-59-01-21.1 SCALE 1"=50' MARCH 8, 2005 MAY 20, 2005 ADDED PUBUC WATER DATA APRIL 3, 2006 ADDED PROPOSED HOUSE MAY 28 2006 REVISED PER TOWN ]RUSTLES COMMENTS AUGUST 21, 20~6 REV1SED AS PER N.YSDEC LETTER DATED 8/15/06 AREA = 48,991.08 sq. ft. 1.125 oc. PROPOSED SEPTIC SYSTEM DETAIL TEST HOLE DATA PHONE (651)727-2090 Fax (65!)727 1727 :24 427] Neville, Elizabeth RECEIVED From: g.greenheron@verizon.net Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 9:46 PM JUL 1 ? a)06 To: Neville, Elizabeth Subject: Please Forward to Town Board Soulhol4 Tow Cler Dear Ms. Neville: Please forward this letter (below) to each individual member of the Town Board. Thank you. Thomas Rozakis P.O. Box 450 Southold, NY 11971 July 10, 2006 Kendall Klett Robert Marsh, Regional Manager, Bureau of Habitat Region One New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Bldg. 40, SUNY Stony Brook, NY 11790-2356. re: Tsai DEC Application # 1-4738~03534/0002 SCTM # 1000-59-1-21.1 310 Lake Drive, Southold, NY 11971 Dear Ms. Klett and Mr. Marsh, I am writing this letter in opposition to the granting of the permit to Julie Tsai referenced above. The subject parcel is located in what is know]% locally as Kenney's Beach (See map, Attach. P). I have lived in this area for 17 years and have been a member of the Kenney's Beach Civic Association as long. I became familiar with this application through my work on the Preservation Committee of the association. The project site is one that I am most familiar with, as it is with most members of the association and many citizens of Southold. The area has been identified as a maritime freshwater interdunal swale and dunes, and is one of the few remaining on Long Island that offers the viewer a sense of a coastal environment. It is a valuable community resource as noted in Southold's newly adopted LWRP. Due to the efforts of our Civic Association, it was designated a Significant Habitat, Goldsmith Inlet and Beach, by the NYS Department of State, October 2005 (Attach. A) . I will attempt, in this letter, to present the issues as I see them based upon my reading of the DEC's regulations. For the record, I am a layperson and as such am unfamiliar with this type of analysis. I have been employed for the past twenty-five years as a surveyor in the heavy construction industry. Ms. Klett sent me the substantive (as she described them) application materials submitted by Mr. Barrett, which included a letter dated June 5, 2006 and a site survey dated May 28, 2006 (Revised). Mr. Marsh told me in a phone conversation last month that the wetland on the property was a Class I. I have been told in previous conversations with Mr. Marsh and Ms. Klett that the Adjacent Area was defined by the DEC as 100 feet, and it is so written in DEC Regulations Part 663.2(b). I am basing my comments below on that information. According to DEC regulations Part 663.4(d) table, page 22, a septic system (~Introduction of sewage effluent") is "incompatible" in an Adjacent Area of a freshwater wetland. Despite the dimension shown on the survey (91 feet from the westerly wetland) or called out in Mr. Barrett's letter (90 feet) the distance is actually 85 feet. One can derive that number simply by adding up the given dimensions from the northwesterly wetland as flagged: 60 foot setback to house, 20 foot house, and 5 feet to the septic tank. Be 1 that as it may, the septic system and its effluent is clearly within the Adjacent Area as L % defined by the DEC~ As this regulated activity is incompatible, it must meet the weighing standards of Part 663.5(e) for a Class I Wetland. It must also satisfy "a compelling economic or social need that substantially outweighs the loss of or detriment to the benefit(s) of the Class I wetlands" Neither the applicant nor her representative address any of the above weighing standards or show any need, compelling or otherwise, to overcome the incompatibility of the sewage effluent which accompanies this project. As "The burden of showing that the proposed activity will comply with the policies and provisions of the Act and this Part rests entirely on the applicant" (663.5a), and the applicant has not made any argument whatsoever, this permit should be rejected. In the event that this obvious and fatal deficiency in this application is overlooked, I will address the septic system first and then the other regulated activities that are usually incompatible with an Adjacent Area. Before that, however, I will respectfully submit that, due to the reported systemic and closely related hydrologic, botanical and topographic interaction (as variously reported, see Attachments) between wetland and dune in a maritime interdunal swale, there is no Adjacent Area. It is all wetland. Certainly the normal delineation of wetland and upland, linear and progressive differences in elevation, are not apparent here. In looking at the topographic data, there is less than one foot of elevation change between the Kedge of wetlands as flagged" and much of the Adjacent Area, and the elevation changes occur in swales and mounds, not in defined slopes where one could definitively say, this is and will always be upland. Those of us who have lived here long enough have seen many changes in the landscape. A cranberry bog emerged from a low-lying swale just 900 feet from this site. AS Heather Tetrault, Southold's Environmental Technician wrote in her report (Attach. F) of a similar property in the same significant habitat, "it is a dynamic system that is susceptible to ...shifting sand formation." It contains "seasonally flooded depressions that occur in back dunes." The proposed project lies in one of these back dunes. As Ms. Tetrault reports, "According to past aerial photography and historical information the groundwater table experiences seasonal fluctuations and the size of the wetlands increase with the movement of groundwater." Larry Penny, Director of Environmental Protection, Town of Easthampton, in his testimony and letter (Attach. E) to the Southold Trustees, states "The groundwater column rises and falls depending upon the amount of precipitation,..~ut is also tied to sea level because the fresh groundwater is less dense than the saline sea water which underlies it and thus ~'floats" on top of it. Thus, with the sea level rise that we are presently experiencing on Long Island, interdunal swales will expand rather than shrink and we can expect the subject one...to increase in size over the next fifty years." It would be irresponsible to define the wetlands in this habitat in the ~snapshot" approach of this application. I would urge a more synoptic view, more in concert with public policies of long-term conservation. Although I will spend the balance of these comments addressing the regulated activities in the 100-foot DEC defined ~Adjacent Area" it is my primary contention that the project lies within a freshwater wetland. Due to the rarity and fragility of that wetland, as variously reported (see Attachments) the project is therefore completely incompatible and the application should be rejected. SEPTIC SYSTEM - Regulated Activity: ~ Introduction of Sewage effluent" The septic tank lies within 85 feet of the flagged wetland, and by DEC standards is incompatible in the Adjacent Area of a freshwater wetland. Although the reasons for incompatibility are not stated in DEC regulations, in testimony, letters and reports (enclosed) the destructive outcome of placing septic systems in proximity of wetlands is well known. In his affidavit (Attach. G) former President of Southold Trustees A1 Krupski refers to Larry Penny's testimony relating the aggressive plant species that ~thrive on nitrate-rich leaching from septic tanks...that would overrun and wipe out_the rare iris prismatica and sundew that Eric Lamont had seen growing within the interdunal swales." Heather Tetrault, Southold's Environmental Technician, similarly states "nutrient enrichment from...septic systems greatly accelerate invasion by these species (common reed and purple loosestrife) ." 2 As the septic system is considered incompatible, the weighing standards must be applied as per 663.5(e) for a Class I wetland: 1. ~the proposed activity must be compatible with the public health and welfare" The public welfare is defined in 663.5(f) as ~consistency with related federal, state and local laws, regulations and policies." I would maintain that this project is inconsistent with the basic tenets of the New York State Freshwater Wetlands Act of 1975, as codified in the Environmental Conservation Law, which states: Kit is declared to be the public policy of the state to preserve, protect and conserve freshwater wetlands and the benefits derived therefrom, to prevent the despoliation and destruction of freshwater wetlands, and to regulate use and development of such wetlands to secure the natural benefits of freshwater wetlands, consistent with the general welfare and beneficial economic, social and agricultural development of the state." (24-0103) "It shall further be the policy of the state to improve and coordinate the environmental plans, functions, powers and programs of the state, in cooperation with the federal government, regions, local governments, other public and private organizations and the concerned individual, and to develop and manage the basic resources of water, land, and air to the end that the state may fulfill its responsibility as trustee of the environment for the present and future generations." (1-0101,2) I also point out Policy 7 of the New York State Department of State Coastal Management Program (Attach. H), which states: ~SIGNIFICANT COASTAL FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITATS WILL BE PROTECTED, PRESERVED, AND WHERE PRACTICAL, RESTORED SO AS TO MAINTAIN THEIR VIABILITY AS HABITATS. "(Original text capitalized) The project is inconsistent with numerous Town of Southold policies, some of which are: Local Waterfront Revitalization Program - The Southold Town Planning Department has determined that this project is severely and profoundly inconsistent with its newly adopted LWRP. February 9, 2006 report by the Town's LWRP coordinator, Mark Terry. (Attach. J) Southold Town Board Resolution #171, adopted unanimously March 29, 2003 "The subject property (one of 11 referred to above in this letter) and other properties located north of Lake Drive and in the vicinity of Lake Drive, are comprised of a wetland and dune system dominated by ecological communities classified as rare in New York by the New York Heritage Program (NY/FHP) and the maritime freshwater interdunal swale community is currently listed as globally rare. The preservation and protection of this property falls under multiple purposes of the Community Preservation Project Plan, including but not limited to, preservation and protection of open spaces and scenic values, protection of wetlands, protection of significant biological diversity and protection of unique and threatened ecological areas." (Attach. I) Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy - Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement Southold Town Board May 2003 "Freshwater wetlands are equally important ecological communities (as tidal wetlands) scattered throughout the Town. AS summarized in the Master Plan Update (RPPW, 1984) freshwater wetlands can play a major role in flood control, acting as storage basins and reducing flood crests and erosive capacities; wetlands are vital to the hydrologic cycle in that they help to recharge groundwater." (Attach. K, abstract) SEQRA Resolution, Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy, January 7, 2003 Southold Town Board "Whereas, the Board has articulated the goals of the Town in various documents and reiterates here the intent to achieve the Town's vision as identified in the following goals: The Town's goal is to preserve land including open space, recreation and working landscapes. The Town's goal is to preserve its natural environment; to prevent further deterioration of resources and to restore degraded resources back to pristine or near pristine quality." (Attach. L, abstract) Scenic Southold Corridor Management Plan April 2001 (prepared for Southold Town Board by Ferrandino & Associates Inc. and Hutton Associates Inc.) ~... wetlands are productive habitats for a number of different plant and animal species, and therefore are central to the maintenance of Southold's natural environment and the productivity of its marine resources. Perhaps most importantly for the preservation of views, wetlands restrict development, ensuring more effectively than any other regulation that an open vista will remain open." (Attach. M, abstract) County Route 48 Corridor Land Use Study April 1999 (prepared for Southold Town Board by Cramer Consulting Group) "The importance of wetlands can not be overstressed. Any land use decisions in or near wetlands must recognize their importance and reduce or avoid potential impacts to the greatest extent possible." (Attach. N, abstract) 2. "be the only practicable alternative that could accomplish the applicant's objectives and have no practicable alternative on a site that is not a freshwater wetland or adjacent area." Suffolk County has made a standing offer to all owners of all 10 remaining parcels (the eleventh has been preserved by Southold Town and the Peconic Land Trust) to appraise and purchase the lots at market value. To the best of my knowledge, the applicant's investment group owns three of the 10 parcels and has been offered a generous profit on one, has refused appraisal on the subject parcel, and is in tax arrears on the third. The practicable alternative to the applicant's clear real estate speculation objectives on this wetland or adjacent area is to accept these offers of purchase by Suffolk County and speculate in other properties on sites that are not wetlands or adjacent areas. 3. "the proposed activity must minimize degradation to, or loss of, any part of the wetland or its adjacent area and must minimize any adverse impacts on the functions and benefits that the wetland provides." The applicant's letter implies that some design accommodations were made because of the project's proximity to a wetland: a house on ~stilts, "a septic tank 90, not 76 feet from the wetland, a driveway of crushed stone, a septic system within a retaining wall. Although all other regulated activities will be addressed in depth below, nowhere does the applicant or her representative address the proposed chemical intrusion of the septic system into the groundwater of the wetland. Although "stilts" are proposed for the house construction, no piles (~stilts)" have been invented that are inert and that do not leach some harmful contaminants into the surrounding groundwater in which they will be submerged. No methods of driving the piles have been proposed, let alone one that would not interfere with the fragile ecology of the wetland. Furthermore, by simple arithmetic one finds that the retaining wall's footing will be submerged in the groundwater. Not only will the construction of this wall create havoc in the adjacent area and doubtless spread its muck and mire into the wetlands, it will forever be sunk into the groundwater, and concrete and reinforcing bar will leach their byproducts as they decompose and rust, as they always do under these conditions. AS "The burden of showing that the proposed activity will comply with the policies and provisions of the Act and this Part rests entirely on the applicant" (663.5a), and the applicant has not made any mention of these problems, let alone their "minimization" (as required in this final weighing standard) the permit should be rejected. Finally, as stated in DEC regulations, "a permit shall be issued only if it is determined that the proposed activity satisfied a compelling economic or social need that clearly and substantially outweighs the loss or detriment of the benefit(s) of the Class I wetland." Neither the applicant nor her representative make any claim of need whatsoever, compelling or otherwise. Certainly nothing stated (there is none) or implied outweighs the following recommendation by Greg Edinger, Program Ecologist, N.Y. Natural Heritage Program in concluding his October 8, 2004 report (Attach. D) : "Development within maritime dunes would likely reduce the landscape ranking factor for the maritime interdunal swales, reduce the overall quality of the occurrence, and threaten its long term viability." 4 HOUSE BUILT ON STILTS- Regulated activity- "Constructing a residence" The application describes the one-story residence as 60 feet from the flagged boundary of the wetland. This is within the DEC defined Adjacent Area and therefore usually incompatible, as per DEC regulation 663.4. There is no guarantee that if the house is built the applicant will not soon apply and receive a variance to build a second story, with additional septic needs. The Southold Zoning Board of Appeals does not usually consider environmental issues in its dispensations. Please refer above to the problems inherent in incompatible septic systems, scope and intensity of which is undisclosed. The applicant also fails to disclose the type and number of piles (stilts), the method by which they will be driven, and the risks both in the materials and method. To my knowledge there are no known inert pile materials or non-invasive methods for their placement. Without this information it would be impossible to assess the real damage to the wetland and its adjacent area. In failing to address these issues, the applicant fails the DEC requirement that the burden of showing compliance rests entirely on the applicant (663.5a). The construction of the proposed residence fails the three tests required to be applied to "usually incompatible" activities. 1) In not providing the necessary information, one can only assume, and has the right to assume, that the project is incompatible with presel-vation, protection and conservation. Certainly nothing has been offered by the applicant to overcome the assessment of Eric Lamont, who summarized in his report dated August 2004 (Attach. B): "The strictest environmental laws and codes should be enforced to preserve the integrity of these delicate and sensitive ecological communities," and "Fragmentation of this unique maritime ecosystem will result in negative environmental impacts." 2) The applicant has avoided all discussion of the degradation of the wetland due to the proposed regulated activity. Presumably the hay bales would protect the groundwater from the undisclosed pile material. The 60 foot setback offered does not address the concerns raised by Larry Penny, who states in his letter on a related, nearby parcel: ~...standard setbacks that provide protective buffers from wetlands in more inland areas where the line between "wetland" and ~upland" is generally sharp, don't offer as much protection in interdunal swale areas...Developmental events produce short-term and long-term chronic disturbances .... and the change is progressive and deleterious to the natural system." 3} The regulated activity is inconsistent with State and Local conservation and preservation policies, as enumerated above, in the section regarding the septic system. As for the weighing standards that are not addressed by the applicant and the compelling social and economic needs that are not offered, please refer to the previous section on the septic system. SEPTIC SYSTEM RETAINING WALL A~ND RAISED SEPTIC SYSTEM- Regulated Activities- "Constructing a residence or related structures or facilities" ~Grading .... Filling" The raised septic system proposed will involve a minimum of 97 cubic yards of excavation at about 10" below groundwater elevation to build the 190 foot long, 3' wide footing. This is based on the plan view and section on the survey showing the minimum distance from the ground elevation to bottom of footing as ~2'6", the spot elevation of 5.5 at the northwest corner of the septic system, and the test hole showing groundwater elevation at El. 3.8. This is a minimum if the footing is stepped, (not shown) to accommodate the higher ground elevations at the road. As shown it would involve an additional 60 cubic yards of excavation. In the 17 years I have witnessed construction methods on the North Fork I have never seen sheeting or pumps used in a project such as this, and certainly the applicant makes no such proposal. Without the use of expensive and rather sophisticated techniques such as these it is my experience that excavations at or below groundwater quickly become uncontrollable mired pits. A representative mud hole with flooding can be seen in the attached photo (Attach. O) of similar construction nearby on West Drive (See map Attach. P). This house is mentioned, in fact, in Greg Edinger's report. (I do not believe it is coincidental that large concentrations of purple loosestrife and phragmites are directly across the road from this new septic system.) 5 The construction process of this proposed retaining wall alone will cause massive trauma to the wetland. The concrete footings and reinforcing bar will be immersed in the groundwater for years, cracking (as they always do) and leaching their contaminants. The applicant offers no credible explanation or minimization of the short term and long-term effects of these regulated activities (~Constructing" and "Gradlng"). The applicant merely proposes hay bales as a solution. The approximately 2075 square foot septic area will then require an additional fill of approximately 325 cubic yards (not including the original footing excavation requiring backfill and compaction). The applicant does not address this regulated activity ("Filling~) in any way. It is the burden of the applicant to show that these regulated "proposed activities comply with the policies and provisions of the Act and this Part (663)." Little or no attempt has been made by the applicant to satisfy this requirement. Please refer to previous sections of this letter concerning the incompatible nature of this project with the tests, weighing standards, and lack of compelling social and economic reasons. Eric Lamont reports that the maritime swales and maritime dunes are "closely and inseparably intertwined with each other. They are connected together by an intricate and delicate balance between macro- and microscopic organisms and abiotic (non-living) factors of the environment such as hydrology, soil characteristics, and micro-habitats created by blow-outs in the undulating systems of dunes." It seems impossible to reconcile Mr. Lamont's description with the notion of an Adjacent Area. The construction of a retaining wall with its requisite excavation below groundwater, grading and filling would threaten the very wetland itself. This, of course, applies to the discharge of sewage effluent from this system, which is considered ~incompatible" by DEC standards, as discussed above. No minimization has been offered by the applicant that would sufficiently limit the degradation of this fragile and globally rare wetland. AS is the case with all the other incompatible and usually incompatible activities proposed in this project, the applicant has failed to divulge a need that substantially outweighs the loss of or detriment to the benefits of this Class I wetland, or any need whatsoever. I respectfully submit that science, public policy and state regulation overwhelmingly argue against the granting of this permit. Sincerely, Thomas Rozakis Denise M. Sheehan, Commissioner, NYS DEC Peter A. Scully, Region One Director, NYS DEC Edward P. Romaine, Suffolk County Legislator Scott Russell, Southold Town Supervisor Southold Town Board Me~ers Patricia Finnegan, Southold Town Attorney Resler, Kiernan, Mildner, NYS DOS Denise Civiletti, Suffolk Times Attachments (to DEC and by request) A. Goldsmith Inlet and Beach, NYSDOS Coastal Habitat Assessment B. Botanical Report, "Great Pond Wetlands & Dunes," Eric Lamont, Ph.D. C. Curriculum vitae, Eric Lamont, Ph.D. D. NY Natural Heritage Program Review of Natural Communities at Great Pond Wetlands and Dunes, Greg Edinger E. Letter to Southold Town Trustees, Larry Penny F. Natural resource report, 1300 & 1460 Lake Drive (Mazzanobile Permit), Heather Tetrault, Environmental Technician, Town of Southold G. Affidavit, Albert Krupski, (former) President Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold, Mazzanobile v. Southold Town Trustees, Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Suffolk, Index # 05-14509 6 Policy 7, NYS Department of State Coastal Management Program I. Southold Town Board Resolution # 171 J. Inconsistent LWRP Determination, Mark Terry, Southold LWRP Coord. K. Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy- Draft Environmental Impact Statement, prepared for Southold Town Board (abstract) L. SEQRA Resolution, Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy (abstract), Southold Town Board M. Scenic Southold Corridor Management Plan (abstract), prepared for Southold Town Board N. County Route 48 Corridor Land Use Study (abstract), prepared for Southold Town Board O. Photograph of flooding at above ground septic system, Lake Drive and West Drive, Southold P. Key map, "Sample Land Preservation Target Map" NORTH FORK E:N¥1RONME:NTAL COUNCIL, INC. 12700 Main Road, PO Box 799, Mattituck, NY 11952 Tel.: 631-298-8880 Fax: 651-298-4649 July ~c~0°(~g°nline'net www.nfecl.org To the Members of the Southold Town Board: We, and all in the Town, have suffered an improper derision by the Trustees to approve a wetland permit for the construction of a house at 310 Lake Ddve, in the Kenney's Beach area. The Trustees' derision violates the legislative intent of Town Law in at least three respects. It allows itself undue discretion in reducing the minimum setbacks required from structures to wetlands. The Trustees acted as if they were a board of appeals. There are no criteda for mitigation in Chapter 97, their actions appear to compromise the intent of Chapter 97 and the Town's environmental quality has suffered for it. The Board of Town Trustees, a creation of the Town Board and election, jeopardized a significant preservation effort designed to preserve the rare Groat Pond Wetlands and Dunes. As each petition is disposed in this way they negotiate an ever weaker case law 3osition with respect to the intent of the code. It appears that the Board did not utilize the services of their enwronmental technician. The DEC, implementing Article 24 and 25, requires certified skills. The environmental technician is paid by the public to investigate applications such as this, but the Board, with lay environmental credentials, chose to rely on their own largely uncorroborated judgment. Their decision ignores the LWRP Coordinator's determination that the permit application was inconsistent with the Town's LVVRP. This disregard of the newly enacted Consistency Review Law, Chapter 95, threatens the Town's ability to advance its long term planning goals as well as its ability to receive State LWRP grants. At the very least, the Beard of Town Trustees seems to be working at cross-purposes with the Town's preservation initiatives. Although there are possible legal and administrative remedies available in our opposition to this Trustee derision, we feel it is time the Town Board put some limits on the Board of Town Trustees power to waive or alter specifications in the Town Code. We suggest a combination of limits on how far the Board of Town Trustees can go in their dispensations, inclusion of criteda for mitigation of town specifications and insertion of the Town Board as an appeals board as in Chapter 37. We trust that the Town Board will agree with us that this action and others of its type by the Trustees must be addressed. We look forward to hearing from you in the very near future with your action plan to deal with this destructive derision. Sincerely ....... Mike Domino c/ President North Fork Environmental Coundl cc: James King a non-profit organization for the preservation of land, sea, air and quality of life printed on C~ recycled paper Neville, Elizabeth From: Finnegan, Patricia Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 1:42 PM To: Neville, Elizabeth Subject: FW: Tsai Permit, TOwn Trustees ..... Original Message ..... From: g'greenheron~verizon.net [mailt°:g.greenheron@verizon.net] Sent: Man 6/12/2006 12:56 AM To: Finnegan, Patricia Cc: Corcoran, Kieran Subject: Tsai Permit, Town Trustees -T-~ Page RECEIVED $outhohl Town Clerl June 12, 2006 To the Members of the Southold Town Board: We thank you for the interest Some of you have shown in our preservation efforts. Recently we have suffered a setback, but more importantly, we believe the Town has suffered more. We are referring, of course, to the recent decision by the Trustees to approve a wetland permit for the constructinn ora house at 310 Lake Drive, in the Kenney's Beach area. The Trustees' decision flouts Town Law/n at least two respects. First, the Trustees have expressed Undue discretion stated by Trustee Doh. erty in the Suffo · in reducing the minimum setbacks required from structures to wet/ands. ~ils ctlcr~igohn oWre~ger;uetl~oz}~tvTorurstee Dohe~y ~m~a teisn°cnenMaM~ny c21~e;TM has to b? a balance between "to-e-- · As ty°IaBoardofAnneal~ .... pr°pertyrtghtsareaniss v p nyrtg..htsandsavin the/ ,, ...... ~ ne only alscretion all,,,,,-a ~.-..-,- ue, we do not bebeve the g and. and the law implies that the Trustees may be more restrictive n v_,~,~ oy chapter 97 sneaks ~ .... . Trustees have the servlces°ftheu'EnvtronmentalTech,;..;~_ ~ . . , m/ess, lnthi ,~o.-~= , ~ · .~ '"~"vtr°nmentalconstderations, fear,' ' ' ~-*,, ~vamanons. The Trustees, we -,r~,man[ ann qualifications for ,-o~. ~.s.T. es-?en fat/ed to utilize the have put in harm's way one of the more ambitious Community preservation efforts we can recall, the plan to save the globally rare Great Pond Wet/ands and DUnes from the bulldOzer. Second, their decision Completely ignored, by failing to address, the LWRP Coordinator's determination that the permit application was absolutely inconsistent with the Town's Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. Their Utter disregard of the newly enacted Consistency Review Law, Chapter 95, threatens the To ' receive State LWRP grants wn s ab/Ii t - Town's recent preservation lmtlatlves, not to mention the Town's ~, -, o,~vere cross-purposes w;,h ,E .,. o ,,,st as its ablbty to ,-~ me ZOWn Board and with the c/early stated environmental policies of the last two decades. Although we have every intention of exercising all possible legal and a decision, we feel it is time the Town Board stepped up and enforced the Ttod~wrm, ~stratwe remedies m our o os~t that this serious and irresponsible act from you m the veto .... ,: ~ . by the Trustees mu ~.~ _.~= .. wn s laws. We t ~, *~ .... ~P ton to thru Trustee -, ,-uun plan to deal with thi° a ..... ~- ouenuous manner. W,~ t.,~ ,- [,, agree with tls Sincerely, Pat Poppe President Kermey's Beach Civic Association L/Il/an Ball Cha/rwoman Thomas Rozakis Committeeman Great Pond Wetlands and Danes Preservation Committee, KBCA '2006 Neville, Elizabeth From: Sent: To: Subject: June 12, 2006 g.greenheron@verizon.net Monday, June 12, 2006 12:54 AM Neville, Elizabeth Please distribute to To~n Board RECEIVED JUN 12 2006 %uthold ]'own Cler To the Members of the Southold Town Boa d: ~- ~ We thank you for the interest som~ o~yoh~have shown in our preservation efforts. Recently we have suffered a setback, but more importantly, we believe the Town has suffered more. We are referring, of course, to the recent decision by the Trustees to approve a wetland permit for the construction of a house at 310 Lake Drive, in the Kenney's Beach area. The Trustees' decision flouts Town Law in at least two respects. First, the Trustees have expressed undue discretion in reducing the minimum setbacks required from structures to wetlands. As stated by Trustee Doherty in the Suffolk Times on May 25, ~It has to be a balance between property rights and saving the land." Although we agree with Trustee Doherty that in certain cases property rights are an issue, we do not believe the Trustees have the discretion or the authority of a Board of Appeals. The only discretion allowed by Chapter 97 speaks to environmental considerations, and the law implies that the Trustees may be more restrictive, not less. In this particular decision the Trustees even failed to utilize the services of their Environmental Technician, despite her specific assignment and qualifications for such evaluations. The Trustees, we fear, have put in harm's way one of the more ambitious community preservation efforts we can recall, the plan to save the globally rare Great Pond Wetlands and Dunes from the bulldozer. Second, their decision completely ignored, by failing to address, the LWRP Coordinator's determination that the permit application was absolutely inconsistent with the Town's Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. Their utter disregard of the newly enacted Consistency Review Law, Chapter 95, threatens the Town's ability to advance its long term planning goals as well as its ability to receive State LWRP grants. Some of the Trustees seem to be working at severe cross-purposes with the Town Board and with the Town's recent preservation initiatives, not to mention the Town's clearly stated environmental policies of the last two decades. Although we have every intention of exercising all possible legal and administrative remedies in our opposition to this Trustee decision, we feel it is time the Town Board stepped up and enforced the Town's laws. We trust that the Town Board will agree with us that this serious and irresponsible act by the Trustees must be addressed in the most strenuous manner. We look forward to hearing from you in the very near future with your action plan to deal with this destructive decision. Sincerely, Pat Poppe Thomas Rozakis President Committeeman Kenney's Beach Civic Association Committee, KBCA Lillian Ball Chairwoman Great Pond Wetlands and Dunes Preservation Cusack, Heather From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Lilliah Ball [ballstudio@thing.net] Monday, May 15, 2006 11:44 AM Cusack, Heather pegdickerson@optonline.net; Brownell Johnston Impodant- regarding # 21.1 Please Distribute to each Trustee: May 14,2006 Dear Southold Town Board of Trustees: Please consider the following points when you approach the decision on the TSAI permit ( # 1000-59-01 21.1) 1. Suffolk County has made some low offers to landholders within the wetlands, due to appraisals which take into consideration the current LWRP protections. The County Appraisal Review Board seems to think this type of land is unbuildable based on their research and comps. Landowners such as TSAI and others think the land is more valuable than appraised because they think the trustees will allow them to build on it. It is a Catch 22 situation. We can preserve all the properties only if the Trustees send a clear message that they will uphold the LWRP. 2. We believe the TSAI families have submitted this permit, not to build a family home, but for speculation. They have at least six other properties on the North Fork, including one on Great Pond which has been up for sale (through Mr Barratt) for the past year at a high price. If they are interested in living in our area, why wouldn't they keep that house in favor of building a tiny cabin in the wetlands? 3. This is not a hardship case. While their lot #21.4 seems to have reverted for back taxes and may not be redeemed, this seems to be due to difficulties in communication. Since our first meeting last August with Julie Tsai, we have experienced similar difficulties getting in touch with them about the different contracts on the available lots. They have recently rejected a VERY reasonable offer from Suffolk County for the # 21.3 property, which would allow a SUBSTANTIAL profit on their 4 year investment. You have seen that we have an ongoing commitment and we will continue to pursue all options for preservation. As a group of property owners, we certainly respect property rights. However, we have proved that this property is globally rare and clearly falls within the Trustee's mandate to protect the environmentally sensitive areas of Southold Town. Sincerely, Lillian Ball, chair Great Pond Wetland Preservation Committee Kenney's Beach Civic Association PO Box #881 SOUTHOLD, NY 11971 P.O. Box 450 Southold, NY 11971 April 26, 2006 g.~eenheron _(t~verizon.net ·lmes King, Trustee President Peggy Dickerson, John Holzapfel, Jill Doherty, Dave Bergen Trustees Town of Southold Southnld, New York MAY - 8 2O06 Re: Tsai Wetland Application Public Hearing of April 18, 2006 Dear President King and Trustees, During the public hearing for the Tsai wetland permit last week I attempted to submit former President Al Krupski's Affidavit in defense of the Trustees' action last year that denied the Ma~anobile wetland permit application. This affidavit is part of the response papers of the Article 78 suit Mazza~obile v. Town of Southold. My intention was to show the necessity of consistency in preservation of the Tsai parcel, as it is in the identical N.Y. Dept. of State significant habitat as the Maz?anobile property. As you recall you and Mr. Johnston called me up and handed me back the affidavit, saying, "We cannot accept this." Later someone told me that Mr. Johnston had told her and others that the affidavit was improperly obtained and therefore inadmissible. Attached please find a letter of transmittal dated March 1, 2006 fi.om the Southold Town Assistant Attorney. It documents my February 23, 2006 FOIL request for said Affidavit. I received thc Town's entire response via U.S. Mail a few days later. Accordingly, I am sending the Affidavit back to you, under separate cover, and I fully expect that it will be included in the public record of the hearing, as there is no b~s~s for its exclusion. It is regret'robie that Mr. Johnston failed to show me the simple courtesy of asking me how I obtained this public document. If he had, he would have spared me the public embarrassruent of being accused of impropriety or worse. I am also at a loss to explain another one of Mr. Johnston's actions. Before I could start my testimony he took one look at my letter, a copy of which I handed to you, and asked me if I really had to read it, if the reporter could just transcribe it into the record. This was the only time during the entire evening that he or any of the Trustees attempted to restrict someone's testimony even before they began. I had, I believe, one of the best- prepared statements of the evening and had rehearsed it to last less than the five-minute limit. I do not understand why I was singled out in this fashion. I acquiesced to his request to "summarize" my letter out of deference to the Trustees, but I feel the audience and the Trustees were the poorer because of his exU'aord'mary action. Earlier that evening I witnessed Rob Hermann volunteer to explicate an issue with which he was not even involved. The audience was regaled with a hypothetical and idiosyncratic dissertation on County inst~ctors, excavation methods and sand. Mr. Johnston and the Tmstecs listened dutifully for over five minutes. I would have at, p~eciated the same courtesy, if not indulgence, on an issue of much greater importance, i.e., the preservation of a globally rare ecosystem. On a separate and personal issue, 16 days ago I e-mailed Lauren Standish a request for information (see attached). This request regards the need to transfer and renew a Trustee issued wetland permit, which expires on May 26, 2006. I have yet to receive a response~_J As time is of the essence, I would appreciate it if you could expedite my request. Preservation q~mm~)~ee Keuney's Beac'h-Oigdc Association cc: Patricia Finnegan, Town Attorney PATRICIA A. FINNEG, Id~I TOWN ATTORNEY patricia, finnegan~,~town.southold.ny.us KIERAN M. CORCORAN ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY kieran.corcoran@town.southold.ny.us LORI HULSE MONTEFUSCO ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY lori.montefusco@town.southold.ny.us SCOTT A. RUSSELL Supervisor Town Hall Annex, 54375 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1939 Facsimile (631) 765-6639 OFFICE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY TOWN OF SOUTHOLD March 1, 2006 Mr. Thomas A. Rozakis P.O. Box 450 Southold, NY 11971 RE: FOIL Request Dated February 23, 2006 Dear Mr. Rozakis: This letter is in response to your FOIL request dated February 23, 2006, which seeks: "Southold Town's full response (legal) to N.Y. State Case #14509/2005, Mazzanobile v. Town of Southold (Trustees). Please provide copy & mail to below address." Enclosed please find copies of opposition papers filed on behalf of the Town in response to your FOIL request. If you have any questions regarding the enclosed, please feel free to call me. Assistant Town Attorney KMC/Ik Enclosures cc: Members of the Town Board (w/o encls.) Elizabeth Neville, Town Clerk (w/o encls.) Patricia A. Finnegan, Esq. (w/encls.) SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK In the Matter of the Application of GREGORY MAZZANOBILE and BEATRICE MAZZANOBILE, Petitioners, Index No.: 05-14509 AFFIDAVIT For a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules -against- BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, Suffolk County, New York, Respondent. MAY - 8 2006 STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) ALBERT KRUPSKI, JR., being duly sworn, sets forth, under the penalty of perjury, that the following is true and correct: I. I am the president of the BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ("the Board") and have held that position since 1991. As such I am fully familiar with the facts and circumstances of the instant petitioners' original application for a wetlands permit (permit # 5631) to construct a residential home, with a pool, deck, and septic system, on premises known as 1300 and 1460 Lake Drive, Southold, New York and with all subsequent applications to amend the permit. 2. I submit this affidavit in opposition to the instant proceeding, which seeks to annul and vacate the April 20, 2005 resolution of the Board that denied the September, 2004 amendment to the permit and that revoked the permit in its entirety. 3. Petitioners originally applied to the Board for a wetlands permit in May of 2002. They wished to construct a house with a swimming pool, deck, and septic system. 4. Over the course of the application process (including the public hearings) the members of the Board personally inspected the property on several occasions. This was due to the Board's desire to see how petitioners' proposal might impact a cranberry bog the Board had observed in the northeastern section of the property. Chapter 97 of the Town Code sets out the requirements and standards the Board is to follow in granting a wetlands permit. In 2002 Chapter 97 required septic systems to be set back 100 feet from wetlands and standard structures, such as houses, to be set back 50 feet. 5. During its inspections the Board also noted the presence of a large are of wetlands in the southwestern portion of the property. However, while the Board recognized its bog-like character as constituting wetlands, protected by the Town Code, it otherwise appeared to be an ordinary bog, not particularly unique or rare. 6. Over the course of the four (4) public hearings on petitioners' original application, the petitioners revised their application various times. By the time of the final public hearing on September 25, 2002, petitioners' plans showed the septic system 100 feet from the cranberry bog but did not show what the setback was from the southwestern wetlands. The Board did not require the petitioners to indicate the setback from the southwestern wetlands because the Board had no information that they were in any way unique, rare, or sensitive. Consequently, the Board focused its attention on the potential impact of the septic system only on the cranberry bog. The setbacks from the house, deck, and pool, were generally 50 feet. 7. At no time during the course of the original application was evidence presented to the Board that any of the wetlands on petitioners' property were in any way particularly rare, 2 unique, or vulnerable, or supported rare plant species. At the first public hearing, a local resident made a vague comment that someone "from Comell" told him the cranberry bog was unusual but only because they were wild or natural cranberries. 8. And, while members of the Board did observe that it was a bit unusual for the cranberry bog to exist, essentially, as an island, with very little vegetation around it, that was the extent of any special character of the bog of which the Board was aware. But the Board had no idea that the cranberry bog was actually the result of a maritime freshwater interdunal swale or that such a swale was both state and globally rare and considered very vulnerable. 9. Because this original application showed 50-foot setbacks of the house and a 100- foot setback of the septic system from the cranberry bog, the Board voted to grant a wetlands permit (permit # 5631) to petitioners on September 25, 2002, provided they moved the pool closer to the house. Plans conforming to what the Board had approved on September 25, 2002 were not submitted to the Board until January, 2004, and were approved on January 21, 2004. 10. Before the petitioners could build the house, they also needed to obtain permits from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). Apparently, because the location of the septic system (approved by the Trustees) was too close to neighbors' wells, the petitioners proposed moving it to the southern section of their parcel, within 50 feet of the southwestern wetlands. 11. Because they were proposing something different than what the Trustees had approved, the petitioners were required by the Town Code and the permit itself to get an amendment to the permit. They applied for the amendment on or about June 27, 2003. 12. Because the petitioners were proposing locating the septic system closer to the southwestern wetlands than the Board had earlier approved, the Board wanted Mark Terry, the Town's Senior Environmental Planner, to inspect the site and see if the proposed amendment would adversely impact the wetlands. He did so on November 18, 2003 and issued a report to the Board. 13. In his report he identified both the southwestern wetlands and the cranberry bog as being products of something called maritime freshwater interdunal swales. Such "occurrences," he said, are listed by the New York Natural Heritage Program as state and globally rare and vulnerable. This was the first time the Board was aware that the wetlands on the property were in any way rare or unique. 14. Not only did Terry identify these interdunal swales as state and globally rare (as well as locally), he recommended that the amendment be denied and that the maximum setbacks pursuant to the Town Code be enforced because the proposed location of the septic system endangered the integrity of the southwestern wetlands. 15. This information was not only new to the Board, but surprising and very puzzling, especially considering Terry recommended that the maximum setbacks be enforced. Consequently, the Board issued a formal memorandum to Terry on November 21, 2003, demanding to know why these interdunal swales needed enforcement of the full setbacks. 16. Terry further explained the state and global rareness and vulnerability of interdunal swales and went on to say that not only was petitioners' property adjacent to the swales, but was most likely part of a larger interdunal swale system. Because of their state and global rareness and sensitivity to development, Terry repeated his recommendation that the 4 Board enforce the maximum setbacks. The petitioner, he suggested, should seek resolution through the SCDHS. 17. The Board found Terry's findings persuasive, and the Board voted to deny the amendment at a public hearing on December 17, 2003. 18. In February, 2004 Chapter 97 of the Town Code was substantially revised. Among other things, it now required houses and similar structures to be set back 100 feet from wetlands, the same as septic systems. It also set out clearer and stronger goals of protecting the environment on behalf of all the residents of the Town of Southold. It required the Board to take a hard look at all proposed developments, especially those that might impact the diversity of plant and other wildlife, existing vegetation, and that might result in the loss or degradation of critical wildlife and plant habitat. 19. Wetlands permits granted by the Board have a two-year limitations period, meaning that the project that was approved in the permit must be completed within that two-year period. Petitioners' permit, granted on September 25, 2002, was, therefore, set to expire on September 25, 2004. By July, 2004 the petitioners still did not have permits from the DEC or the SCDHS. The Board received a letter dated July 14, 2004 in which the petitioners requested a one-year extension to their permit in order to have time to get approval from the DEC. 20. The Board granted the one-year extension, but only for the narrow grounds set out in the July 14 letter--so that petitioners would have time to get the DEC permit. Because the petitioners were seeking a one-year extension specifically so they could obtain DEC approval, the Board did not conduct any kind of environmental review of petitioners' project. Such review was also not necessary because the petitioners were not proposing anything different from what the Board had approved on September 25, 2002. In other words, nothing happened to trigger any kind of review. 21. Consequently, while the revised Chapter 97 was in effect at this time, the Board did not review any aspect of petitioners' proposal under it. A claim that the Board granted the extension based on any kind of environmental review, especially review under the revised Chapter 97, is false. 22. When the Board became aware that the DEC had granted petitioners a permit, it advised the petitioners in a letter dated September 1, 2004 that, if the DEC had approved plans that were in any way different than what the Board had approved, they would need to seek an amendment to their Trustees permit. 23. The petitioners informed the Board that the DEC had, in fact, approved different plans. The DEC forced petitioners to eliminate the swimming pool, reduce the size of the deck, and move the septic system four (4) feet ~loser to the cranberry bog than the Trustees had approved. 24. The plan~ the Board originally approved showed setbacks of the septic system 100 feet from the cranberry bog and 93 feet from the southwestern wetlands, but the setbacks from both areas were now only 96 feet. Therefore, whereas the original plans showed a setback violation only for the southwestern wetlands, now the septic system violated setbacks for both wetlands areas. 25. While the application for the amendment may have been scaled-down in terms of the proposed mass or structure, because the septic system now violated the setbacks from both wetlands areas, the proposal now had a greater impact on the wetlands than what the Board had originally approved. Therefore, an amended permit was necessary. The Town Code, and the permit itself, provide that it is a violation to proceed with construction that is in any way different from the strict terms of the permit. Therefore, if the petitioners had built their house and septic system as approved by the DEC, it would have been a violation of the Trustees permit, and the permit would have become null and void. 26. So, it was not at the request of members of the community that the petitioners had to amend their permit. It was required by the Town Code. 27. The petitioners applied for an amendment to their wetlands permit on or about September 29, 2004. 28. Around the time of the amendment application the Board began receiving more information about the unique, rare, and vulnerable character of the wetlands on petitioners' property. For instance, it received a report from Erie Lamont, Ph.D. Lamont is a botanist who personally inspected the 1 O-acre north of Lake Drive in Southold, where petitioners' properly is located. He confirmed Mark Terry's findings that the area contained maritime dunes (which Terry termed a "secondary dune system") and maritime freshwater interdunal swales and that such occurrences are locally, state, and even globally rare. Within the interdunal swales Lamont also observed rare plant species, such as the sundew and the iris prismatica, which is also listed as state and globally rare by the Heritage Program. 29. Lamont also confirmed Terry's conclusion that petitioners' property was actually part of a much larger system of maritime dunes and interdunal swales. Lamont found that the system was connected to Great Pond and extended to the south and west, to the Peeonic Dunes County Park. Like Terry, he also recommended that these wetlands be protected to the fullest extent possible. 7 30. While it was evident from the face of the report itself that the report was prepared at the request of a local environmental group, the Kenny's Beach Civic Association, the Board found Lamont's findings persuasive. After all, it simply confirmed Mark Terry's findings in November, 2003, while offering additional information on the rareness and vulnerability of the occurrences (such as the rare plant life found there). 31. Around this time the Board also received a report from Greg Edinger, Program Ecologist at the Heritage Program. Edinger noted that he had reviewed Lamont's report and had studied photographs of the area that were in the possession of the Heritage Program. 32. While Edinger stated that further studies needed to be conducted before entering the occurrences into the Heritage Program's database, he concluded that Lamont's report presented sufficient evidence to confirm the presence of maritime dunes and maritime freshwater interdunal swales in the area he studied. Therefore, the Board was aware, at all times, that the dunes and interdunal swales on petitioners' property and in the surrounding area had not yet been identified in the Heritage Program's database for such occurrences. 33. Edinger again confirmed the local, state, and global rarity of the dunes and interdunal swales, referring to the interdunal swales as "very vulnerable." 34. He agreed with Mark Terry and Eric Lamont that the dunes and interdunal swales in and around petitioners' property were part of a larger system, but went further than Lamont and believed that the system extended 1.5 miles to the southwest. 35. Edinger recommended that affirmative efforts be made to protect the dunes and interdunal swales and warned that development within them would reduce the landscape ranking factor for the interdunal swales, would reduce the overall quality of the occurrence, and would threaten its long-term viability. 8 36. The Board scheduled a public hearing for the amendment application on January 19, 2005. At the hearing, one of the people to testify was Larry Penny, Director of Environmental Protection for the Town of Easthampton. He testified that he grew up in the Town of Southold (Mattituck) and has visited the area of petitioners' property on numerous occasions. 37. He testified that four (4) maritime freshwater interdunal swales located in Easthampton have actually been entered in the Heritage Program's database. Therefore, he has first-hand experience with them. 38. Penny not only confirmed the local, state, and global rarity of such wetlands, but he also warned that the plant species such wetlands support are also very rare and vulnerable. He testified that aggressive species, such as phragmites and the purple loosestrife, thrive on nitrate- rich leaching from septic tanks and that such species would overrun and wipe out, for instance, the rare iris prisrnatica and sundew that Eric Lamont had seen growing within the interdunal swales. Indeed, Lamont had already noted the presence those nuisance species. 39. Just as the other experts, Penny recommended that the Trustees use all available measures to protect the wetlands in and around petitioners' property. 40. While Penny was also a consultant paid by the Kenny's Beach Civic Association, the Board found his testimony particularly credible because he has been to the area of petitioners' property numerous times and, more importantly, has extensive first-hand experience with maritime freshwater interdunal swales. 41. By this time the Board had hired a full-time environmental technician, Heather Tetrault, specifically to advise the Board about particularly complex environmental matters that came before it. Because of the substantial amount of new information that was coming in from 9 various experts, such as Lamont, Edinger, and Penny, the Board tabled petitioners' amendment application for two (2) weeks so that Tetrault could issue a report on the findings and opinions of the various experts. (The Trustees had themselves read the reports of Mark Terry, Eric Lamont, and Greg Edinger, but wanted a single report detailing the experts' findings and opinions.) 42. At the January 19, 2005 hearing several local residents also testified, including members of the Kenny's Beach Civic Association. While they were free to speak, in support of or in opposition to the proposal, the Board did not, in this instance, rely on any representations they made. It did not need to, considering the various expert reports and testimony. 43. Heather Tetrault issued her report on January 27, 2005. In the report she summarized the findings and opinions set out above and even consulted additional experts. Based on all the available information, Tetrault concluded that petitioners' property did contain maritime dunes and maritime freshwater interdunal swales and that such occarrences were locally, state, and globally rare. Indeed, as the experts found, the property was part of a much larger system of maritime dunes and interdunal swales. Based on the vulnerability of such occurrences, as well as the rare plant life supported within them, she also recommended that the Board enforce the full setbacks from both the house and the septic system. 44. Based on Tetrault's report, as well as the reports of Mark Terry, Eric Lamont, and Greg Edinger, and based on the testimony of Larry Penny, Board decided that the amendment to the permit should be denied. While the DEC approved plans that eliminated the swimming pool and reduced the size of the deck, the plans required petitioners to move the septic system four feet closer to the cranberry bog, which resulted in a violation of the setbacks from both the cranberry bog and the southwestern wetlands. The evidence was overwhelming that these products of globally rare and sensitive wetlands were deserving of full protection. 10 45. In contrast, there was no evidence before the Board from any expert that the wetlands on petitioners' property either did not constitute maritime dunes and maritime freshwater interdunal swales or that such occurrences were not locally, state, or globally rare and sensitive. The Board simply acted based on the evidence before it. 46. The Board also took the opportunity of the amendment application to review the original proposal, under the revised Town Code. The revised Chapter 97 required 100-foot setbacks not only from septic systems, but also from houses. The original plans, therefore, violated both setback requirements. The house, as proposed, was located only 50 feet from the cranberry bog and less than 100 feet from the southwestern wetlands (even without the deck), and the septic system was only 93 feet from the southwestern wetlands. Considering all the new information that had come in about the uniqueness, rarity, and sensitivity of the wetlands, the Board determined they deserved the full protection of the setbacks. 47. However, even if the Board had not applied the revised standards to the original permit, it still would have revoked it, based on the setbacks for septic tanks in 2002. After all, as proposed, the septic system was less than 100-feet from the southwestern wetlands. Again, considering all the new information about the wetlands on the property, the Board decided all the wetlands on the property deserved protection of the full setbacks. 48. Furthermore, the Board revoked the permit because, with the house and septic tanks in the location proposed, it was evident what the DEC and the SCDHS were willing to allow. But what the DEC and SCDHS were willing to allow was unacceptable to the Trustees. And, based on the proposed location of the house and septic system, the Board could find no easy alternatives to tweak the plans and still provide sufficient buffer for the wetlands. It was 11 better that the petitioners simply submit a new plan. And the Board made it clear in its April 20, 2005 resolution that petitioners were free to do so. 49. The Town Code and wetlands permits themselves warn that a permit may revoked (1) if the permit holder takes action not in compliance with the precise terms of the permit; and (2) if the permit holder fails to obtain all other, necessary permits. However, it is the Board's understanding that these grounds do not constitute an exhaustive list of all, possible grounds on which a permit can be revoked. They are only illustrative circumstances. There is no language, either in the Town Code or within the permit itself stating that those are the only grounds for revocation. 50. Neither I, nor other members of the Board had any intention of "opposing" petitioners' project, either before the SCDHS Board of Review, nor before the Southold Town Board. The Board of Trustees asked Heather Tetrault to speak to the Board of Review simply to let them know that the Board had information that the wetlands in and around petitioners' property were particularly rare and vulnerable to development--if the Board of Review wanted to consider such information in approving the location of the septic system. 51. After all, the petitioners, like all applicants wishing to build a new house with a septic system near wetlands, have to receive approval from the Board of Trustees, from the DEC, and the SCDHS. And, essentially, all such agencies have to agree on the same proposal. Therefore, Tetrault was asked to testify at the Board of Review hearing simply as a matter coordination and convenience, not only for the benefit of the Trustees and the Board of Review, but also for the benefit of the petitioners. After all, if the Board of Review approves location of a septic system too close to rare and vulnerable wetlands, that location may not be approved by the 12 Trustees. In fact, this is what happened, despite Tetrault's efforts, and it has ended up hurting the petitioners. 52. I personally testified at a Town Board meeting on April 12, 2005. The meeting was held in reference to adding 13 lots north of Lake Drive to the list of eligible lots for the Town's Community Preservation Project Plan. Adding a property to the list simply meant that, if the owner of the property wants to sell the lot to the Town for purposes of preservation, he or she may do so. However, before the Town can purchase a lot for preservation (using the revenue from the 2% real estate transfer tax), the lot must be identified on the list. It is my understanding that adding a property to the list does not in any way restrict the owner's use of the property. 53. Petitioners' two lots were among the 13 lots nominated for the list, but I did not testify with the intent to "oppose" petitioners' project. At the time of the April 12, 2005 Town Board meeting the Board of Trustees was in possession of the reports of Mark Terry, Eric Lamont, and Greg Edinger, detailing the uniqueness, rarity, and vulnerability of wetlands in the area. The Board of Trustees, and I, considered this to be critical and important information, and I was simply sharing it with the Town Board. Again, having petitioners' lots added to the list would not have done anything to frustrate his desire to build a house. It is simply a procedural matter so that the Town can use real estate transfer taxes to purchase properties for preservation if the owner chooses to sell it. 54. None of the Board's actions relating to the second amendment application (or before the SCDHS Board of Review or before the Town Board) was an effort to keep the value of petitioners' property low so it could be acquired at a cheaper price for preservation purposes than ifa house had been built on it. Furthermore, at no time during the amendment application 13 process did any members of the Board have "secret communications" or "secret meetings" with Lillian Ball or other members of the community in reference to the application. 55. Before formal Trustee meetings or hearings are held, the Trustees often hold what they call "work sessions," wherein members of the public are free to submit materials in support of or in opposition to an application pending before the Board. However, no substantive discussions about any application are permitted at these work sessions, and none take place. ALBERT KRUPSKI, JR. Sworn to me this __ day of December, 2005 NOTARY PUBLIC 14 P.O. Box 450 Sou&old, NY 11971 g. greemheron(~_ ,verizon.net April 19, 2OO6 James King, President Sou&old Town Trustees Sou&old, New York Dear Mr. King and Trustees, Thank you for &is opportunity to speak at &is hearing. My name is Thomas Rozakis. I have been a member of the Kenney's Beach Civic Association for 17 years and a member of the Preservation Committee for two years. In &at capacity and as a private citizen I am here to oppose the Tsai wetlands permit application. The Kanney's Beach Civic Association was founded over 50 years ago and has more &an 125 members who own homes in &e soundfi'ont community bounded by Peconic Dunes Park and Horton's Point. Our area encompasses two public beaches, a fxeshwater lake (Great Pond), a large freshwater pond (Lilly Pond), numerous small DEC regulated wetlands, and just recently, a NYDOS designated "significant habitat"(Goldsmith Inlet and Beach) &at includes over thirty acres of dunes, interdunal swales and shoreline wi&in our community. This designation was due in large part to our preservation committee's efforts. We hired Eric I.among contacted DEC's Natural H~diage Program, and lobbied at the Dept. of State. Some of our members participated in the initial formulation of &e LWRP wi& Valefie Skopaz. We are not armchair environmentalists. We paid for the original report by Dr. Lamont, which identified &is area as a globally rare ecosystem. That report and our continuous lobbying at the Dept. of State eventually led to the designation of this area as a significant habitat by the NY State Dept of State Fish and Wildlife Division. We are truly proud of our accomplishments and fully expect the Town Trustees to respect our dedication and efforls. Our members made the lion's share of contributions &at made the Harper Preserve a reality. Eighty people donated $170,000, and the Town contn'onted the balance of $50,000 to buy and preserve the first of what we hoped to be all of the 12 lots making up the ecosystem under question. Most of us made those contributions with the express intention and expectation that the Town would respect those effm~s and &at the purchase would lead to the preservation of all the lots, including this one. Certainly we expect the Tmstecs to continue to support rather than unoermme~ertons. We do not expect government to bail us out or do our job, but we do expect government to do its job. Since Suffolk County has made a standing offer of purchase to all owners of&ese lots, and is in negotiations with several of&em now, &ere would be no financial loss to the owners of &is lot if a permit were denied. Thus far the Civic Association has not shrunk from whatever actions have been required to smd for what it perceives are its obligations and rights as citizens and taxpayers. As far as we are concerned, this hearing is just the beginuing of our campaign to preserve ow community in the spirit and law as set out by Southold Town and New York State. The preservation committee opposes all development on this site for the following reasons: On the latest survey submitted by the applicant there are no setbacks shown from the proposed building to the property lines. This is quite curious, as it is the primary purpose of a site/survey plan to show these dimensions. Why are these critical dimensions missing? If the Trustees grant this permit, they might inadvertently grant a variance, or pre-empt the Zoning Board of Appeals in their duties, ffone scales the west sideyard it seems to be less than the minimum 15 feet required by the Town Code. It would be out of the Trustees' .jurisdiction to approve a site plan that does not conform to the Building Code. For this reason alone this permit should be denied. The Planning Dept has determined that the contents of this application are profoundly inconsistent with the Town's Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. I refer you to the LWRP coordinator Mark Terry's letter to the Trustees dated February 9, 2006, which states categorically and definitively that under every circumstance and particular this permit is inconsistent. His conclusion is as follows: "...the proposed action is INCONSISTENT with the denoted following Policy Standards and therefore is INCONSISTENT with the LWRP. Due to lot size and coverage of protected features, there is minimal to no ability to further the LWRP policies outlined below." Mr. Terry then proceeds to annotate his recommendation in ten pages of LWRP policy standards. The Town Board and the State legislature have approved the LWRP. Since your capacity as freshwater regulatory agents was assigned to you by the Town Board, you are bound by the LWRP and the LWRP Consistency Law, Chapter 95-5H which states: "In the event the LWRP Coordinator's recommendation is that the action is inconsistent with the LWRP, and the agency makes a contrary determination of consistency, the agency shall elaborate in writing the basis for its disagreement with the recommendation and state the manner and extent to which the action is consistent with the LWRP policy standards." If you approve this permit, I'm sure there are quite a lot of people who would be interested in how this proposal is consistent with Southold's new and as of yet untested Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. We would hope that the many years of hard work in its making will not be in vain. The setback from the wetlands to the proposed house do not meet the Town Wetland Code minimum specifications by 40%, and the wetlands to septic setback falls 18% short of both Town and DEC minimum requirements. The Trustees have been assigned their freshwater responsibilities by the State and Town, and have no specific authorization to alter the required setbacks. The boilerplate sentence in the Town code allowing "site specific" considerations is customarily used to expand an authority's jurisdiction, not reduce it. This globally rare significant habitat is one of the most valuable areas identified in Southold in years. If this area does not merit the enforcement of the minimum setbacks, what would? Most importantly, it is not within the Trustees' jurisdiction to grant relief. If, in fact, the enforcement of the minimum setbacks create a hardship, granting a waiver f~om the Town Code is not your job or interest. That is for the Town Board and ZBA to decide. Preservation and enforcement is, or should be, your interest. 4. The proposed plan does not take into account that the entire project resides in a New York Dept. of State significant habitat (Goldsmiths Inlet and Beach, October 2005), and that the dunes that are viewed by the applicant as something to build on and leach into are actually as valuable as the wetlands that are being avoided. That wetlands and dunes comprise a delicate system is substantiated in six scientific reports that were cited by the Trustees last year in denying a permit to an almost identical project (Mazzanobile) less than 400 feet away, in the same significant habitat. As you know, the applicant sued the Trustees and that suit is still pending. In his affidavit defending the Trustees' actions, former president A1 Kmpski quotes these experts: Eric Lamont, noted botanist; Greg Edinger, Natural Heritage Program, NYDEC; Larry Penny, Easthampton's Director of Environmental Protection; Mark Terry, the Town's Senior Environmental Planner;, and Heather Cusack, the Trustees' own Environmental Technician. Based on the reports of these experts, including their own expert, who "recommended that the Board enforce full setbacks from both the house and septic system"(Par. 43), the former Trustees denied the permit. Furthermore, former President Kmpski states, in his affidavit, paragraph 45, "In contrast (to the five experts, not including their own) there was no evidence before the Board from any expert that the wetlands on petitioner's property either did not constitute maritime dunes and maritime interdunal swales or that occurrences were not loeally, state or globally rare and sensitive. The Board simply acted on the evidence before it." Identically, in this instance, no expert scientific testimony has been offered to mitigate the minimum, I repeat minimum, setl~cks required by Town Code and New York State Law and as were previously enforced by the Trustees. This is the same area, as defined by the Dept. of State's October 2005 report. It is outrageous that the community has been forced to fight this fight all over again, sacrificing many hours over months of postponements. This practice of allowing the applicant to test the limits of the system at the expense of the citizens is deplorable, and must be stopped. It is time the Town Code was enforced expediently and transparently. Granting this permit would be inconsistent with the Trustees' unanimous decision last year to deny the afore-mentioned Mazzanobile permit. This denial occurred even before the LWRP went into effect and before the area was designated as a significant habitat on October 15, 2005. It would be arbilmry and capricious to grant this permit. In his affidavit defending the Ma~?anobile denial, par. 46, former President Krupski states "The Board took the opportunity ...to review the original proposal under the revised Town Code. The revised Chapter 97 required 100 foot setbacks not only fi.om septic systems, but also from houses. The original plans, therefore, violated both setback requirements. The house...was located only 50 feet fi.om the bog...and the septic system was only 93 feet fi.om the southwestern wetlands. Considering all the new information that had come in about the uniqueness, rarity, and sensitivity of the wetlands, the Board determined they deserved the full protection of the setbacks." By all accounts this is an identical ecosystem. It merits identical protection. The present application requests substantially more relief than was denied Mazzanobile. What has changed since last year except the persons making up the Board? The prior Board of Trustees, the Town Board, Suffolk County, and the Peconic Land Trust have made commitments to preserve this entire area, including the subject parcel. Suffolk County has agreed to ap~ise and purchase the rema'ming lots, including Tsal's. The New York State Division of Fish and Wildlife, DOS, has designated this parcel as a significant habitat. The granting of a permit would threaten to undermine the preservation efforts of all these groups, and would be counter to established public policy. The Southold Town Trustees have been charged with preserving the interests of the commonwealth for over 300 years. As compelling as individual interests might be (and we are in no way arguing that they are overly compelling here) it is your duty to protect the public interest and general welfare by deny'mg this permit by merely enforcing the minimum setbacks required by law. Attached please find copies of the LWRP Consistency Review Law of the Southold Town Code and former President of the Trustees A1 Krupski's Affidavit in defense of the permit denial in MazTanobile v. Town of Southold. Thank you for your time. Kenney's Beach Civic Association Cc: Town Board Kiernan, Resler, NYS Dept. of State Tim Kelley, Suffolk Times I~um~ l~ 1 of 2 CODE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK, v148 Updated 09-15-2005 PART Ii GENERAL LEGISLATION Chapter 95, WATERFRONT CONSISTENCY REVIEW § 95-1. r~e. This chapter will be known as the "Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) Consistency Review Law ." § 95-2. Authorily and purpose. A. This chapter is adopted under the authority of the Municipal Home Rule Law and frae Waterfiont Revitalization of Coastal Areas and Inland Waterways Act of the State of New York (Aflicle 42 of the Executive Law). B. The purpose of this chapter is to provide a framework for agencies of the Town of Southold to incorporate the policies and p~ contained in the Town of Southold Local Watc~fi~nt Revitalization Program (LWRP) when reviewing applications for actions or direct agency actions within the coastal area; and to assure that such actions and direct actions by the Town are cons'~'nt with the LWRP policies and purposes. C. It is the intention of the Town of Southold that the preservation, enhancement and mil'marion of the unique coastal area of the Town take place in a coordinated and comprehensive manner to ensure a proper balance between protection of natural resources and the need to accommodate limited population growth and economic development. Accordingly, this chapter is intended to achieve such a balance, permitting the beneficial use of coastal resources wh'de preventing loss and degradmlon of living coastal resources and wildlife; diminution of open space areas or public access to the waterfront; disruption of natural coastal processes; impairment of scenic, cultural or historical resources; losses due to flooding, erosion and sedimentation; impairment of water quality; or permanent adverse changes to ecological D. The substantive provisIons Of this chapter shall only apply while there is in existence a Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program which has been adopted in accordance with Article 42 of the Executive Law of the State of New York. § 95-3. l)efi~itions. As used in this chapter, the following terms shall have the meanings indicated: ACTIONS - Include all the following, except minor actions: A. Projects or physical activities, such as consuuction or any other activities that may affect natural, man-made or olher resources in the coastal area or the environment by changing the use, appearance or condition of any resource or structure, that: (1) Are directly undertaken by an agency; or (2) Involve funding by an agency; or (3) Require one or more new or modified approvals, pemfts, or review from an agency or agencies; http://gcp.esub.net/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?clientlD=61375&advquery=Waterfront%20Cons... 11/29/2005 Document Page 2 of 2 B. Agency planning and policymaking activities that may affect the environment and commit the agency to a definite course of future decisions; C. Adoption of agency rules, regulations and procedures, including local laws, codes, ordinances, executive orders and resolutions that may affect coastal resources or the environment; and http://gcp.esub.net/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=61375&advquery=Waterfront%20Cons... 11/29/2005 Document Page 1 of 2 CODE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK, v148 Updated 09-15-2005 PART Ii GENERAL LEGISLATION Chapter 95, WATERFRONT CONSISTENCY REVIEW § 95-3. Definitions. D. Any combination of the above. AGENCY - Any board, agency, department, office, other body, or officer of the Town of Southold. COASTAL AREA - That portion of New York State coastal waters and adjacent shorelands as defined in Article 42 of the Executive Law which is located within the boundaries of the Town of Southold, as shown on the coastal area map on file in the office of the Secretary of State and as delineated in the Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP). In Southoid tiffs area is inclusive of the entire Town. COASTAL ASSESSMENT FORM (CAF) - The form used by an agency to assist in determining the consistency of an action with the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. CONSISTENT - The action will fully comply with the LWRP policy standards, conditions and objectives and, whenever practicable, will advance one or more of them. DIRECT ACTIONS - Actions planned and proposed for implementation by an agency, such as, but not limited to, a capital project, role making, inocedure making and policymaking. ENVIRONME3qT - All conditions, circumstances and influences surrounding and affecting the development of living organisms or other resources in the coastal area. LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITAI.IZATION PROGRAM or LWRP - The Local Waterfront Revitalization Program of the Town of Southold, approved by the Secretary of S _t~t_ e pursuant to the Waterfront Revitalization of Coastal Areas and Inland Waterways Act (Executive Law, Article 42), a copy of which is on file in the Office of the Clerk of the Town of Southold. MINOR ACTIONS - Include the following actions, which are not subject to review under this chapter:. A. Maintenance or repair involving no substantial changes in an existing structure or facility; B. Replacement, rehabilitation or reconstruction of a structure or facility, in kind, on the same site, including upgrading buildings to meet building or fire codes, except for structures in areas designated by the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area (CEHA) law where stmctttres may not be replaced, rehabilitated or reconstructed without a l~,,uit; C. Repavin~ or widening of existing paved highways not involving the addition of new Iravel lanes; D. Street openings and right-of-way openings for the purpose of repair or maintenance of existing utility facilities; E. Maintenance of existing landscaping or natural growth, except where threatened or endangered species of plants or animals are affected, or within significant coastal fish and wildlife habitat areas; F. Granting of individual setback and lot line variances, except in relation to a regulated natural fealure or a bulkhead or other shoreline defense structure or any activity within the CEHA; http://gcp.esub.net/cgi_bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=61375&advquery=Waterfront%20Cons... I 1/29f2005 Doenm~t Page I of 2 CODE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK, v148 Updated 09-15-2005 PART II GENERAL LEGISLATION Chapter 95, WATERFRONT CONSISTENCY REVIEW § 95-3. Definitions. G. Minor temporary uses of land having negligible or no permanent impact on coastal resources orthe environm~lat; I-L Installation of traffic control devices on existing streets, roads and highways; 1. Mapping of existing roads, streets, highways, natural resources, land uses and ownership patterns; J. Information collection including basic data collection and research, water quality and pollution studies, traffic count, enginec, h~g studies, surveys, subsurface investigations and soils studies that do not commit the agency to undertake, fund or approve any action; K. Official acts of a ministerial nature involving no exercise of discretion, including building where issuance is predicated solely on the applicant's compliance or noncompliance with the relevant local building code; L. Routine or continuing agency administration and management, not including new programs or major reordering of priorities that may affect the environment; M. Condec-thug concurrent environmental, engineering, economic, feasibility and other studies and preliminary planning and budgetary processes necessary to the formulation of a proposal for action, provided those activities do not commit the agency to commence, engage in or approve such action; N. Collective bargaining activities; O. lnveslments by or on behalf of agencies or pension or retirement systems, or refinancing existing P. Inspections and licensing activities relating to the qualifications of individuals or businesses to engage in their business or profession; Q. Purchase or sale of furnishings, equipment or supplies, including surplus government property, other than the fotiowin~: land, radioactive material, pesticides, herbicides, storage of road de-king sabstances, or other hazardous materials; R. Adoption of regulations, policies, procedures and local legislative decisions in connection with any action on hhis list; S. Engaging in review of any part of an application to determine compliance with technical requirements, provided that no such determination entities or permits the project sponsor to commence the action unless and until all requirements of this chapter have been fulfilled; T. Civil or criminal enforcement proceedings, whether administrative or judicial, including a particular course of action specifically required to be undertaken pursuant to a judgment or order, or the exercise of prosecutorial discretion; U. Adoption of a moratorium on land development or construction; http://gcp.esub.neffcgi-birdom_isapi.dll?clientID=61375&advquery=Water front%20Cons... 11/29/2005 Document ~ 1 of 2 CODE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK. v148 Updated 09-15-2005 PART Il GENERAL LEGISLATION Chapter 95, WATERFRONT CONSISTENCY REVIEW § 95-3. Definitions. V. Interpreting an existing code, rule or regulation; W. Designation of local landmarks or their inclusion within historic districts; X. Emergency actions that are immediately necessary on a limited and tempora~ basis for the protection or preservation of hfe, health, property or n~_h~al resources, provided that such actions are directly related to the emergency and are performed to cause the least change or disturbance, lracticable under the circmn.qances, to coastal resources or the environment. Any decisiun to fund, approve o~ dh'eetly und~Cu&e other activities after thc emergency bas expired is fully subject to the review procedures of this chapter;, Y. Local legislative decisions such as rezoning where thc Town Board determines thc action will not be approved. § 95=4. Mnnagement and coordination of LWRP. A. The Town Board shall be responsible for overall management and coordination of the LWRP. In performing thig tagk the Town Board or designated staff person shall: (1) Inform the Town Board, Town Trustees and other Town agencies or boards on implementation, priorities, work assignments, timetables, and budgetary ~quhv. ments of the LWRP. (2) Make applications for funding f~om state, federal, or other sources to finance projeets under the LWRP. O) Coordinate and oversee liaison between Town agencies and depaganent~ inclmling but not limited to the Town Board, Town Trusts, Planning Board, Zoning Board of Appeals, Planning staff, Police DepatUnent, Highway Superintendent and Engineering Depmm~ents of the Town, and with other nongovernmental bodies, to fmther implementation of the LWRP. (4) Prepare an annual report on progress achieved and problems encountered in implementing the LWRP, and recommend actions necessmy for further implementation to the appropriate Town agency orthe Town Board. (5) Perform other functions regarding ~he coastal area and direct such actions or projects as are necessary, or as the Town Board may deem appropriate, to implement the LWRP. B. In order to foster a strong relationship and maintain an active liaison among the Town agencies responsible for implementation of thc LWRP, the Town Board shall convene at least quarterly a Town LWRP coordinating council, including but not limited to representatives of the Town Board, Town Trustees, Planning Board, Zoning Board of Appeals, Highway Delr~ulment, Police DapattmenL Engineering DepmU,ent, Planning Director and such other Town depmtments or individuals charged with LWRP implementation as may be designated. ht~p:~gep~esub~netl~binl~m-isapi~d~?~ientID=6~375&advqu~ry=Wate~r~nt%20C~ns~ 11/29/2005 Document Page 2 of 2 A. Whenever a proposed action is located within the Town's coastal area, each agency shall, prior to approving, funding or undertaking the action, make a determination that it is consistent with the LWRP policy standards sa~mrnarized in § 95-1 herein. No action in the coastal area shall be approved, flmded or undertaken by an agency withou/~ such a detcaaination. B. The Town Board shall designate a staff person to be the '~LWRP Coordinator,' who shall be responsible for coordinating review of actions in the Town's coastal area for consistency with the LWRP, and will advise, assist and make consistency recommendations for other Town agencies in the implementation of the LWRP, its policies and projects, including physical, legislative, regulatory, admini.~rrative and other actions included in the program. The LWRP Coordinator will also coordinate with NYS DOS regarding consistency review for actions by state or federal agencies. http://gcp.esub.net/cgi~bin/~m-isapi.dl~?c~ientID=6~375&advquery=Waterfr~nt%2~C~ns... 11/29/2005 Doenm~t ~ 1 of 2 CODE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK. v148 Updated 09-15-2005 PART II GENERAL LEGISLATION Chapter 95, WATERFRONT CONSISTENCY REVIEW § 95-5. Review of actions. C. Whenever an agency within Southold receives an application for approval or funding of an action, or as early as possible in the agency's fonnulalion of a direct action to be located in the coastal area, the applicant or, in the case of a direct action, the agency, shall prepare a coastal assessment form (CAF) to assist with the consi~t~cy review. The agency shall refer a copy of the completed CAF to the LWRP Coordinator within 10 days of its submission and prior to making its determination, shall consider the recommendation of the Coordinator with reference to the consistency of the proposed action. D. After referral from an agency, the LWRP Coordinator shall consider whether the proposed action is consistent with the LWRP policy standards and conditions set forth in § 95-1 herein. The LWRP Coordinator shall require the applicant to submit all completed applications, CAF's, and any other info~umtion deemed necessary to its consistency recommendation. The LWRP Coordinator shall render ils wrilten recommendation to the agency within 30 days following refewal of the CAF from the agency, unless extended by mutual agreement of the Coordinator and the applicant or, in the case of a direct action, the agency. The LWRP Coordinators recommeRdation shall indicate whether the pmpnsed action is consistent with or inconsistent with one or more of the LWRP policy standards and objectives and shall elaborate in writing the basis for its opinion. The LWRP Coordinator shall, along with a consistency recommendation, make any suggestions to the agency concerning modification of tile proposed action, including the imposition of conditions, to make it consistent with LWRP policy standards and objectives or to greoter advance them. E. If an action requires approval of more than one agency, decision making will be coosxlinal~ between agencies to determine which agency will conduct the final consistency review, and ~ agency will thereafter act as designated consistency review agency. Only one CAF per action will be prepared. ffthe agencies cannot agra, the LWRP Coordinator shall designate the consistency review agency. F. Upon recommendation of LWRP Coordinator, the desiLmated agency shaU consider whether the proposed action is consistent with the LWRP policy standards summarized in § 95-1 herein. Prior to making its dettamination of consistency, the designated agency shall consider the consistency recommendation of the LWRP Coordinator. The agency shall render a written det~,,inafion of consistency based on the CAF, the LWRP Coordinator recommendation and such other information as is deemed neces~g~y to its determination. No approval or decision shall be rendered for an action in the coastal area without a determination of consistency. The desi,~mmted agency will make the final detenninalion of consistency. The Zoning Board of Appeals is the designated agency for the detem~ination of consistency for variance applications subject to this chapter. The Zoning Board of Appeals shall consider the written consistency recommendation of the LWRP Coo~inator in the event and at the lime it makes a decision to grant such a variance and shall impose appropriate condilions on the variance to make the activity consistent with the objectives of this chapter. G. Where an EIS is being prepared or required, the dmR EIS must identify applicable LWRP policies and sl~derds and include a discussion of the effects of the proposed action on such policy standards. No agency may make a final decision on an action that has been the subject of a draft EIS and is located in the coastal area until the agency has made a written finding regarding the consistency of the action with the local policy standards referred to in § 95-1 herein. http://gcp.asuba~et/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?clientlD=61375&advquery=Waterfront%20Cons... 11/29/2005 i~k~cument Page 2 of 2 I-L In the event the LWRP Coo~linatoffs recommendation is that the action is inconsistent with the LWRP, and the agency makes a con~y determination of consistency, the agency shall elaborate in writing the basis for its disagreement with the recommendation and state ~c manner and extent to which the action is consistent with the LWRP policy standards. L Actions to be undertaken within the coastal area shall be evaluated for consistency in accordance with the following summary of LWRP policies, which ~ derived from and further explained and descn'bed in the Town of Southold LWRP, a copy of which is on file in the Town Clerk's office and available for inspection during normal business hours. Agencies tha~ undertake direct actions shall also consult with § 95-5, in making their consistency determinations. The action shall be consistent with the policies to: (1) General policies. (a) Policy 1: foster a pattern of development in the Town of Southold that enharlces community character, preserves open space, makes efficient use of infraslmcture, makes beneficial use of a coastal location, and minimizes adverse effects of development. (b) Policy 2: preserve historic resources of the Town of Southold. (c) Policy 3: enhance visual quality and protect scenic resources throughout the Town of Southold. (d) Policy 4: minimize the loss of life, structures, and natural resources from flooding and erosion. (e) Policy 5: protect and improve water quality and supply in the Town of Southold. (f) Policy 6: protect and restore the quality and function of the Town of Southold (g) Policy 7: protect and improve air quality in the Town of Southold. http://gcp.esub.netdcgi-bin/om_'nmpi.dll?clientID=61375&advquery=Waterfi'ont%20Cons... 11/29/2005 .. . Document Page I of 2 CODE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK, v148 Updated 09-15-2005 PART II GENERAl_ LEGISLATION Chapter 95, WATERFRONT CONSISTENCY REVIEW § 95-5. Review of actions. (h) Policy 8: minimi?e environmental degradation in the Town of Southold fitn, solid waste and hazardous substances and wastes. (2) Public coast policies. (a) Policy 9: provide for public access to, and recreational use ot~ coastal water, public lands, and public resources of the Town of Southold. (3) Working coast policies. (a) Policy 10: protect the Town of Southold's water-dependent uses and p, umote siting of new water-dependent uses in suitable locations. Co) Policy 11: promote sustainable use of living marine resources in the Town of Southold. (c) Policy 12: protect agricultural lands in the Town of Southold. (d) Policy 13: promote appropriate use and development of energy and mineral resmn-ces. J. Each agency shall maintain a file for each action made the subject of a consistency det~-,ination, including any recommendations received from the LWRP Coordinator. Such files shall be made available for public inspection upon request. § 95-6. Enforcement. The Town Building Inspectors, Town Attorney, Code Enforcement Officers and Police Department/Bay Constables shall be responsible for enforcing this chapter. No action within the Southold coastal area which is subject to review under thi~ chapter shall proceed umil a written determination has been issued from the designated agency ltmt the action is consistent with the Town's LWRP policy standards. In the event that an activity is being performed in violation of this chapter or any conditions imposed thereunder, the Building Inspector or any other authorized official of the Town Mini! issue a stop-work order and all work shall immediately cease. No further work or activity shall be undertaken on the project so long as a stop-work order is in effect. § 95-7. Peaalti~ for offense~ A. A person who violates any of the provisions ot~ or who fails to comply with any condition imposed by, tiffs chapter shall have committed a violation, punishable by a frae not exceeding $250 for a conviction of a first offense and punishable by a fine of $2,000 for a conviction of a second or subsequent offense. For the purpose of cunfe,~ ~g jurisdiction upon courts and judicial officers, each week of continuing violation shall constitute a separate a_dtJ_itional violation. B. The Town Attorney is authorized and di~cted to institute any and all actions and proceedings necessary to enforce this chapter. Any civil penalty shall be in addition to and not in lieu of any criminal http://gcp.esub.net/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=61375&advquery=Waterfront% 20Cons... 11/29/2005 To the Trustees of Southold Town: 620 Lake Drive Southold, N.Y. 11971 March 19, 2006 Trustee: a person to whom another's property or the management of another's property is entrusted. I know you take your mandate very seriously. I implore you to turn down the application for a building on the Tsai property on Lake Drive. The remaining open space surrounding the Great Pond Wetland has much greater value to the Town of Southold residents as undeveloped land. The one mile loop from the Kenney's Beach parking lot around Lake Drive and Leeton Drive is used recreationally by many people every day. Why there? The natural beauty, the open space, the sea air and the pleasant stop-off at the pond. We - the neighbors and members of the Kenney's Beach Civic Association- welcome all to enjoy the beauty of our neighborhood. I am sure you are aware of the great progress we have made in preserving the remaining tmdeveloped lots for the benefit of all. We are very close to completing the preservation of ALL the parcels in the area. Please, please do not allow this permit to go through. We -the neighbors- intend to remain good stewards of the land. Perhaps you've had a chance to see our beachgrass restoration project at Kenney's Beach. This was accomplished with our own funds and volunteer labor. Other projects we envision might be a boardwalk/nature path through the wetland. (And of course, there is our continual effort to keep the beach trash in check.) The Tsai property is not just another lot with questionable proximity to a wetland. It is part of a very delicate ecosystem that should not be further compromised. Very truly yours, Deborah Geurtze BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PO BOX 1179 SOUTHOLD NY 11971 RE: REQUEST FOR WETLAND PERMIT SCTM#1000-59-1-21.1; LOT ON LAKE DRIVE Dear Trustees: The Gmat Ponds Wetland area is again faced with another house construction on Lake Drive. This proposed house according to the proposed plan as submitted to your office is only 55 ft from the wetland. After looking at the stakes that are in the lot it seems to me that they are in reality much closer the wetland than the actual survey shows. Also this lot is very similar to the Manzanoble property on Lake Drive whose permit was revoked last year. I trust that you will see the similarities of these two permits and reject the permit for this new one. Also as I am sure you are aware of the great progress The Kennys Beach Civic Assn. and the wetland committee has made is the preservation of these few lots that are all either in the wetland or very close. Given some time I am a firm believer that between the county, town, and Peconic Land Trust etc. that we will be able to preserve this delicate piece of the North Fork. Sincerely Richard Bird Lake Drive Southold, NY march 20 2006 Field Inspection Cusack, Heather From: Cusack, Heather Sent: Tuesday, March 21,2006 1:25 PM To: Bergen, Dave; Cusack, Heather; Doherty, Jill; Dickerson, Peggy Subject: FW: Tsai Building Permit Application, Lake Drive, Southold ..... Original Message ..... From: KENNETH E RICHTER [mailto:seaandsnoman@verizon.net] Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 5'.52 PM To: Cusack, Heather Subject: Fwd: Tsai Building Permit Application, Lake Drive, Southold Board of Trustees, Town of Southold Please be advised that we wish to reiterate out position on this matter. This perlmit request should be denied for the reasons stated below. Kenneth E. Richter Arline Richter KENNETH E RICHTER <seaandsnoman~verizon. net> wrote: Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 11:08:02 -0800 (PST) From: KENNETH E RICHTER <seaandsnoman~verizon.net> Subject: Tsai Building Permit Application, Lake Drive, Southold To: Heather Tetrault <heather.tetrault~town.southold.ny.us> Board of Trustees, Town of Southold This purpose of this letter is to once again state our opposition to the Tsai application for a building permit on Lake Drive, Southold. It is imperative that this parcel, as well as all other vacant parcels along Lake Drive remain in their natural state. This rare and unusual ecosystem must not be allowed the fate destined by developers, vedr, Very truly yours, Kenneth E. Richter Arline Richter 625 Lake Drive Soughold, NY 3/21/06 ,0~2/24/2¢J06 OB: 12 5184732464 COASTAL RF..SUU~L;LL~ r'~UC OZZ ".'~ C(~ASTAL FISH & WILDLII~ HABITAT ASSESSMENT F0.RM Name of Axez: Count)c Town(s): 7W Quadrangle(s): Designated: Goldsmith Inlet and Beach Suffolk Southold Southold,N-Y October 15, 2005 Assessment Criteria Ecosystem Rarity (ER)-the unJquel~ess of the plant and animal community'in thc area and the physical, structural and chemical features supporting this commuaity. ER as~ssment: Maritime dtme and maritime freshwater interdunal swale conununities, rare in New York State. Species Vulnerability (SV)-the degree of vulnerability throughout its range in New York State of a species residing in the ecosystem or utilizing the ecosystem for its sur~vaL (E = Endangered, T = Threatened, SC = Spet'f~l concern) SV assessment: Piping plover (E, T-fed), least tern (T), and osprey (SC) nesting. Additive Division: &6 + 25/2 + 16/4 = 52.5 Human Use (ITU)-- the conduct of significanti demons~rsble commercial, recreational, or educational wildlife-related hnman nses, either consumptive or non-consumptive, in the nren or directly dependent upon the area. HU a~sessmcnt: No significant human uie offish and wildlife resources of the area. ~Population Level (PL)-the concentration of a species in the area during its normal, recurring period of occurrence, regardless of the length of that p~rlod of occurrence. PL assessment: No unusual conc~ntralions of any fish and wildlife species in the axea. Replaceability (R)-ability to replace the area, either on or off site, with an equivalent replacement for the same fish and wildlife and rises of those same fish and wildlife, for the same users of those fish and wildlife, R asscssmen~ Irreplaceable. 64 52.5 1.2 Habitat Index = [ER + SV + HU + PL] = 116.5 Significance = HI x R = 139.8 Page I of 6 ,~272~/20~$ 09:12 51847924~4 CDAS-'"rAL RESOURCES PAGE 03/08 NEW YORK STATE SIGNIFICANT COASTAL FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT NARRATIVE Goldsmith Inlet and Beach LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF HABITAT: Goldsmith Inlet and Beach is located on the north Shore of Long Island, between Mattituck Inlet to the west and Herren Neck to the east, in the Town of Soutbold, Suffolk County (7.5' Quadrangle: Southold, N'Y). This approximately 150-acre area is bounded by Long Island Sound on the north, Honon Lane on the east, Sound View Av~ue on the south, and Mill Lane on the west. The fish and wildlife habitat includes a narrow area of maritime beach thatl extends approximately 2.25 miles along the Sound from approximately $00 feet west of Goldsmith Inlet northeast to and including Ho~on Lane Beach; GoldSrb-ith Inlet and Pond and its contiguous tidal wetlands, which lie at the western end of the habitat; and a mosaic of maritime dunes, maritime fxeshwater interdunal swales, wetlands, and woodeduplands extending fi'om Goldsmith Inlet County Park northeast to Great Pond. The habitat is bordered by reSidential development as well aa undeveloped vegetated dunes. The Goldsmith Inlet and Beach area contains a variety of ecological community types, including tidal pond, maritime beach, maritime dunes, and maritime freshwater interdunal swales. Theselatler two communities extend from approximately 1.5 miles west.of Great Pond southwest to Goldsmith Pond, and are considered ~re ecological occurrences statewide:by the New York Natural Heritage Program. Approximately 70 acres of maritime dune habitat extends from Great Pond to Goldsmith Inlet, with approximately 22 acres of maritime freshwater interdunal swales located adjacent to the dunes. Small wetlands containing poor fen species such as cranberries (Faccinium macrocarpon), sundew (Drosera intermedia), twig-rush (Cladium mart~coide~), and marsh St. John's-wort (Triadenum ~irginicum) are also located within the habitat. Slender blue flag (Irisprismatica), a rare plant species with less than 20 remaining sites or individuals in New York State, has been documented within the xveflands of this habitat. FISH AND WI~.I)LI~ VALUES: The Goldsmith Inlet and Beach habitat consists of several associated significant natural ecological communities. This highly diverse area provides important nesfmg and feeding habitat for a variety ofmigxatorybirds. Least tern (T) and piping plover ('E, T-Fed) nest along the habitat's beaches. An estimated annual average of 4 breeding pa/rs of piping plover (E, T-Fed) were observed at Goldsmith Inlet and beach from 1996 to 2002, with a peak of 7 pairs in 1998. Least tern (T) have nested at this site since 1997, with an estimated annual average of 8 nesting pa/rs from 1997 to 2002, with a peak of 22 pairs in 2000. One pair of common tern (T) ~as documented nesting on the beach in 2000, but none have been observed since. This species had not been noted since 1992, when 27 nesting pairs were documented. Approximately 40 adult roseate terns rE) were observed loafing near the inlet in 2001. Osprey (SC) historically nested at Goldsmith's Pond. More recently, osprey (SC) have nested at Peconic Dunes County Park, with an average o£ 1 nesting pair from 1998 to 2003. Page 2 of 6 .02/24/2096 09:~2 5~847324~4 COASTAL. RESOURCES PA¢:,t~ 04/08 Recreational uses of Goldsmith Inlet and Beach arc concentrated m the area around Goldsrmth Inlet and Goldsmith Pond, where blue crab and American eel are harvested recreatio~ally. The Town of Southold maintains a public beach at GoMsmith Iul~, and Goldsmith Inlet County Pa~k includes 34 acres o fpark land which is home to a diversity o£wildlife- Peconic Dunes County Park, on the west ~ore of C-rent Pond, south of Kenny Road Beach, provides access across the beach to Long Island Sound for surf fishing. IM?ACT ASSESSMENT: Any activity that would substantially degrade water quality and/or terrestxial natural resources at Goldsmith Inlet and Beach would adversely affect the biological productivity of this area. All species of fish and wildlife would be affected by water pollution, such as chemical contamination (including food chain effects resulting from bioaccumulation), oil spills, excessive turbidity, and waste disposal. Efforts should be made to improve water quality in the bay, including reduction or elimination of discharges from vessels and uphnd sources. Vegetated upland buffer zones should be protected or established to reduce non-point source pollution and sedimentation from upland SOU.TCe$. Alteration of tidal patterns in Gold~nith Inlet Pond, by modification of inlet configurations or other means, would have major impacts on the fish and wildlife communities present. No new navigation channels should be excavated within the area. Dredging to maintain existing boat channels should be scheduled between September 15 and December 15 to minimize potential impacts on aquatic organisms, and to allow for the upland placement of dredged material when wildlife populations are least sensitive to disturbance. This is especially critical during the nesfng and fledging period for colon/al nesting birds from March 15 through August 15. Dredged material placement in this area would be de,mental, but such activities may be designed lo maintain or improve the habitat for certain species ofxvildlife. Existing and proposed dredging operations in this area should incorporate the use of best management practices to avoid and reduce adverse effects. Construction of shoreline structures, such as docks, piers, bulkheads, or revetments, in areas not previously disturbed by development (e.g., natural salt marsh, tidal flats, or shallows), would result in the loss of productive areas which support the fish and wildlife resoumes of the Goldsmith Inlet and Beach habitat. Alternative s~ategies for the protection of shoreline propen~Y should be examined, including innovative, vegetation-based approaches. Control o£invasive nuisance plant species, through a v~ety of means, may improve fish and wildlife species u~e of the area and enhance overall natural rcsour~ values. Unrestricted use of motorized vessels including personal watercraft in shallow water~ could have adverse effects on aquatic vegetation and fish and wildlife populations. Use of motorized vessels should be conlxolled (e.g., no wake zones, speed zones, zones of exclusion) in and adjacent to shallow waters and vegetated w~lands. Thermal discharges, depending on time of year, may have variable effects on use of the area by marine speci~ and fish. Installation and operation of water intakes could have a significant impact cn juvenile (and, in some cases, adult) fish concentrations, through impingement or entrainment. ?age 3 of 6 ,~2/24/2006 89:12 5184732454 COASTAL RESOURCES PAGE 05/08 Nesting shorebirds inhabiting Goldsmith Inlet and Beach arc highly vulnerable to d~stmbance by humans, especially during the nesting and fledgling period (March 15 through Augus~ 15). Significant pedestrian traffic or recreational vehicle use of the beach could easily eliminate the use of this site as a breeding area and should be minimized during, this period. Recreational activities (e.g., boat and personal watercraft landing, off-road vehicle use, picnicking) in the vicinity of bird nesting areas should be minimized during this period. Predation of chicks and destru0tion of eggs or nests by unleashed pets (e.g., dogs, cats) and natural predators may also occur, and predator control should be implcra~nted where feasible. Fencing and/or continued ~,maal posting of shorebird nesting areas should be provided to help protect the nesting bird species. Control of vegetative succession, through beneficial use of dredged material or other means may improve the availability ofnesQng habitat in this area. HABITAT IMPAIRMENT TEST: A habitat impairment test must be applied to any activity that is subject to consistency rovicw under federal and State laws, or under applicable local laws contained in au approved local waterfront revitalization program. If the proposed action is subject to consis£cncy r~vicw, then the habitat protection policy applies, whether the proposed action is to occur within or outside the designated area. The specific habitnt impairment test is as follows. In order to protect and preset'ye a significant habitat, land and water uses or development shall not be undertaken if such actions would: · destroy the habitat; or, ~, significantly impair the viability of a habitat. Habitat destruction is defined a~ the loss offish or wildlife use through direct physical alteration, disturbance, or polluQon ora designated area or through the indirect effects of these a~ons on a designated area. Habitat destruction may be indicated by changes in vegetation, sublimate, or hydrology, or increases in runoff, erosion, sedimentation, or pollutants. Significant impairment is defined as reduction in vital resources (e.g., food, shelter, living space) or change in environmental conditions (e.g., temperature, substrate, salinity) beyond the tolerance range of an organism. Indicators ora significantly impaired habitat focus on ecolo~cal alterations aud may include but are not limited to reduced carrying capacity, changes in community smacture (food chain relationships, species diversity), reduced productivity and/or increased incidence of disease and mortality. The tolerance range of an o~arfism is not defined as the physiological range of conditions beyond wh.ich a species will not survive at all, but as the ecological range of conditions that supports the species population or bas the potential to support a restored popular/on, where practical. Either the Pagr 4 of 6 ,~2/24/200S 89:12 5184732464 COASTAL RESOURCES PAGE 06/08 loss of individuals through an increase in emigration or an increase in death rate in~cates that the tolerance range of an organism has been exceeded. An abrupt increase in death rate may occur as an environmental factor falls beyond a tolerance limit (a range has both upper and lower limits). Many environmental factors, however, do not have a shaxply defined tolerance limit, but produce increasing emigration or death rates with increasing departure from conditions that are optimal for the species. The range of parameters which should be considered in applying the habitat impairment test include but axe not limited to the following: 1. physical parameters such as liviag space, circulation, flushix:g rates, tidal amplitude, turbidity, water temperature, depth (including loss of littoral zone), morphology, subs~'ate · type, -vegetation, structure, erosion and sedimentation rate. s; biological parameters such as community structure, food chain relationships, species diversity, predator/prey relationships, population size, mortality rates, reproductive rates, merisfic features, behavioral patterns and migratory patterns; and, 3~ chemical parameters such as dissolved oxygen, carbon dioxide, acidity, dissolved solids, nutrients, organics, salinity, and pollutants (heavy metals, toxics and hazardous materials). Although not comprehensive, examples of generic activities and impacts which could de. stxoy or significantly impair the habitat axe listed in the impact assessment section to assist in applying the habitat impairment test to a proposed activity. Page 5 of 6 .q2/24/2886 89:12 5184732464 COASTAL RESOURCES KNOWLEDGEABLE coNTAcTS: Habitat Unit NYS Department of State Division of Coastal Resourc~ 41 State Su'eet Albany, NY 12231 Phone: (518) 474-6000 NYSDEC--Region 1 State University of N~w York. Building 40 Stony Brook, NY 11790-2356 Phone: (631) 444-0354. Town of SouthoId Tmstem Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Phone: (631) 765-1892 Town of $outhold Planning Board Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Phone: (631) 765-1938 Bureau of Marinc Resources NYSDBC 205 N. Bell* Meade Road, Suite 1 East Setauket, NY 11733 Phone: (631) 444-0430 New York Natural Heritage Program 625 Broadway, 5tb Floor Albany, NY 12233-4757 Phone: (518) 402-8935 Office of Ecology Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services Bureau of Environmental Management County Center Riverhead, NY 11901 Phone: (631) 852-2077 P~ge 6 of 6 ' 69:12 51@47324~4 COASTAL RESOURCES P~G_E_..0@/08 .+ .II Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats Goldsmith Inlet and Beach Print Message From g.greenheron~verizon.net Date 2006/03/17 Fri PM 01:31:47 CST To "Standish, Subject Tsai Property:DOS Significant Habitat Page 1 of, g [ j., Lauren: Interesting. They*~_Q~rmal .ipeg fries. I sent Mark Temy a full copy by US Mail, ~you would like to see them very soon~.~l .mail another-copy to ~ou, hopefully you get it by MoB Im not sure if The NY Heritage Program report w~-'~'V~officially placation ti)9 Tsai fde. I~/s try these.(attached) >Froru: "Standish, Lauren <Lauren. Standish~own.southold.ny.us> (~J >Date: Fri Mar 17 07:12:55 CST 2006 >To: g.greenheron~erizon.net >Subject: RE: Tsai Property:DOS Significant Habitat >Thank you for your e-mail. I was able to open the attachments, however the assessment form was illegible. Perhaps you could mail it to the Board, or drop it offto the office. > >----Original Message >From: g.greenheron~erizon.net [mailto:g.greenheronu~verizon.net] >Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 11:50 PM >To: Standish, Lauren >Subject: Tsai Property:DOS Significant Habitat > > >Lauren Standish >Secretarial Assistant >Southold Town Trustees > Re: Tsai Property >Dear Ms. Standish: > Please relay the following communication to the Town Trustees: > >Dear Sirs and Madams: > I am not sure that you are aware, bm on October 15,2005, theDept, of Stale Coastal Fish and Wildlife unit designated the area known as "Great Pond Wetlands & Dunes" a "Significant Habitat.~ The area is officially known as "Goldsmith Inlet and Beach" and comprises the area from Goldsmith Inlet to McCabes Beach(called Horton Lane Beach in the report.) The Tsai property falls within this significant habitat. > I learned of this three weeks ago, and since then I have contacted Mark Terry, the DEC Bureau of Habitat, and the Dept. of State LWRP Consistency Unit. I informed the latter of the pending Tsai permit application and public hearing. > > > > > Sincerely, Thomas Rozakis Preservation Committee Kenney's Beach Civic Association http:/~netmai~~veriz~n~net/webmai~/serv~et/HttpNim~etDriver?nim~et=-ManageEmai~Detai~N... 3/17/2006 Standish, Lauren From: Sent: To; Subject: g.greenheron@verizon.net Thursday, March 16, 2006 11:50 PM Standish, Lauren Tsai Property:DOS Significant Habitat TsaiCoastal00~.jpg TsaiCoastal002.jpg TsaiCoastal003.jpg TsaiCoastal004.jpg TsaiCoastal005jpg TsaiCoastal006.jpg TsaiCoastal007.jpg Standish Secretarial Assistant Southold Town Trustees Re: Tsai Property Dear Ms. Standish: Please relay the following communication to the Town Trustees: Dear Sirs and Madams: I am not sure that you are aware, but on October 15, 2005, the Dept. of State Coastal Fish and Wildlife unit designated the area known as "Great Pond Wetlands & Dunes" a "Significant Habitat." The area is officially known as "Goldsmith Inlet and Beach" and comprises the area from Goldsmith Inlet to McCabes Beach(called Horton Lane Beach in the report.) The Tsai property falls within this significant habitat. I learned of this three weeks ago, and since then I have contacted Mark Terry, the DEC Bureau of Habitat, and the Dept. of State LWRP Consistency Unit. latter of the pending Tsai permit application and public hearing. Committee Civic Association I informed the Sincerely, Thomas Rozakis Preservation Kenney's Beach Attached: Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Form 7 pages .jpeg feb 9 2006 Field Inspection Cusack, Heather From: Lillian Ball [ballstudio@thing.net] Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 11:26 AM To: Cusack, Heather Subject: bullets revised Dear Southold Town Trustees, #1- "The Great Pond Wetlands and Dunes is not only rare in New York State., it is rare on Earth". This "Martime Freshwater Interdunal Swale" is the only one on the North Fork, with only 4-5 others in NYS. The August 2004 Botanical Report shows native cranberries, the endangered Iris Prismatica, and 14 other wetland species distributed through out ALL the targeted preservation lots. #2- The NY Natural Heritage Program recommends: Protection and Proper management of the maritime dunes that serve as a wetland buffer. Development within maritime dunes would likely reduce the landscape ranking factor for the maritime freshwater interdunal swales, reduce the overall quality of the occurrence, and threaten its long term viability. (Natural Heritage Review used bold letters.) #3- New York Department of State is putting our area on its "Significant Habitat" maps. #4- We already have preserved one lot with the Peconic Land Trust and are actively involved in preserving several others with the support of Suffolk County and Southold Town Land Preservation. (The TSAI families own 2 additional lots, 21.3 listed below and 21.4 which is in tax arrears. Ideally we would like to preserve all 3 of these lots.) Diane Bishop, Suffolk County- Status as of Feb 1 for the Great Pond Wetland acquisitions is as follows: Seaman and others 1000-59-01-25 offer made, in negotiations Georgiopolous 1000-59-01-21.8 contracts being written Georgiopolous 1000-059-01-21.6 & 21.7 appraisals ordered Manos 100-059-2.1, 2.3 & 27 offer made, in negotiations Tsai 1000-059-01-21.3 offer made, have not heard from her #5- We have received a $40,000 grant with PLT from the Fish + Wildlife Foundation for restoration + education. The Long Island Sound Futures Fund recognizes Great Pond area as an environmentally sensitive spot. 2/14/06 feb 9 2006 Field Inspection #6- As Larry Penny ( director of East Hampton town Natural Resources) testified to the trustees in Jan 05, building on maritime freshwater interdunal swales has been shown to substantially weaken waterfront property. He cited an example in EH where a house was washed away. #7- A permit was revoked on the nearby Mazzanobile property due to all the new information cited above. It would be a very dangerous precedent to approve the TSAI permit or any other permit to build under the current circumstances. We hope you have also looked at all the letters from our membership regarding this situation. We urge you to continue to support the environment and prevent any further disruption of this fragile ecosystem. Thank you for giving this matter your serious consideration, Sincerely, Lillian Ball Lillian Ball, chair - Great Pond Wetland Preservation Comm. Kenney's Beach Civic Association PO BOX 881 Southold, New York 11971 631-765-3495 cell 917-453-5040 2/14/06 TrusteesGreatPond.txt 585 Dogwood Lane Southold, NY 11791 Noveraber 15, 2005 Southold Town Board of Trustees Southold, New York ermit Application ve -21.001 Dear Sirs and Madam: re: Tsai Wetland P 310 Lake Dri 1000-059-001 We are members of the Kenney's Beach Property Owners Association a nd Southold property owners for over sixteen years. We respectful ly submit this letter in opposition to the above referenced applic ation for the following reasons: 1. The area in which this property is located has been identified by noted biologist Eric Lamont as a globally rare maritime dune a nd freshwater interdunal swale, and clearly falls under the full protection of the Southold Town Wetland Code. 2. Suffolk County, the Peconic Land Trust, the Southold Town Lan d Preservation Committee, and the Southold Town Board have all tak en steps to preserve this entire area, including this parcel. 3. Earlier this year you, the present members of the Board of Tru stees, rejected a similar building proposal also located in this a rea proposed by Mazzonobile. We believe it is in the best interests of the community and the To wn that this property, as well as the other properties which compr ise the "Great Pond Wetlands and Dunes" be preserved from all deve lopment. In their current state they contribute invaluably to the aesthetic and natural resources of Southold Town. Sincerely, Thomas and Ann Rozakis Page 1 Cusack, Heather From: Sent: To: Subject: Martina Boyle [madina@thevillagerllc.com] Tuesday, November 15, 2005 9:44 PM Cusack, Heather WETLAND PRESERVATION Please note our opposition to the proposed development of property located at 310 Lakeside Drive in Southold. Environmental concerns presented at recent hearings regarding the Mazzanobile property are equally applicable to this location. This entire area has been certified as a rare fresh water wetland and should never be developed. We strongly urge the board of trustees to uphold their commitment of preserving our environment and encourage wetlands property owners to work with the Peconic Land trust to accept the very generous offers from land preservation funds. Respectfully Brian & Martine Faerber 1505 Leeton Drive Southold Richard Brindell Lucille Seitz 675 Lake Drive Southold NY 11971 631-765-8129 rbrindel~optonline.net 11/9/05 Southold Town Board of Trustees 53095 Route 25 PO Box 1179 Southold NY 11971 Re: Pending Building permit SCTM# 1000-059-001-21.001 (Julie Tsai) Dear Trustees, I am writing this letter to let you know that I and my wife vehemently disa~ee with the above referenced permit to build to a single family house and septic system at 310 Lake Drive Southold NY 11971-4117. This particular area has been designated to be an interdunal swale which is a globally rare ecosystem, and in fact NY State has only five interdunal swales. The swale filters Great Pond to the south and the consequences could be devastating to the natural environment. By allowing a building permit on this lot you will be displacing mach of the areas natural wildlife, in particular the deer population. In addition, this area is home to unique vegetation known as the Ids Prismatica. I would also like to point out that the board recently revoked another building permit in the same area for the reasons noted above and that particular lot has since been purchased by the Peconic Land Trust. Please consider the points I have outlined in this letter before rendering a decision. If one of the trustees would like to discuss this with me in greater detail, please feel free to contact me at the phone # or email address listed above. Sincerely NOTICE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER BOARD OF TRUSTEES, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD In the matter of applicant: YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN NOTICE: SCTM# I~O0-- OSq-- O~l-- ~.1' (3~ 1 1. That it is the intention of the undersigned to request a Permit from the Board of Trustees to: l~ot,.-.~ ~ ~l*o~t..~. t:~.M~t.-~ H-Ou~' A~I3 5£t>'B~c-~ That the property which is the subject of Environmental Review is located adjacent to your property and is described as follows: 3. That the project which is sul~ject to Environmental Review under Chapters 32, 37, and/or 97 of the Town Code is open to public comment on: ~£t) ~:~3 lb ~'~x3o%- .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: MAILING ADDRESS: PHONE#:. ~16 Enc: Copy of sketch or plan showing proposal for your convenience. SURVEY OF '. LOT 1 CONSTANTINE P- OEO~R~IOIS)Sx. sOUTHOLD Joseph A. Ingegn¢ Land Surveyor Prudential Prudential Douglas Elliman Real Estate 53345 Main Road / Rte. 25, ~0. Box 1~45 Sout~hold. NY 11971 Bus 631 765-5005 Fax 631 765-9644 www. prudentialelliman corn BOARD OFTOWNTRUSTEES TOWN OFSOUTHOLD PO BOX l179 SOUTHOLDNYl1971 RE: REQUEST FOR WETLAND PERMIT SCTM#1000-059-001-21.001; LOT ON LAKE DRIVE Dear Trustees: This proposed house according to the proposed plan as submitted to your office is too close to the Great Ponds Wetland. As a co-owner of an adjacent property that has been in my family for over 50 years, I have a strong concern in preserving this unique environment. I hope that this permit will be rejected as have similar requests in the past. Sincerely, William R. Lehner 10451 Moore Drive Manassas, VA 20111 Co-owner of property at: 505 Lake Drive Southold, NY Cusack, Heather From: Sent: To: Subject: Lynn Faught [lynnft@mindspring.com] Monday, November 14, 2005 3:06 PM Cusack, Heather Request for Lake Drive Wetlands Permit Hello Heather -- I mailed a letter last week, Thank you! Lynn Faught but am sending you this copy as a backup. 2009 Belmont Road, NW Washington, DC 20009 November 10, 2005 #401 Southold Town Board of Trustees Town Hall Annex P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Request for wetland permit for Lot #1000-059-001-21.001 (310 Lake Drive) Dear Trustees, As a 26-year resident at 405 Lake Drive, I would like to go on record as opposing the granting of a wetland permit for 310 Lake Drive. The area is a precious and rare natural resource that the neighborhood has joined together to try to preserve. A single-family house only 55 feet from the protected wetlands would violate town law and open the possibility of widespread and environmentally detrimental development of the entire area. I wholeheartedly urge you to disapprove the permit request. Thank you! Sincerely, Lynn Faught Dec. 14, 2005 Field Inspection Cusack, Heather From: KENNETH E RICHTER [seaandsnoman@verizon.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 2:08 PM To: Cusack, Heather Subject: Tsai Building Permit Application, Lake Drive, Southold Board of Trustees, Town of Southold This purpose of this letter is to once again state our opposition to the Tsai application for a building permit on Lake Drive, Southold. It is imperative that this parcel, as well as all other vacant parcels along Lake Drive remain in their natural state. This rare and unusual ecosystem must not be allowed the fate destined by developers, vedr, Very truly yours, Kenneth E. Richter Arline Richter 625 Lake Drive Soughold, NY 12/20/05 Standish, Lauren From: Kassimatis, John [jkassimatis@panynj.gov] Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 1:31 PM To: Standish, Lauren On the application to build on the Tsai lot on the Great Pond Area Wetlands, I am an adjacent property owner and I understand that this area has a special standing and in the recent past the town has denied building permits for this type of property. I concur with the town, but I must remind you that you must remain consistent with your protocols. John Kassimatis 3735 Kenney's rd 12/12/2005 Standish, Lauren From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: ppoppel@optonline.net Monday, December 12, 2005 12:33 PM Standish, Lauren; Standish, Lauren AMNITSCHKE@aol.com SCTM #1000-059-001-21.001 - Application to build Please deny the application to build on the Tsai lot on the Great Pond Area Wetlands. Everyone talks about "preservation" and here's you chance to show you really want to preserve the pristine wetlands area of Great Pond. You have a crucial decision to make. Please DISAPPROVE this building application and work to prevent the further loss of our fragile wetlands area. Thank you for your concern in this matter. Annette and Robert Nitschke 2715 Kenneys Road Southold, NY 11971 Standish, Lauren From: Donald J. Stanton [djstanton@optonline.net] Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2005 9:38 PM To: Standish, Lauren Subject: Development of the Tsai lot in the Great Pond wetland area To: Board of Town Trustees, Town of Southold From: Donald J Stanton 1450 Leeton Drive, Southold I want to go on record against development of the TSAI lot in the Great Ponds wetlands area. As a property owner in this area for the past 32 years I have personally seen pools of groundwater emerge in the various Iow portions in this wetland area as annual rainfall amounts flutuated from year to year. This wetland area, including the Tsai lot, is not a suitable area for development. I'm sure you are aware that groundwater in this wetland area is contiguous with Great Pond, a potential potable water resource. I urge the Board to take a position against development of the Tsai lot and other undeveloped lots in this weland area. Thankyou. 12/12/2005 PO Box 881 Southold, NY 11901 Nov 9,2005 Albert J.Krupski Board of Trustees Town of Southold 53095 Main Road Southold< NY 11971 RE: SCTM# 1000-059-001-21.001 Dear Trustee Kmpski: On behalf of the Kenney's Beach Civic Association, may I offer congratulations on your recent election to the Southold Town Board. It will be a different venue for your dedicated public service contributions and the Board of Trustees' loss is truly the Town Council's gain! I am the new president of the Kenney's Beach Civic Association. As you know, our membemhip has taken a proactive and monetary role in working to preserve a very special area called the Great Pond Freshwater Wetlands. You and your fellow Trustees acted very judiciously in revoking your earlier approval to an applicant who wished to build on one of the parcels in this fragile tract. The KBCA and the Town Board, with the expertise and guidance of the Peconic Land Trust, were able to preserve the Harper tract. The Board then put an additional 12 of these wetland lots into the Community Preservation Plan "wish list" of acreage to be preserved At the present time, another application is before you. It requests your approval for the building on one of these lots, less than55 feet from the wetlands. This is yet another crucial decision for you, the other Trustees and the cause of wetlands preservation. If you were to give approval it would question your previous decision to revoke authorization for development of the Mezzanobile property (now in litigation.) It would, in essence, open the flood-gates to development of the entire area. The KBCA respects the property rights of individuals, but also must factor in its commitment to protecting and preserving the environment which is clearly supported by the "Wetlands Law of the Town of Southold", especially chapter 97-12. The law should make it easy for the decision to disapprove. The KBCA will support you in your decision to continue to preserve our land from destructive development. ]~cerely, Pat Poppe · ~ President, KBCA BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PO BOX 1179 SOUTHOLD NY 11971 November 18, 2005 RE: REQUEST FOR WETLAND PERMIT S CTM# 1000-59-1-21.1; LOT ON LAKE DR1VE Dear Trustees: In regards to the above mentioned permit application, I did a field inspection myself the next day after your meeting on 11/16/05. I have found that most of the blue wetland flags are in place. I also did some measuring and find that the current stakes that mark the foot print of the house are only 42 fi. from the wetland not 55 ft. As show on the survey. The stake I measured is on the NorthWest comer of the proposed house. Might I ad also that what is in the field is not what is currently show on the survey. I don't believe that the proposed house is staked as shown on the survey. Once again I urge you to reject this permit application based on its location to the wetlands. Also as I am sure you are aware Mr. Barrett is an agent with the Prudential Real Estate Co. and his working in his own self interest on this permit. He has no regard or concern for the wetlands within this proposed building lot. He only has a financial interest in this application if it were to be approved. Sincerely, Richard Bird Lake Drive Southold, NY 11971 BOARD OFTOWNTRUSTEES TOWN OFSOUTHOLD PO BOX 1179 SOUTHOLDNY11971 RE: REQUEST FOR WETLAND PERMIT SCTM#1000-59-1-21.1; LOT ON LAKE DRWE Dear Trustees: The Great Ponds Wetland area is again faced with another house construction on Lake Drive. This proposed house according to the proposed plan as submitted to your office is only 55 ft from the wetland. After looking at the stakes that are in the lot it seems to me that they are in reality much closer the wetland than the actual survey shows. Also this lot is very similar to the Manzanoble property on Lake Drive whose permit was revoked last year. I trust that you will see the similarities of these two permits and reject the permit for this new one. Also as I am sure you are aware of the great progress The Kennys Beach Civic Assn. and the wetland committee has made is the preservation of these few lots that are all either in the wetland or very close. Given some time I am a firm believer that between the county, town, and Peconic Land Trust etc. that we will be able to preserve this delicate piece of the North Fork. Sincerely Richard Bird Lake Drive Southold, NY Kenneth E. Richter Arline Richter 625 Lake Drive PO Box 449 Southold, NY 11971 November 7, 2005 Southold Town Board of Trustees Southold, NY 11971 Re: SCTM #1000-59-1-21.1 Dear members of the Board of Trustees: We would like to take this opportunity to voice our objection to granting a building permit for the subject property. Wetlands make up 50% of the property in question. This parcel is part of the entire rare and unique ecosystem along Lake Drive that the Kenney's Beach Civic Association, the Peconic Land Trust and the Town of Southold are working to preserve. Very truly yours, / 310LakeDrl Cusack, Heather From: Sent: To: Subject: Lillian Ball [ballstudio@thing.net] Monday, October 31,2005 10:23 AM Cusack, Heather Letter to Trustees Southold Town Board of Trustees PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 RE: #1000-59-1- 21.1 Dear Trustees, As you know, our committee of the Kenney's Beach Civic Association is in the process of preserving all the vacant lots in the globally rare interdunal swale between Lake and Leeton Drives. Therefor it is necessary for us to object to the permit request which is before you for #21.1. The 55' distances from the wetlands are not adequate to protect this fragile ecosystem and seem to be overestimated on the survey compared to measurements between stakes. Also, the precedent set in the Mazzanobile case of #21.6 + 21.7 should apply to this lot as well. In fact ,it is a far smaller parcel but with similar distances from the wetlands. We have demonstrated with the Botanical Report and data from the Natural Heritage Program that this is a special spot and part of a much larger area that is unique to the North Fork . Appraisals are being done by Suffolk County on the majority of the vacant lots in the swale, based on landowner interest in sellling. We intend to continue our efforts with the town , the county, Land Preservation, and the Peconic Land Trust to preserve as much as possible of this area. Therefore we respectfully request you deny this permit and continue to uphold the high standards that this Board of Trustees have already established. Sincerely, Great Pond Wetland Preservation Committee Kenney's Beach Civic Association PO Box #881 Southold, NY 11971 Oct. 13,2005 Field Inspection Cusack, Heather From: Sent: To: Cc: Drgeorge0@aokcom Thursday, October 27, 2005 5:14 PM Cusack, Heather ballstudio@thing,net Subject: WETLAND PERMIT-SCTM #1000-59-1-21.1 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PO BOX 1179 SOUTHOLD NY 11971 10/27/05 RE: REQUEST FOR WETLAND PERMIT SCTM#1000-59-1-21.1; LOT ON LAKE DRIVE JUST OFF KENNY'S ROAD DEAR SIRS: WE REQUEST YOU DENY THE GRANTING OF A WETLAND PERMIT FOR THIS LOT WHICH IS IN A UNIQUE AND FRAGILE WETLAND.THIS AREA HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED AS AN INTERDUNAL SWALE AND MUST BE PROTECTED FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS AT ALL COST. THANK YOU BRIAN BAMBRICK BRENDAN BAMBRICK 1655LAKE DRIVE SOTHOLD NYl1971 10/28/05 Oct. 13,2005 Field Inspection Cusack, Heather From: Drgeorge0@aol.com Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 8:38 PM To: Cusack, Heather Cc: ballstudio@thing.net Subject: CORRECTION ON MAZZANOBILE LOT #S BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PO BOX 1179 SOUTHOLD NY 11971 RE: REQUEST FOR WETLAND PERMIT SCTM#1000-59-1-21.1; LOT ON LAKE DRIVE JUST OFF KENNY'S ROAD DEAR SIRS: I WISH TO GO ON RECORD AS STRONGLY OPPOSING THE GRANTING OF A WETLAND PERMIT FOR THIS LOT IS APPROXIMATELY 55 FEET FROM PROTECTED WETLANDS AND CLOSE TO A NEIGHBORS WELL. I AM SURE YOU ARE AWARE THE COMMUNITY OF KENNY'S BEACH IS VERY CONCERNED TO PREVENT DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROTECTED AREA. I CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO THE DECISION OF THE BOARD IN THE MAZZANOPLE CASE WHEN A WETLAND PERMIT WAS DENIED FOR SCTM # 1000-59-1-21.6 & 21.7 THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES APPLY IN REFERENCE TO THIS APPLICATION THANK YOU GEORGE BAMBRICK 1675 LAKE DRIVE PO BOX 1064 SOUTHOLD NY 11971 10/28/05 Oct. 13,2005 Field Inspection Cusack, Heather From: Sent: To: Cc: Drgeorge0@aol.com Thursday, October 27, 2005 5:04 PM Cusack, Heather ballstudio@thing.net Subject: WETLAND PERMIT SCTM # 1000-59-1-21.1 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PO BOX 1179 SOUTHOLD NY 11971 RE: REQUEST FOR WETLAND PERMIT SCTM#1000-59-1-21.1; LOT ON LAKE DRIVE JUST OFF KENNY'S ROAD DEAR SIRS: I WISH TO GO ON RECORD AS STRONGLY OPPOSING THE GRANTING OF A WETLAND PERMIT FOR THIS LOT IS APPROXIMATELY 55 FEET FROM PROTECTED WETLANDS AND CLOSE TO A NEIGHBORS WELL. I AM SURE YOU ARE AWARE THE COMMUNITY OF KENNY'S BEACH IS VERY CONCERNED TO PREVENT DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROTECTED AREA. I CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO THE DECISION OF THE BOARD IN THE MAZZANOPLE CASE WHEN A WETLAND PERMIT WAS DENIED FOR SCTM # 1000-59-1-21.1. THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES APPLY IN REFERENCE TO THIS APPLICATION THANK YOU GEORGE BAMBRICK 1675 LAKE DRIVE PO BOX 1064 SOUTHOLD NY 11971 10/28/05 1670 Leeton Drive Southold, NY 11971 November 1, 2005 Board of Trustees Town Hall Main Street Southold, NY 11971 Dear Board of Trustees, On your November 16, 2005 Trustee meeting the property at 310 Lake Drive will be under review for your approval to develop. This is one of the lots that the Wetlands Preservation Committee of the Kenney's Beach Civic Association has been trying to preserve by acquisition. As you know we have been successful in acquiring the lot on the west end of Lake Drive and preserving it though the Peconic Land Trust. I am the past president of the Kenney's Beach Civic Association and have been very active in the planning of our desire to preserve the remaining parcels of land in the area north of Lake Drive. Our fund-raising efforts with the local community have been very successful and many people out of the immediate area have also contributed to show their support. Suffolk County has also shown and interest in preserving this entire area. My home is on Leeton Drive and for over 50 years I have had the opportunity to talk to people walking or riding their bicycles around the "loop" which surrounds this environmentally rare section of the Town of Southold. Many people are from the area, but many from out of the area come to see the beautiful sunsets and enjoy the refreshing sea breezes. If a home is built on the lot in question it will set a precedent and in time the land, which is pmdonfinantly wetlands, will be jammed full with new homes. The Town of Southold and Suffolk County both are making great strides in land preservation. Here is an opportunity for the local population to get involved and work with the Town and County to preserve land for future generations. Our Civic Association represents over 100 families in the area. I believe I am speaking for most of them. Standish, Lauren From: Lynne Normandia [Inormandia@msmnyc.edu] Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 9:37 AM To: Standish, Lauren Subject: Great Pond Dear Board of Trustees You've heard it before and you'll hear it again. Every time a developer wants to build too close to our Great Pond Wetlands we will make it clear that it is not good for our environment nor the community that surrounds it, nor, in the bigger picture, for Southold and the North Fork. Thank you for listening to our call for reason. Lynne Normandia 11/14/2005 Standish, Lauren From: Sent: To: Subject: Martina Boyle [martina@thevillagerllc.com] Tuesday, November 15, 2005 9:24 PM Standish, Lauren WETLAND PRESERVATION Please note our opposition to the proposed development of property located at 310 Lakeside Drive in Southold. Environmental concerns presented at recent hearings regarding the Mazzanobile property are equally applicable to this location. This entire area has been certified as a rare fresh water wetland and should never be developed. We strongly urge the Board of Trustees to uphold their commitment of preserving our environment and encourage wetlands property owners to work with the Peconic Land Trust to accept the very generous offers from land preservation funds. Respectfully, Brian & Martina Faerber 1505 Leeton Drive Southold 585 Dogwood Lane Southold, NY 11791 November 15, 2005 southold Town Board of Trustees southold, New York TrusteesGreatPond re: Tsai wetland Permit Application 310 Lake Drive 1000-059-001-21,001 Dear sirs and Madam: we are members of the Kenney's Beach Property Owners Association and southold property owners for over sixteen years. We respectfully submit this letter in opposition to the above referenced application for the following reasons: 1. The area in which this property is located has been identified by noted biologist Eric Lamont as a globally rare maritime dune and freshwater interdunal swale, and clearly falls under the full protection of the Southold Town Wetland code. 2. suffolk County, the Peconic Land Trust, the Southold Town Land Preservation committee, and the Southold Town Board have all taken steps to preserve this entire area, including this parcel. 3. Earlier this year you, the present members of the Board of Trustees, rejected a similar building proposal also located in this area proposed by Mazzonobile. We believe it is in the best interests of the community and the Town that this property, as well as the other properties which comprise the "Great Pond wetlands and Dunes" be preserved from all development. In their current state they contribute invaluably to the aesthetic and natural resources of southold Town. sincerely, Thomas and Ann Rozakis Page i Standish, Lauren From: Sydney Schwartz [dschwartz80@nyc.rr.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 10:45 AM To: Standish, Lauren Subject: Great Ponds Wetland Nov 15, 2005 Ken Poliwoda Board of Trustees Town of Southold 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 RE: SCTM#1000-059-001-21.001 Dear Trustee Poliwoda: I am a Kenny Beach property owner and member of the Kenney's Beach Civic Association. My family and I are deeply appreciative of the decision the Trustees previously made to preserve the Great Pond Freshwater Wetlands. As I understand it, there is currently another to request to build on a lot almost adjoining these same wetlands. You and you fellow trustees hold the key to limit development that would endanger the environment. It is my firm hope that the Town of Southold will continue protect and preserve the valuable wetlands that are such an integral part of the environment in our area. Sincerely, Dr. Sydney L. Schwartz 210 West Drive Southold 11/16/2005 2009 Belmont Road, NW ~401 Washington, DC 20009 November 10, 2005 Southold Town Board of Trustees Town Hall Annex P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Request for wetland permit for Lot #1000-059-001-21.001 (310 Lake Drive) Dear Trustees, As a 26-year resident at 405 Lake Drive, I would like to go on record as opposing the granting of a wetland permit for 310 Lake Drive. The area is a precious and rare natural resource that the neighborhood has joined together to try to preserve. A single-family house only 55 feet from the protected wetlands would violate town law and open the possibility of widespread and environmentally detrimental development of the entire area. I wholeheartedly urge you to disapprove the permit request. Thank you! Sincerely, November 13, 2005 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PO BOX 1179 SOUTHOLD NY 11971 Seuthuld Tovza Br~rd of Trustees RE: REQUEST FOR WETLAND PERMIT SCTM#1000-59-1-21.1; LOT ON 310 LAKE DRIVE, SOUTHOLD Dear Trustees: We are writing to you to express our opposition to the request for the construction of a house on 310 Lake Drive (see tax# above). This proposed house is only 55 fi (or possibly less) from the wetland. My understanding is that the minimum should be at least 100ft. Please not that this lot is very similar to the Manzanoble property on Lake Drive whose permit was revoked last year. With this in mind, I trust that you will reject the permit for the Tsai property. Also as we are sure you are aware,The Kennys Beach Civic Association and the wetland committee has made great progress and worked diligently towards the preservation of these few lots that are all either in the wetland or very close. Given our knowledge of SoutholdTown's commitment in protecting our wetlands, I believe that between the county, town, and Peconic Land Trust etc. that the right decision will be made and we will be able to preserve this delicate piece of the North Fork. Thank you for your attention to this important matter. Sincerely Suzette D. Reiss Gerard E. Lehner Lake Drive Southold, NY Cusack, Heather From: Sent: To: Subject: Lillian Ball [ballstudio@thing.net] Saturday, December 17, 2005 2:27 PM Cusack, Heather Great News Updates RE: lot # 21.1 TSAI permit Dear Trustees, We want to let you know there has been significant progress in our efforts to preserve more of the Great Pond Wetlands. When I spoke with the county last week, they told me several offers have gone out and two owners have officially agreed to sell to them their properties . One parcel is 2+ acres adjacent to the park that has agreed to a conservation easement . The other lot owned by Mr Georgopolis (#21.8) wraps around the already preserved Harper/ PLT lot (#20.1). Please take this excellent news into consideration as you look at the permit request for construction on this sensitive globally rare wetlands. Of course, as stated in last month's email and at the last meeting by several KBCA members, our position against this permit remains unchanged. Thank you for giving this your serious attention. Ail the best for Happy Holidays to you and your families. Sincerely, Great Pond Wetland Preservation Committee Kenney's Beach Civic Association PO BOX 881 Southold, New York 11971 Nov lB 05 lO:lBa Glover Perennials 631-29B-1493 BOTANICAL CONSULTANT 717 SOUND SHORE ROAD RIVERHEAD, NEW YORK 11901 Page 2 of 6. AUGUST 2004 Summa~ 1. The Great Pond wetland and dune system is composed of two State-rare ecological communities, with one of them currently listed as globally rare. The region is not only rare in New York State, it is rare on Earth. 2. These two ecological communities are intricately connected together and if one community is altered or disturbed, the other community will be negatively impacted. 3. The low, gently undulating dunes north of Lake Drive are classic examples of a "maritime dune" community, listed as rare by New York Natural Heritage Program (NYNHP). 4. In low areas of the maritime dune community where the land surface intersects the water table, small "cranberry bogs" occur as small, green islands among the white sand. These circular islands offer suitable habitat for native cranberries and carnivorous plants called sundews. 5. Thc cxtcnsivc "maritime freshwater intcrdunal swales" located north of Lake Drive are listed as rare by NYNHP. 6. These freshwater wetlands support a high diversity of plant species, including at least one rare plant, slender blue flag (Iris prismatica). 7. Another noteworthy feature of this site is its connection to Great Pond and the interdunal wetland system at nearby Peconic Dunes County Park. 8. The strictest environmental laws and codes should be enforced to preserve the integrity of these delicate and sensitive ecological communities. 9. Fragmentation of this unique maritime ecosystem will result in negative 9/8/04 Page 3 of 6 environmental impacts. 10. The Great Pond wetlands and dunes are significant and unique elements of Southold's rich natural heritage that should be preserved for future generations. Introduction At the invitation of the Kenny Beach Civic Association (KBCA), I conducted an on-site preliminary environmental assessment (on 8 August 2004) of an approximately 10-acre parcel of land located north of Lake Drive in Southold Township. Thc area is locally known as the "Gmat Pond Wetlands & Dunes". KBCA arranged for permission fi.om some residents for me to walk certain properties. Further access was obtained fi.om a Suffolk County parcel and a Southold Township parcel. Final observations were made from adjacent roadsides. A high quality aerial map (on a scale of one inch -- 100 feet) of the 10-acre parcel also was provided by KBCA. The Great Pond wetland and dune system is dominated by two ecological communities: 1) maritime dunes, and 2) maritime freshwater interdunal swales. Both of these community types are listed as rare in New York by the New York Natural Heritage Program (NYNHP), and the maritime freshwater interdunal swale community is currently listed as globally rare (although NYNHP indicates that the global rank may change in the future). Before continuing with this report, the significance of the previous paragraph must be emphasized. First, NYNHP is the New York State government agency responsible for documenting and tracking rare plants, animals, and ecological communities across New York. The Heritage staff is comprised of highly mined scientists often with advanced degrees, who are experts in studying New York's biodiversity. Second, it is extremely significant, from an environmental point of view, that a relatively small, 10-acre site be composed of two State-rare ecological communities, with one of them currently listed as globally rare. This statement cannot be overstated. We are not talking about the presence of one rare plant or animal species, we are talking about an entire ecological community being rare. Additionally, a large portion of this site is "globally" rare. That means that the region is not only rare in New York State, it is rare on Earth. These two maritime communities are closely and inseparably intertwined with each other. They are connected together by an intricate and delicate balance between macro- and microscopic organisms and abiotic (non-living) factors oftbe envh'onment such as hydrology, soil characteristics, and micro-habitats created by blow-outs in the undulating system of danes. Thc environmental features occurring at the Great Pond wetlands and dunes comprise a unique aspect of the natural history of Southold Township, because maritime dunes and interdnnal swales usually occur on the south shore of Long Island, not on the north shore. For example, these two maritime communities usually occur on Fire Island where dunes are protected and signs warn people to stay off. Long Island's north shore is characterized by tall bluffs directly bordering Long Island Sound. The area 9/8/04 ~ov lB 05 lO:t~a ~lover Perennials R~I-2BB-14~ p.2 Page 4 of 6 between Goldsmith's Inlet and Horton Point, however, is geologically unique. Instead of 100 foot bluffs towering above L.I. Sound, this area supports a unique system of low, undulating dunes and swales, interspersed with a mosaic of extansive wetlands, l cannot think of another location on the north shore of eastern Long Island that supports such a unique and rare system of ecological communities. Another noteworthy feature of this 1 O-acre site is its connection to Great Pond and the interdunal wetland system at nearby Pecoulc Dunes County Park. This connection is most evident at low-lying points along Lake Drive that frequently flood. At these points, wetland plants form corridors linking the sites together into one large system. Site Description The maritime dunes and wet interdunal swales north of Lake Drive grade into each other and the boundaries between them are not always abruptly distinguished. At low areas interspersed throughout the dunes are small "cranberry bogs" that support a diversity of sedges, rushes, and even carnivorous plants. Although these two ecological communities will now be described separately, it should be understood that they are intricately connected together and if one community is altered or disturbed, the other community will be negatively impacted. Maritime Dunes. This ecological commur~ty is listed "G4, S3" by NYNHP. The "G" rank is the "Global" rank, while the "S" rank is the "State" rank. Globally, the maritime dune community is considered to be "apparently secure globally, though it may be quite rare in parts of its range, especially at the periphery" (Edinger et al., 2002). Along the Atlantic coast, maritime dunes are probably best developed at the Outer Banks of North Carolina. Maritime dunes are at their northern limit (periphery) on Long Island and Cape Cod, Massachusetts, and they are quite rare along the north shore of Long Island. The "S3" Heritage rank indicates that maritime dunes are considered rare in New York with only "limited acreage". The low, undulating dunes north of Lake Drive are classic examples of the maritime dune community found at Napeague Dunes in East Hampton Township and Fire Island National Seashore. The Great Pond maritime dune system is comprised of low, gently undulating dunes interspersed with unvegctated blowouts and sandflats. Characteristic plants of the dunes include beachgrass (Ammophila breviligulata), beach heather (Hudsonia tomentosa), seaside goldenrod (Solidago sempervirens), seaside spurge (Euphorbia polygonifolia), beach plum (Prunus maxitima), bayberry 0vlyriea pensylvaniea), jointweed (Polygonella articulata), sedge (Cyperus grayii), Panic grass (Panicum amamm), and halrgrass (Deschampsia flexuosa). Tucked away among the dunes are small pockets stunted pitch pines (Pinus rigida), post oaks (Quereus stellata), and black oaks (Quercus velutina), with a shrub layer dominated by black huckleberry (Gaylnssacia baccata) and highbush blueberry (Vacciaium corymbosum). The pitch pines exhibit an unusual growth form whereby the 9/8/04 ~ov 16 05 09:57a Glover Perennials 631-29B-1493 Page 5 of 6 lower branches grow out horizontally like aprons blanketing the low dunes. It is worth noting that these small wooded pockets resemble a "maritime pitch pine dune woodland", an extremely rare ecological community ranked "G203 Sl" by NYNHP. The extensive wetland system paralleling the northern boundary of the maritime danes will be discussed in the next section. However, it is noteworthy to mention that in low areas of the maritime dune community where the land surface intersects the water table, small "cranberry bogs" occur as small, green islands among the white sand. These circular islands offer suitable habitat for cranberries (Vaccirfium macrocarpon) and carnivorous plants called sundews (Drosera intermcdia). Maritime Freshwater Interdunal Swales. This ecological community is listed "G304, 82" by NYNItP, which makes it more rare than the maritime dune community. The "O3" rank indicates that maritime freshwater interdunal swales are currently regarded as globally rare, but in the future the rank may change to "G4" indicating that the community is apparently secure globally though it may be quite rare in parts of its range, especially at the periphery. A Heritage rank of"S2" is the second highest rank of rarity in New York State ("SI" = extreme rarity, "85" = not rare ("demonstrably secure") in New York). The name of this community was changed from "maritime interdunal swales" (Reschke, 1990) to distinguish the community from brackish interdunal swales. The "Great Pond Wetlands" is an extensive freshwater wetland system associated with Great Pond proper, that continues west into Peconic Dunes County Park. North of Lake Drive, these interdunal wetlands occur in low areas (swales) between dunes where the soil surface intersects groundwater level. Water levels fluctuate seasonally and annually, reflecting changes in groundwater levels. The most ex~ensive portion of this wetland system runs west to east, parallel to Leeton Drive and directly north of the maritime dune system. Small, circular "cranberry bogs" also dot Iow areas among the maritime dunes directly north of Lake Drive. The extensive wetlands north of Lake Drive support a high diversity of plant species, including at least one rare plant, slender blue flag (Iris prismafiea), ranked G4G5 S2 by NYNHP (Young & Weldy, 2004). Characteristic species include twig-rash (Cladium mafiscoides), beakrush (Rhynchospora eapitellata), marsh rush (Juncus canadensis), woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus), chalnnaker's rush (Scirpus pungens), tussock sedge (Carex stricta), cranberry (Vaecinium macroearpon), spatulate-leaved sundew (Dmsera intermedia), lance-leaved violet (Viola lanceolata), cross-leaved milkwort (Polygala erueiata), meadow beauty (Rhexia virginica), marsh mallow (Hibiscus moseheutos), marsh fern (Thelypteris palastris), royal fern (Osmunda regalis var. spectabilis), marsh St. John's wort (Triadenum virginicum), and swamp candles (Lysimachia terrestris). Shrubs and trees bordering the wetlands include red maple (Acer rubmm), tupelo (Nyssa sylvafiea), red chokeberry (Aronia arbufifolia), buttonbush (Cephalanthus oceidentalis), and highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corybosum). Unfortunately, phragmites reed (Phragmites australis) has invaded the wetlands, os well os 9/8/04 Nov 1G OS lO:iSa Glover Perennials B31-29B-1493 p.3 Page 6 of 6 scattered individuals of purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaxia). Conclusion The maritime dunes and freshwater interdunal swales located north of Lake Drive in the Town of Southold are rare ecological communities that should be preserved for future generations. These natural communities are significant and unique elements of Southold's rich natural heritage. The strictest environmental laws and codes should be enforced to preserve the integrity of these delicate and sensitive ecological communities. Fragmentation of this unique maritime ecosystem will result m negative environmental impacts. It is imperative that Southold Township act promptly and assertively to avoid environmental degradation of the Town's rich natural histmy. References Cited Edinger, G.J., D.J. Evans, S. Gebauer, T.G. Howard, D.M. Hunt, and A.M. Olivero (editors). 2002. Ecological Communities of New York State. Second Edition. A revised and expanded edition of Carol Reschke's Ecological Communities of New York State. (Draft for review). New York Natural Heritage Program, New York State Department of Environraental Conservation, Albany, NY. Reschke, C. 1990. Ecological Communities of New York State. New York Natural Heritage Program, N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation. Latham, NY. Young, S. M. and T. W. Weldy. 2004. New York Rare Plant Status List. New York Natural Heritage Program, N.Y.S. Depafanent of Environmental Conservation. Albany, NY. ~8m4 New York Natural Heritage Program A PannersNp between The Nature Comervancy and the NYS Departmem of Environmental Conservation 625 Broadway, 52 Floor Albany, NY 12233-4757 (518) 402-8947 Fax (518) 402-8925 www.nynhp.opg NY Natural Heritage Program Review of Natural Communities Reported at Great Pond Wetlands & Dunes Prepared by Greg Edinger, Program Ecologist, NY Natural Heritage Program October 8, 2004 The NY Natural Heritage Program was contacted by the Kenney Beach Civic Association and asked to review the Preliminary Environmental Assessment of the "Great Pond Wetlands & Dunes," Southold To~vnship, Suffolk County, New York (Lamont 2004). In order to accurately classify and rank the quality of the natural communities at this site, ideally the following data are needed: · vegetation cover data at known location points, · an accurate map showing the boundaries of each community (with the full extent of each community being mapped, even if it extends beyond the area of interest), · data on the condition of each community (e.g., anthropogenic disturbances, presence of invasive exotic species, etc.), · and information on the size and condition of the surrounding landscape. The Lamont (2004) report presents sufficient information to confirm the presence two natural communities described NY Natural Heritage in Ecological Communities ofNYS (Edinger et al. 2002) at the site. These two communities are maritime dunes and maritime freshwater interdunal swales. Although a first draft of the natural communities was included with the report (Lamont 2004), an accurate map showing the full boundaries of each community is needed. A review of in-house digital orthoimagery and reports of the site (Lamunt 2004, pets. comm. Michael Corey, DOS) suggests that both communities extend beyond the boundary of the "Great Pond Wetlands & Dunes" site. The maritime dunes appear to extend about 1.5 miles from Great Pond south~vest to Goldsmith Inlet. Additional patches of maritime freshwater interdunal swales appear to occur within this area of dunes, but perhaps not as large and numerous as observed on the "Great Pond Wetlands & Dunes" site. Using aerial photo interpretation and GIS, I estimate that there are about 70 acres of maritime dunes that extend from Great Pond to Goldsmith Inlet, with about 7.5 acres within the "Great Pond Wetlands & Dunes" site. There are about 22 acres of maritime freshwater interdunal s)vales adjacent to these dunes, with about 9 acres within the "Gmat Pond Wetlands & Dunes" site. The acreage would likely change with more accurate community delineation. The digital orthoimagery and reports (Lamont 2004, pers. comm. Michael Corey, DOS) suggest that both of these community occurrences are good quality. However, there are reports of reed grass (Phragmites australis) and purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) at this site (Lamont 2004), and there appear to be sand roads and driveways through sections of maritime dune. The landscape surrounding the maritime dunes is in relatively good condition, except for the portion within the "Great Pond Wetlands & Dunes" site where the dunes are surrounded on three sides by residential development. At least one house on West Drive appears to have displaced a portion of the maritime freshwater interdunal swales. The ecological processes that maintain maritime dune viability appear to be more intact to the northwest of Great Pond where the dunes and swales have greater connectivity with Long Island Sound. Conclusions The maritime dunes and maritime freshwater interdunal swales at the "Great Pond Wetlands & Dunes" site are part of larger occurrences of these communities that extend southwest to Goldsmith Inlet. The occurrence of maritime dunes from Great Pond to Goldsmith Inlet are tentatively ranked "B" using NY Natural Heritage Rang Specifications (Appendix A) for size, condition, and landscape context. A B-rank indicates a good quality occurrence of maritime dunes which is a globally secure (G4) but state rare (S3) community. NY Natural Heritage considers the maritime dunes at this site a significant natural community occurrence from a statewide perspective. E na~//ng aM E n~n°~ Con~erum~ of New York ~ B~//y The occurrence of maritime freshwater interdunal swales from Great Pond to Goldsmith Inlet is also tentatively ranked "B" using NY Natural Heritage Rank Specifications (Appendix B) for size, condition, and landscape context. A B-rank indicates a good quality occurrence of maritime freshwater interdunal swales which are a globally rare to globally secure (G3G4), but a very vulnerable (S2) community. NY Natural Heritage considers the maritime freshwater interdunal swales at this site a significant natural community occurrence from a statewide perspective. NY Natural Heritage concurs with Eric Lamont's (2004) statement that dune-swale complexes are ex~emely rare on the north shore of Long Island. Recommendations Review of the readily available information suggests that there are two natural community occurrences of statewide significance at this site, maritime dunes (tentatively B-ranked) and maritime freshwater interdunal swales (tentatively B-ranked). NY Natural Heritage recommends the following: · A thorough survey of all natural community occurrences is recommended from Great Pond to Goldsmith Inlet in order to accurately map and confirm tentative occurrence ranks. · Further survey is needed to confirm the report (Lamont 2004) of maritime pitch pine dune woodland at this site. · Element Occurrence Records for all significant natural community occurrences should be entered into the NY Natural Heritage database. · Protection efforts should focus on the viability of the maritime freshwater interdunal swales already shown to contain state rare species (Lamont 2004). · Protection and/or restoration of the connectivity and ecological processes (e.g., storm surge, sand deposition, and salt spray) of the dunes & swales to Long Island Sound would also be beneficial. Protection and proper management of the maritime dunes that serve as a wetland buffer would increase the viability of the swales. Development within maritime dunes would likely reduce the landscape ranking factor for the maritime freshwater interdunal swales, reduce the overall quality of the occurrence, and threaten its long term viability. Note: It is important to reiterate that this assessment, and tentative community occurrence ranking, is based on the full extent of the two natural communities at this site from Great Pond to Goldsmith Inlet, and not limited to the "Great Pond Wetlands & Dunes" site depicted in the report (Lamont 2004). References Edinger, G.J., D.J. Evans, S. Gebauer, T.G. Howard, D.M. Hunt, and A.M. Olivero (editors). 2002. Ecological Communities of New York State. Second Edition. A revised and expanded edition of Carol Reschke's Ecological Communities of New York State. (Draft for review). New York Natural Heritage Program, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY. Lamont, E. 2004. Preliminary Environmental Assessment of the "Great Pond Wetlands & Dunes," Southold Township, Suffolk County, New York. Botanical report prepared for Kenny Beach Civic Association. Prepared by Eric Lamont, Ph.D., Botanical Consultant, Riverhead, NY. E mb//ng and E rkandng C6merumon of New York's Bkd/msiy APPENDIX A Maritime Dunes Overview ofStatus in NY · Historical Occurrences in NY: Historical numbers unknown, probably about 25 to 50 very large occurrences. Estimated Extant Occurrences in NY: There are an estimated 30 to 50 or more occurrences statewide. This number is elevated due to fragmentation of fewer, larger occurrences into more numerous smaller occurrences. · NYNHP Documented Occurrences: 2004:8 extant occurrences. · NYNHP Documented Occurrences with Good Viability: 2004:8 occurrences with good viability (A- to BC-ranked). · Protected Occurrences in NY: 2004:7 (88%) occurrences are on public land or private conservation land. 5 (63%) are on state park land and 2 (25%) are on federal land. · Historical Acres in NY: Historical acres unlmown, probably about 150 to 200 miles covering 19,000 to 25,000 acres (very rough estimate). · Estimated Extant Acres in NY: There are an estimated 145 miles of maritime dunes on Long Island (about 100 miles on the south shore) covering about 5,300 to 15,800 acres. · NYNHP Documented Acres: 2004:2,014 acres mapped. Distribution in NY: Restricted to the ocean shoreline of Long Island. Discontinuous patches of maritime dunes occur from Rockaway Point east to Jones Beach, where the dunes become larger and less fragmented (e.g., Fire Island Wilderness Area), and the dunes continue east until the shore grades into morainal bluffs at Montauk Point. Smaller examples (<5 miles long each) occur in the Peconic Bay and along the north shore of Long Island. · State Exemplary Site(s): FIRE ISLAND, JONES BEACH ISLAND, WALKING DUNES Summary of NYNHP Occurrences': Rank Size Survey Site County Town AB 889 Jones Beach Island Nassau/Suffolk Oyster Bay, Babylon, Hempstead AB 190 Walking Dunes Suffolk East Hampton AB 125 Atlantic Double Dunes Suffolk East Hampton B 69 Nissequogue River Suffolk Smithtown BC 496 Fire Island Democrat Pt. Suffolk Islip, Babylon BC 145 Napeague Dunes Suffolk East Hampton BC 85 Plum Island Suffolk Suffolk Southold BC 14 Northwest Creek Mouth Suffolk East Hampton Draft Element Ranking Specifications A Rank Specifications: Minimum size 60 B Rank Specifications: Minimum size 30 Minimum size 60 C Rank Specifications: Minmium size 10 acres with "A" condition and landscape setting. acres with "A" condition and landscape setting. acres with "B" condition and landscape setting. acres with "A" condition and landscape setting. E mbling and E ri~anang Conser~uNTa g/New York's B igi~t, rsiry APPENDIX B Maritime Freshwater Interdunal Swales Overview of Status in NY · Historical Occurrences in NY: Historical numbers unknown, probably less than 50 sites. · Estimated Extant Occurrences in NY: There are an estimated 20 extant occurrences statewide. Most sites consist of a group of several swales. · NYNHP Documented Occurrences: 2004:5 extant occurrences. · NYNHP Documented Occurrences with Good Viability: 2004:5 occurrences with good viability (A- to B- ranked). · Protected Occurrences in NY: At least two sites protected: Napeague Dunes and Atlantic Double Dunes. Fire Island National Sea Shore may protect some swales. · Historical Acres in NY: Historical acreage unknown, probably less than 1000 acres. · Estimated Extant Acres in NY: Probably less than 1000 acres extant. · NYNHP Documented Acres: 2004: 287acres mapped. Dislribution in NY: Restricted primarily to the southern coast of Long Island and Fire Island, with smaller examples in the Peconic Bay and along the "North Fork" of Long Island in the coastal lowlands of Suffolk County. New York is in the central part of the range from New England south to New Jersey (or possibly farther). · State Exemplary Site: NAPEAGUE DUNES Summary of NYNHP Occurrences: Rank Size Survey Site Cotmty Town A 27 Napeague Dunes Suffolk East Hampton AB 125 Atlantic Double Dunes Suffolk East Hampton B 25 Walking Dunes Suffolk East Hampton B 5 Promised Land Suffolk East Hampton B 5 Hospital Point Suffolk Brookhaven Element Ranking Specifications (NYNHP 1995) Occurrence Specs: minimum size: 2 acres to map. Need at least 50% cover of vegetation consisting of characteristic native species and less than 50% cover of exotics. Interdunal swales occur in a mosaic with dunes as multiple patches within the dune malrix. One occurrence includes all the swales within a contiguous area of maritime dunes. Map to the same boundary as the dunes. A Rank Specs: minimum size: 100 acres of interdunal swales within a larger matrix of maritime dunes, with minimal disturbance and few or no exotic species; and surrounded by little - disturbed matrix of maritime dunes. B Rank Specs: minimum size: 20 acres of interdunal swales in good condition with minor disturbance, or minimum of 5 acres in excellent, pristine condition within a larger matrix maritime dunes. Some exotics or disturbance may be present, but recovery potential is very good. C Rank Specs: minimum size: 2 acres of interdunal swales in fair condition, either starting to recover from past disturbance, or recently disturbed or altered. Set in a matrix of disturbed dunes - which may be partly developed; poor recovery potential. D Rank Specs: minimum size: 2 acres of interdunal swales in poor condition, with 25 to 50% cover of exotics, isolated from dunes by development or surrounded by very disturbed or altered dunes, with little or no recovery potential. E r~.bling aM E r~n~g Cortseru~tion of New York's Biocli~rsity Mark Terry, Senior Environmental Planner/ LWRP Co-ordinator Planning Board Office Town of Southold, New York mark.terr¥~town.southold.n¥.us P.O. Box 450 Southold, NY 11971 February 25, 2006 g.,m:eenheron(b,,verizon.net Dear Mr. Terry, Enclosed please find NY State Department of State Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Form for area designated on October 15, 2005 as "Goldsmith Inlet and Beach." I believe the "Tsai" property, as well as all the lots termed the "Great Pond Wetlands and Dunes" fall within the range of this newly designated "significant habitat." This designation, I believe, would add weight to your recent determination of LWRP "inconsistency" of the proposed Tsai project. I am not certain who else worked to achieve this designation, but I believe our committee's chairperson, Lillian Ball, deserves quite a bit of credit. Sincerely, Thomas Rozakis Preservation Committee Kenney's Beach Civic Association Via email and U.S. Mail Mr. Robert Barratt PE 4295 Vanston Road Cutchogue, NY 11935 Tel 631 875 0275 Fax 631 734 2730 Southold Town Board of Trustees Town Hall 53095 Route 25 PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 December 12, 2005 Subject: 310 Lake Drive, Southold SCTM# 1000-59-1-21.1 Members of the Board of Trustees, Please find attached a cover of the survey showing the positions of the flags marking the wetlands boundary and the proposed house as requested during the heating on November 16th, 2005. Yours faithfully, Robert Ban'att / ~' ~ ~-' SURVEY OF /: .-. ~,~./ ..;~o,....~'(Z LOT 1 · ' -- ' SUBDPrT$103~ MAP M,4DR leOR_ - ,/ ~,," .- ~ %:~ ~, , .... --- ,~ · .._.--,.~~i~___~,~,.~ ~ _ I I feb 9 2006 Field Inspection Cusack, Heather From: Lillian Ball [ballstudio@thing.net] Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 11:26 AM To: Cusack, Heather Subject: bullets revised Dear Southold Town Trustees, #1-" The Great Pond Wetlands and Dunes is not only rare in New York State., it is rare on Earth". This "Martime Freshwater Interdunal Swale" is the only one on the North Fork, with only 4-5 others in NYS. The August 2004 Botanical Report shows native cranberries, the endangered Iris Prismatica, and 14 other wetland species distributed through out ALL the targeted preservation lots. #2- The NY Natural Heritage Program recommends: Protection and Proper management of the maritime dunes that serve as a wetland buffer. Development within maritime dunes would likely reduce the landscape ranking factor for the maritime freshwater interdunal swales, reduce the overall quality of the occurrence, and threaten its long term viability. (Natural Heritage Review used bold letters.) #3- New York Department of State is putting our area on its "Significant Habitat" maps. #4- We already have preserved one lot with the Peconic Land Trust and are actively involved in preserving several others with the support of Suffolk County and Southold Town Land Preservation. (The TSAI families own 2 additional lots, 21.3 listed below and 21.4 which is in tax arrears. Ideally we would like to preserve all 3 of these lots.) Diane Bishop, Suffolk County- Status as of Feb 1 for the Great Pond Wetland acquisitions is as follows: Seaman and others 1000-59-01-25 offer made, in negotiations Georgiopolous 1000-59-01-21.8 contracts being written Georgiopolous 1000-059-01-21.6 & 21.7 appraisals ordered Manos 100-059-2.1, 2.3 & 27 offer made, in negotiations Tsai 1000-059-01-21.3 offer made, have not heard from her #5- We have received a $40,000 grant with PLT from the Fish + Wildlife Foundation for restoration + education. The Long Island Sound Futures Fund recognizes Great Pond area as an environmentally sensitive spot. 2/14/06 feb 9 2006 Field Inspection #6- As Larry Penny ( director of East Hampton town Natural Resources) testified to the trustees in Jan 05, building on maritime freshwater interdunal swales has been shown to substantially weaken waterfront property. He cited an example in EH where a house was washed away. #7- A permit was revoked on the nearby Mazzanobile property due to all the new information cited above. It would be a very dangerous precedent to approve the TSAI permit or any other permit to build under the current circumstances. We hope you have also looked at all the letters from our membership regarding this situation. We urge you to continue to support the environment and prevent any further disruption of this fragile ecosystem. Thank you for giving this matter your serious consideration, Sincerely, Lillian Ball Lillian Ball, chair - Great Pond Wetland Preservation Comm. Kenney's Beach Civic Association PO BOX 881 Southold, New York 11971 631-765-3495 cell 917-453-5040 2/14/06 Due to the sensitive nature of the interdunal swale area I suggest that you request the applicant prove that the location of a house closer than the Chapter 97 100' setback will not impact the wetland areas. Request a full biological survey (botanical and zoological). Preliminary Survey Great Pond Interdunal Swale Habitat Common plants include oaks, cherries, pitch pine, Phragmites Plant inventory Buttonbush Service berry (shadbush) Meadow beauty Common rush (Juncus) Marsh mallow NY fem Beach Heather Sedges Hudsonia _G_REAT POND WETLAND PRESERVATION KENNE¥'S BEACH CIVIC ASSOCIATION Botanical Re ort Preliminary Environmental Assessment of the "Great Pond Wetlands & Dunes", Southold Township, Suffolk County, New York PREPARED FOR: KENNY BEACH CMC ASSOCIATION SOUTHOLD TOWNSHIP SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK PREPARED BY: ERIC LAMONT, PH.D. BOTANICAL CONSULTANT 717 SOUND SHORE ROAD RIVERHEAD, NEW YORK 11901 AUGUST 2004 Summary 1. The Great Pond wetland and dune system is composed of two State-rare ecological communities, with one of them currently listed as globally rare. The region is not only rare in New York State, it is rare on Earth. 2. These two ecological communities are intricately connected together and if one community is altered or disturbed, the other community will be negatively impacted. 3. The low, gently undulating dunes north of Lake Drive are classic examples ofa"maritime dune" community, listed as rare by New York Natural Heritage Program (NYlqHP). 4. In low areas of the maritime dune community where the land surface intern:ets the water table, small "cranberry bogs" occur as small, green islands among the white sand. These circular islands offer suitable habitat for native cranberries and carnivorous plants called sundews. 5. The extensive "maritime fi'eshwater interdunal swales" located north of Lake Drive are listed as ram by NYNHP. 6. These freshwater wetlands support a high diversity of plant species, including at least one rare plant, slender blue flag (Irisprismatica). 7, Another noteworthy feature of this site is its connection to Great Pond and the interdunal wetland system at nearby Peconic Dunes County Parle 8. The slxictest environmental laws and codes should be enforced to preserve the integrity of these delicate and sensitive ecological communities, 9. Fragmentation of this unique maritime ecosystem will result in negative environmental impacts. 10. The Great Pond wetlands and dunes are significant and unique elements of Southold's rich natural heritage that should be preserved for future generations. 2 Introduction At the invitation of the Kenny Beach Civic Association (KBCA), I conducted an on-s'rte preliminary environmental assessment (on 8 August 2004) of an approximately 10-acre parcel of land located north of Lake Drive in Southold Township. The area is locally known as the "Great Pond Wetlands & Dunes". KBCA arranged for permission from some residents for me to walk certain properties. Further access was obtained from a Suffolk County parcel and a Southold Township parcel. Final observations were made from adjacent roadsides. A high quality aerial map (on a scale of one inch = 100 feet) of the 1 O-acre parcel also was provided by KBCA. The Great Pond wetland and dune system is dominated by two ecological communities: 1) maritime dunes, and 2) maritime freshwater interdunal swales. Both of these commmlity types are listed as rare in New York by the New York Natural Heritage Program (NYNHP), and the maritime freshwater interdunal swale community is currently listed as globally rare (although NYNHP indicates that the global rank may change in the future). Before continuing with this reporL the significance of the previous paragraph must be emphasized. First, NYNHP is the New York State gevemment agency responsible for documenting and tracking rare plants, animals, and ecological communities across New York. The Heritage staffis comprised of highly trained scientists often with advanced degrees, who are experts in studying New York's biodivetsity. Second, it is extremely significant, from an environmental point of view, that a relatively small, 10-acre site be composed of two State-rare ecological communities, with one of them currently listed as globally rare. This statement cannot be overstated. We are not talking about the presence of one rare plant or animal species, we are talking about an entire ecological community being rare. Additionally, a large portion of this site is "glohally' rare. That means that the region is not only rare in New York State, it is rare on Earth. These two maritime communities are closely and inseparably intertwined with each other. They are connected together by an intricate and delicate balance between macro- and microscopic organisms and abiofic (non-living) factors of the environment such as hydrology, soil characteristics, and micro-habitats created by blow-outs in the undulating system of dunes. The environmental features occun'ing at the Great Pond wetlands and dunes comprise a unique aspect of the natural history of Sonthold Township, because maritime dunes and interdunal swales usually occur on the south shore of Long Island, not on the north shore. For example, these two maritime communities usually occur on Fire Island where danes are protected and signs warn people to stay off. Long Island's north shore is characterizxxl by tall bluffs directly bordering Long Island Sound. The area between Goldsmith's Inlet and Horton Point, however, is geologically unique. Instead of 100 foot bluffs towering above L.L Sound, this area supports a tmique system of low, undulating dunes and swales, interspersed with a mosaic of extensive wetlands. I cannot think of another location on the north shore of eastern Long Island that supports such a unique and rare system of ecological communities. Another noteworthy feature of this 10-acre site is its connection to Great Pond and the interdunal wetland system at nearby Peconic Dunes County Park. This connection is most evident at low-lying points along Lake Drive that frequently flood. At these points, wetland plants form con-/dots linking the sites together into one large system. 3 Site Description The maritime dunes and wet interdunal swales north of Lake Drive gr~ ,te into each other and the boundaries between them are not always abruptly distinguished. At low areas int~lJersed throughout the dunes are small "cranberry bogs" that support a diversity of sedges, rushes, and even carnivorous plants. Although these two ecological communities will now be described separately, it should be understood that they are intricately connected together and ff one community is altered or disturbed, the other community will be negatively impucted. Maritime Dunes. This ecological community is listed "C,-4, S3" by NYlqHP. The rank is the "Global" rank, while the "S' rank is the "State" rank. Globally, the maritime dune community is considered to be "apparently secure globally, though it may be quite rare in parts of its range, especially at the peripbery" (F_xlinger et al., 2002). Along the Atlantic coast, maritime dunes are probably best developed at the Outer Banks of North Carolina, Maritime dunes are at their northern limit (periphery) on Long Island and Cape Cod, Massachusetts, and they are quite rare along the north shore of Long Island. The "S3" Heritage rank indicates that maritime dunes are considered rare in New York with only "limited acreage". The low, undulating dunes north of Lake Drive are classic examples of the maritime dune community found at Napeague Dunes in East Hampton Township and Fire Island National Seashore. The Great Pond maritime dune system is comprised of low, gently undulating dunes interspersed with unvegetated blowouts and sandflats. Characteristic plants of the dnnes include beachgrass (~tmmophila breviligulata), beach heather (Hud~onia tornentosa), seaside goldenrod (Solidago semjvervirens), seaside spurge (Euphorbiapolygonifolia), beach plum (Prun~g maritima), bayberry ( Myrica pensylvanica), jointweed ( P olygonella articulata), sedge ( Cyperus grayiO, Panic grass (Panicum amarum), and hairgrass (Deschampsiaflexuosa). Tucked away among the dunes are small pockets stunted pitch pines (?inus rigida), post oaks (Quercus stellata), and black oaks (Quercus velutina), with a shrub layer dominated by black huckleberry ( Gaylm. sacia baccata) and highbush blueberry ( Vaccinium corymbosurn). The pitch pines exhibit an unusual growth form whereby the lower branches grow out horizontally like aprons blanketing the low dunes. It is worth noting that these small wooded pockets resemble a "maritime pitch pine dune woodland", an extremely rare ecological community ranked "G2G3 SI" by NYNHP. The extensive wetland system paralleling the northern boundary of the maritime dunes will be discussed in the next section. However, it is noteworthy to mention that in low areas of the maritime dune community where the land surface intersects the water table, small "cranberry bogs" occur as small, green islands among the white sand. These cimular islands offer suitable habitat for cranberries (Vacciniurn macrocarpon) and carnivorous plants called sundew~ (Drosera intermedia). 4 Maritime Freshwater lnterdunal Swales. This ecological community is F~ed ~G3G4, S2" by NYNHP, which makes it more rare than the maritime dune community. The"G3' rank indicates that maritime fi'eshwater interdunal swales are currently regarded as globally rare, but in the future the rank may change to "G4" indicating that the community is apparently sevm~ globally though it may be quite rare in parts of its range, especially at the periphery. A Heritage rank of "S2' is the second highest rank of rarity in New York State ("SI" = extreme rarity, "S5" = not rare ("demonstrably secure") in New York). The name of this community was changed from "maritime interdunal swales" (Resehke, 1990) to distinguish the community from brackish interdunal swales. The "Great Pond Wetlands" is an extensive freshwater wetland system associated with Great Pond proper, that continues west into Peconic Dunes County Park. North of Lake Drive, these interdanal wetlands occur in low areas (swales) between dunes where the soil surface intersects groundwater level. Water levels fluctuate seasonally and annually, reflecting changes in groundwater levels. The most extensive portion of this wetland system runs west to east, parallel to Leeton Drive and directly north of the maritime dune system. Small, cimular "cranberry begs" also dot low areas among the maritime dunes directly north of Lake Drive. The extensive wetlands north of Lake Drive support a high diversity of plant species, including at least one rare plant, slender blue flag (Irisprismatica), ranked G4G5 82 by NYNHP (Young & Weldy, 2004). Characteristic species include twig-rush (Cladiurn mariscoides), bealcmsh (Rhynchospora capitellata), marsh rush (Juncus canadensis), woolgrass (Sc/r/ms cyperinm% chairmaker's rush (Scirp~ pungens), tussock sedge (Carex stricta), cranberry ( Vaccmium macrocarpon), spatulate-leaved sundew (Drosera intermedia), lance-leaved violet (Viola lanceolata), cross-leaved milkwort (Polygala cruciata), meadow beauty (Rhexia virginica), marsh mallow (Hibiscus. moscheutos), marsh fern (Thelypterispalustris), royal fern (Osmunda regalis var. spectabilis), marsh St. John's wort (Triadenum virginicum), and swamp candles (Lysimach~a terrestris). Shrubs and trees bordering the wetlands include red maple (Acer rubrum), tupelo (Nyssa sylvatica), red chokeberry (Aronia arbutifolia), buttonbash (Cephalanthus occidentalis), and highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corybosum). Unfortunately, phragmites reed (Phragtnites australis) has invaded the wetlands, as well as scattered individuals of purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicarm). Conclusion The maritime dunes and freshwater interdunal swales located north of Lake Drive in the Town of Southold are rare ecological communities that should be preserved for future generations. These natural communities are significant and unique elements of Southold's rich natural heritage. The strictest environmental laws and codes should be enforced to preserve the integrity of these delicate and sensitive ecological communities. Fragmentation of this unique maritime ecosystem will result in negative environmental impacts. It is imperative that Southold Township act promptly and assertively to avoid environmental degradation of the Town's rich natural history. 5 References Cited Edinger, G.J., D.J. Evans, S. Gebancr, T.G. Howard, D.M. Hunt, and A.M. Olivcro (editors). 2002. Ecological Communities of New York State. Second Edition. A revised and expanded edition of Carol Reschke's Ecological Communities of New York State. (Draft for review). New York Natural Heritage Program, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY. Reschke, C. 1990. Ecological Communities of New York State. New York Natural Heritage Program, N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation. Latham, NY. Young, S. M~ and T. W. Weldy. 2004. New York Rare Plant Status List. New York Natural Heritage Program, N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation. Albany, NY. 6 GF, EAT F'OND WETLAND FF, ESEF,.VATIQN COMMITTEE KENNEY'$ BEACH CIVIC ASSOCIATION - $OL.ITHOLD NY ((I New York Natural Heritage Program A Partnership between The Nature Conservancy and the NYS Departmem of Environmental Conservation 625 Broadway, 5* Floor Albany, NY 12233-4757 (518) 402-8947 Fax (518) 402-8925 www.nynhp.org NY Natural Heritage Progrnm Review of Natural Communities Reported at Great Pond Wetlands & Dunes Prepared by Greg Edinger, Program Ecologist, NY Natural Heritage Program October 8, 2004 The NY Natural Heritage Program was contacted by the Keuney Beach Civic Association and asked to review the Preliminary Environmental Assessment of the "Great Pond Wetlands & Dunes," Southold Township, Suffolk County, New York (Lamout 2004). In order to accurately classify and rank the quality of the natural communities at this site, ideally the following data · vegetation cover data at known location po'rots, · an accurate map showing the boundaries of each community (with the full extent of each community being mapped, even if it extends beyond the area of interest), · data on the condition of each community (e.g., anthropogenic disturbances, presence of invasive exotic species, etc.), · and information on the size and condition of the surrounding landscape. The Lnmont (2004) report presents sufficient information to confirm the presence two natural communities described NY Natural Heritage in Ecological Communities ofNYS (Edinger et al. 2002) at the site. These two communities are maritime dunes end maritime freshwater interdunal swales. Although a first dmR of the natural communities was included with the report (Lnmunt 2004), an accurate map showing the full boundaries of each community is needed. A review of in-house digital orthoimagery and reports of the site (Lamunt 2004, pets. comm. Michael Corey, DOS) suggests that both communities extend beyond the boundary of the "Great Pond Wetlands & Dunes" site. The maritime dunes appear to extend about 1.5 miles from Great Pond southwest to Goldsmith Inlet. Additional patches of maritime freshwater interdunal swales appear to occur within this area of dunes, but perhaps not as large and numerous as observed on the "Great Pond Wetlands & Dunes" site. Using aerial photo interpretation and GIS, I estimate that there are about 70 acres of maritime dunes that extend l~om Great Pood to Goldsmith Inlet, with about 7.5 acres within the "Great Pond Wetlands & Dunes" site. There are about 22 acres of maritime freshwater interdunal swales adjaeent to these dunes, with about 9 acres within the "Great Pond Wetlands & Dunes" site. The acreage would likely change with more accurate community delineation. The digital orthoimagery and reports (Lamont 2004, pers. comm. Michael Corey, DOS) suggest that both of these community occurrences are good quality. However, there are reports of reed grass (Phragraites austra/t0 and purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) at this site (Lamunt 2004), and there appear to be sand roods and driveways through sections of maritime dune. The landscape surrounding the maritime dunes is in relatively good condition, except for the portion within the "Great Pond Wetlands & Dunes" site where the dunes are surrounded on three sides by residential development. At least one house on West Drivo appears to have displaced a portion of the maritime freshwater interdunal swales. The ecological processes that maintain maritime dune viability appear to be more intact to the northwest of Great Pond where the dunes and swales have greater connectivity with Lung Island Sound. Coneinsions The maritime dunes and maritime freshwater interdunal swales at the "Great Pond Wetlands & Dunes" site are part of larger occurrences of these communities that extend southwest to Goldsmith Inlet. The occurrence of maritime dunes from Great Pond to Goldsmith Inlet are tentatively ranked "B" using NY Natural Heritage Rang Specifications (Appendix A) for size, condition, and landscape context. A B-rank indicates a good quality occurrence of maritime dunes which is a globally secure (G4) but state rare (S3) community. NY Natural Heritage considers the maritime dunes at this site a signlfleant natural community oeeurrenee from a statewide perspective. 2o The occurrence of maritime freshwater interdunal swales from Great Pond to Goldsmith Inlet is also tentatively ranked "B" using NY Natural Heritage Rank Specifications (Appendix B) for size, condition, and landscape context. A B-rank indicates a good quality occurrence of maritime freshwater interdunal swales which are a globally rare to globally secure (G3G4), but a very vulnerable (S2) community. NY Natural Heritage considers the maritime freshwater interdunal swales at this site a significant natural community occurrence from a statewide perapectiv~ NY Natural Heritage concurs with Eric Lamont's (2004) statement that done-swale complexes are extremely rare on the north shore of Long Island. Recommendations Review of the readily available information suggests flint there are two natural community occurrences of sunewide significance at this site, maritime dones (tentatively B-ranked) and maritime freshwater interdunal swales (tentatively B-ranked). NY Natural Heritage recommends the following: · A thorough survey of all natural community occurrences is recommended from Great Pond to Goldsmith Inlet in order to accurately map and confirm tentative occurrence ranks. · Further survey is needed to confmn the report (Lamont 2004) of maritime pitch pine done woodland at this site. · Element Occurrence Records for all significant natural community occurrences should be entered into the NY Natural Heritage database. Protection efforts should focus on the viability of the maritime freshwater interdunai swales already shown to contain state rare Sl~.C. ies (Lamont 2004). Protection and/or restoration of the connectivity and ecological processes (e.g., storm surge, sand deposition, and salt spray) of the dones & swales to Long Island Sound would also be beneficial. Protection and proper management of the maritime dones that serve as a wetland buffer would increase the viability of the swales. Development within maritime dunes would likely reduce the landscape ranking factor for the maritime freshwater interdunal swales, reduce the overall quality of the occurrence, and threaten its long term viability. Note: It is important to reiterate that this assessment, and tentative commonity occurrence ranking, is based on the full extent of the two natural commonities at this site from Great Pond to Goldsmith inlet, and not limited to the "Great Pond Wetlands & Dunes" site depicted in the rapo~ (Lamont 2004). l~ferences Edinger, G.J., D.J. Evans, $. Gebaner, T.G. Howard, D.M. Hunt, and A.M. Olivero (editors). 2002. Ecological Communities of New York State. Second Edition. A revised and expanded edition of Carol Reschke's Ecological Communities of New York State. (Draft for review). New York Natural Heritage Program, New York State Depamnent of Environmcotal Conservation, Albany, NY. Lamont, E. 2004. Preliminary Environmental Assessment of fl~e "Great Pond Wetlands & Dunes," Southold Township, Suffolk Coonty, New York. Botanical report prepared for Kenny Beach Civic Association. Prepared by Eric Lamont, Ph.D., Botanical Consultant, Riverheed, NY. Town of Southold Sample Land Preservation Target Map · Development Rights [] Private Protected Lands · Public Protected Lands Vacant Parcels as of 12/03 ~J./~ Vacant Vacant and Adjacent to ~ Public Protected Land Town of Southold ~'"" Freshwater Wetlands Vacant Parcels as of 12/03 ~ Vacant Vacant and Adjacent to ~ Public Protected Land PLANNING BOARD OFFICE" TOWN OF SOUTHOLD To: Town of Southold Trustees From: Mark Terry, Senior Environmental Planner NOV 18 200 , $outhold Town Board of TrusteeS Re~ Mazzanobile, Gregory SCTM# 1000-59-1-21.6 1000-59-1-21.7 Date: November 18, A site visit was conducted on November 18, 2003 to assess the ecological community of the parcel. The parcel is comprised of secondary dune systems with Maritime Freshwater Interdunal Swales occurring in the northeast and southwest sections of the parcel. These systems are dominated by cranberry (Vacciniurn spp.). The Maritime Freshwater lnterdunal Swales are generally listed in Heritage Program Element Ranks as: Global Ranks G3- Eith~ rare or local throughout its range, or found locally in a restricted range, or found vulnerable to extinction throughout its range because of other factors. G4 - Apparently secure globally, though may be quite rare in parts of its range, especially at the periphery. State Ranks S2 - Typically 6 to 20 occurrences, few remain/ng individuals, acres or miles of stream, or factors demonstrably making it very vulnerable in New York State. In addition, to the above ranks, the communities are locally rare. All efforts to minimize adverse impacts fzom development should be applied including mandating the maximum setbacks pursuant to Chapter 97, Wetlands, of the Town of Southold Code,. To insure the integrity of the Wetland system in the southwest section of the parcel, I recommend that that the setbacks not be compromised and the amendment to Permit No 5631, as ~~ed. The apphcant should pursue a resolutmn th~bu~ County Dep~ent of Health Services. I recommend that prior to any further approvals, the Board contact the New York Natural Heritage Program for further information regarding these significant communities. Telephone (631) 765-1892 SOIJ'TItOLD TOWN CONSEHVATIOiN ADVISOHY COUNCLL Town- HaJ.l, 5309,~ Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, Ne~ York 11971 At the meeting of the Southold Town Consergation Advisory Council held Tuesday, July 15, 2003, the following recommendation was made: Moved by Bob Ghosio, seconded by William Cook, it was RESOLVED to recommend to the Southold Town Board of Trustees DISAPPROVAL of the Amendment application of GREGORY MANZANOBILE to Amend Permit #5631 to allow the location of the sewage disposal system and the necessary fill and retaining wall. Located: 1450 Lake Dr., Southold. SCTM#59-1-21.6&21.7 The CAC recommends Disapproval of the amendment application and the previous application for the Wetland Permit because the CAC has a concern with the proposed change in the grade el'evations and the negative impact due to the run-off into the freshwater wetlands. There is also a concern with the elevations up to the edge of the wetlands. This project requires a 75' non-disturbance buffer. Vote of Council: Ayes: All Motion Carried NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF STATE DIVISION of COASTAL RESOURCES 41 STATE STKEET ALBANY, NEWYORK t2231-0001 USA Phone:I (518) 474-6000 FAX: (518) 473-2464 FAX MESSAGE FROM: DATE: MESSAGE: Number ofgheets (including th_is cover This facsimile mmsmi.~ion may conlam confidential or privileged information which is intended only for use by the individual or entity to which the lran.~rrdsdon is addressed. I/you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, dissemination, copying or distribution ofthi~ tIammission is s~ictly prohibited. The original of this document will be *ent by: [~ '~ w/Il be U~e only form of delivery [ ) overnight mail [ ] ordinary trail COASTAL FISH & WILDLIYE HABITAT ASSESSMENT FORM Name of Area: Cotmty: Town(s): ?W Quadrangle(s): Desi~nated: Goldsmith Inlet and Beach Suffolk Southold Southold,NY October 15, 2005 Assessment Criteria Ecosystem ILarity (ER)--the uniqu chess of the plant and animal community in thc area an d the physical, structural, and chemical features supporting this community. ER. assessment: Maritime dune and maritime freshwater interdunal swale communities, rare in New York State. Species Vulnerability (SV)4-the degree of ~ulnerability throughout its range in New York State of a species residing in the ecosystem or utilizing the ecosystem for its survival. (E = Endangered, T = Threatened, SC = Special concern) SV assessmont: Piping plover (E, T-fed), least tem (T), and osprey (SC) nesting. Additive Division: 36 4- 25/2 + 16/4 = 52.5 Human Use (HU)-- the conduct of signifieant~ demonstrable commercial, recreational, or educational wildlife-related human uses, either consumptive or non-consumptive, in the area or directly dependent upon the area. HU assessment: No significant human use offish and wildlife resources of the area. Population Level (PL)-the concentration of a species in the area during its normal, recurrlag period of occurrence, regardless of the length of that period of occurrence. PL assesm'nent: No unusual concentrations of any fish and wildlife species in the area. Replaceability (R)--ability to replace the area, either on or off site, with an equivalent replacement for the same fish and wildlife and uses of those same fish and wildlife, for the same users of those fish and wildlife. R assessment: Irreplaceable. Score 64 52.5 0 0 1.2 Habitat Index = [ER + SV + HU + PL] = 116.5 Significance=HI xR= 139.8 ]?age I of 6 82724/288~ 89:12 51847324~4 COASTAL RESOURCES PAGE NEW YORK STATE SIGNIFICANT COASTAL FISH AND WILDL~E HABITAT NARRATIVE Goldsmith Inlet and Beach LOCATION AND DESCRrPTION OF HABITAT: Goldsmith Inlet and Beach is located on the north shore of Long Island, behveen Mattituck Inlet to the west and Herren Neck to the east, in the Town of Southold; Suffolk County (7.5' Quadrangle: Southold, NY). This approximately 150-acre area is bounded by Long Island Sound on the north, Horton Lane on the east, Sound View Avenue on the south, and Mill Lane on the west. The fish and wildlife habitat includes a narrow area of maritime beach that extends approximately 2.25 miles along the Sound from approximately 800 feet west of Goldsmith Inlet northeast to and including Herren Lane Beach; Goldsmith Inlet and Pond and its conti=m, tous tidal wetlands, which lie at the western end of the habitat; and a mosaic of maritime dunes, maritime fi:eshwater interdunal swales, wetlands, and wooded uplands extending fi:om Goldsmith I. nlet County Parknortheast to Great Pond. The habitat is bordered by residential development as well as undeveloped vegetated dunes. The Goldsmith Inlet and Beach area contains a variety of ecological community types, including tidal pond, maritime bem:b., maritime dunes, and maritime fi:eshwater interdunal swales. These latter two communities extend fi:om approximately 1.5 miles west of Great Pond southwest to Goldsmith Pond, and are considered rare ecological occurrences state,vide by the New York Natural Heritage Program. Approximately 70 acres of maritime dune habitat extends from Great Pond to Goldsnxith Inlet, w/th approximately 22 acres of maritime freshwater interdunal swales located adjacent to the dunes. Small wetlands containing poor fen species such as cranbm-cies (Vacciniurn rnacrocarpo~O, sundew (Droserct interrnedia), twig-rush (Cladium mari~coides), and marsh St. John's-wort ( Triadenum virginicum ) are also located within the habitat. S lender blue flag (Iris prismatica ), a rare plant species with less than 20 remaining sites or individuals in New York State, has been documented xvithin the wetlands of this habitat. FISH AND WILDLIleE VALUES: The Goldsmith Inlet and Beach habitat consists of several associated significant natural ecological conwnunities. This highly diverse area provides important nesting and feeding habitat for a variety ofmigxatorybirds. Least tern (T) and piping plover (E, T-Fed) nest along thehabitat's beaches. An estimated annual average of 4 breeding pairs of piping plover (E, T-Fed) were observed at Goldsmith Inlet and beach fi-om 1996 to 2002, with a peak of 7 pairs in 1998. Least tern (T) have nested at this site since 1997, with an estimated annual average of 8 nesting pairs fi:om 1997 to 2002, with a peak of 22 pairs in 2000. One pair of conmaon tern (T) was documented nesting on the beach in 2000, but none have been observed since. This species had not been noted since 1992, when 27 nesting pairs were documented. Approximately 40 adult roseate terns (E) were observed loafing near the inlet in 2001. Osprey (SC) histolScally nested at Goldsmith's Pond. More recently, osprey (SC) have nested at Peconlc Dunes County Park, with an average of 1 nesting pair from 1998 to 2003. Page 2 of 6 'B2/24/2rJO~S 09:12 51F~47~24F~q CFJAST~,L. REsr31JReF__5 m~ uqz~.m Recreational uses o fGoldsmith Inlet and Beach are concentrated in the area around Goldsmith Inlet and Goldsmith Pond, where blue crab and American eel are harvested recreatiofially. The Town of Southold maintains a public beach at Goldsmith Inlet, and Goldsmith Inlet County Park includes 3-4 acres of park land which is home to a diversity of wildlife. Peconic Dunes County Park, on the west shore of Ch-eat Pond, south of KennyRoad Beach, provides access across the beach to Long Island Sound for surf fishing. 1MPACT ASSESSMENT: Any activity that would substantially degrade water quality and/or terrestrial natural resources at Goldsmith Inlet and Beach would adversely affect the biological productivity of this area. All spec/es of fish and wildlife would be affected by water pollution, such as chemical contamination (including food chain effects resulting from bioaccumulation), oil spills, excessive turbidity, and waste disposal. Efforts should be made to improve water quality in the bay, including reduction or elimination of discharges from vessels and upland sources. Vegetated upland buffer zones should be protected or established to reduce non-point source pollution and sedimentation from upland SOUrces. Alteration of tidal patterns in Goldmnith Inlet Pond, by modification of inlet configurations or other means, would have major impacts on the fish and wildlife communities present. No new navigation channels should be excavated within the area. Dredging to maintain existing boat channel~ should be ~cheduled between September 15 and December 15 to minimize potential impacts on aquatic organisms, and to allow for the upland placement of dredged material when wildlife populations are least sensitive to disturbance. This is especially critical during the nesting and fledging period for colonial nesting birds from March 15 through August 15. Dredged material placement in this area would be detrimental, but such activities may be designed to maintain or improve the habitat for cerlain species o fwild[ife. Existing and proposed dredging operations in this area should incorporate the use of best management practices to avoid and reduce adverse effects. Construction of shoreline structures, such as docks, piers, bulkheads, or revetments, in areas not previously disturbed by development (e.g., natural salt marsh, tidal flats, or shallows), would result in the loss of productive areas which support the fish and wildlife resources of the Goldsmith Inlet and Beach habitat. Alternative s~ateg/es for the protection of shoreline property should be exam/ned, including innovative, vegetation-based approaches. Control ofinvasive nu/sance plant species, through a variety of means, may improve fish and wildlife species use of the area and enhance overall natural resource values. U~es~icted use of motorized vessels including personal watercraft in shallow waters could have adverse effects on aquatic vegetation and fish and wildlife populations. Use of motorized vessels should be controlled (e.g., no wake zones, speed zones, zones of exclusion) in and adjacent to shallow waters and vegetated wetlands. Thermal discharges, depending on time of year, may have variable effects on use of the area by marine species and fish. Installation and operation of water intakes could have a significant impact on juvenile (and, in some cases, adult) fish concentrations, through impingement or entrainment. Page 3 of 6 Nesting shorebirds inhabiting Goldsm{th Inlet and Beach are highly vulnerable to disturbance by humans, especially during the nesting and fledgling period (March 15 thi:ough August 15). Sign/ficant pedestrian traffic or recreational vehicle use of the beach could easily eliminate the use of this site as a breeding area and should be minimized during this period. Recreational activities (e.g., boat and personal watercraft landing, off:road vehicle use, picnicking) in the vicin/ty of bird nesting areas should be minim/zed during this period. Predation of chicks and destruction of eggs or nests by unleashed pets (e.g., dogs, cats) and natural predators may also occur, and predator control should be implemented where feasible. Fencing and/or continued annual posting of shorebird nesting areas should be provided to help protect the nesting bird species. Control of vegetative succession, through beneficial use of dredged material or other means may improve the availability of nesting habitat in this area. HABITAT IMPAIRMENT TEST: A habitat impairment test must be applied to any activity that is subject to consistency review under federal and State laws, or und~ applicable local laws contained in an approved local waterfront revitalization program. If the proposed action is subject to consistency review, then the habitat protection policy applies, whether the proposed action is to occur within or outside the designated area. The specific habitat impairment test is as follows. In order to protect and preserve a significant habitat, tend and water uses or development shall not be undertaken if such actions would: destroy the habitat; or, e signific~-ntly impair the viability of a habitat. Habitat destruction is defined as the loss offish or wildlife use through direct physical alteration, disturbance, or pollution of a designated ~rea or through the indirect effects of these actions on a designated area. Habitat desa'uction may be indicated by changes in vegetation, substrate, or hydrology, or increases in runoff, erosion, sedimentation, or pollutants. Significant impairment is defined as reduction in vital resources (e.g., food, shelter, living space) or change in environmental conditions (e.g., temperature, substrate, salinity) beyond ~e tolerance range of an organism. Indicators ora significantly impaired habitat focus on ecological alterations and may include but are not limited to reduced carrying capacity, changes in community structure (food chain relationships, species diversity), reduced productivity and/or increased incidence of disease and mortality. The tolerance range of an organism is not defined as the physiological range of conditions beyond which a species will not survive at all, but as the ecological range of conditions that supports the species population or ha~ the potential to support a restored population, where practical. Either the Page 4 of 6 ~2/24/2gg6 B9:12 51~47324~4 COASTAL RESOURCES loss of individuals through an increase in emigration or an increase in death rate indicates that the tolerance range of an organism has been exceeded, An abrupt increase in dea{h rate may occur as an environmental factor falls beyond a tolerance limit (a range has both upper and lower limits). Many environmental factors, however, do not have a sharply defined tolerance limit, but produce increasing emigration or death rates with increasing departure from conditions that are optimal for the species. The range of parameters which should be cousidered in applying the habitat impa/rment test include but are not l~mited to the following: physical parameters such as living space, circulation, flushing rates, tidal amPlitude, turbidity, water temperature, depth (including loss of littoral zone), morphology, subsh-ate type, vegetation, structure, erosion and sedimentation rates; biological parameters such as community structure, food chain relationships, species diversity, predator/preY relationships, population size, mortality rates, reproductive rates, meristic features, behavioral patterns and migratory patterns; and, chemical parameters such as dissolved oxygen, carbon dioxide, acidity, dissolved solids, nutrients, orgarfics, salinity, and pollutants (heavy metals, toxics and hazardous materials). Although not comprehensive, examples of generic activities and impacts which could destroy or significamtly impa/r the habitat are listed in the impact assessment section to assist in applying the habitat impairment test to a proposed activity. Page 5 of 6 KNOWLEDGEABLE CONTACTS: Habitat Unit NYS Department of State Division of Coastal Resources 41 State Street Albany, NY 12231 Phone: (518) 474-6000 NYSDEC--Region 1 State Un/v¢'rsity of New York, Building 40 Stony Brook, NY 11790-2356 Phone: (631) 444-0354 Town of Southold Trustees Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Phone: (631) 765-1892 Town of Southold Planning Board Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Phone: (631) 765-1938 Bureau of Marine Resources NYSDEC 205 N. Belle Meade Road, Suite 1 East Setauket, NY 11733 Phone: (631) 444-0430 New York Natural Heritage Program 625 Broadway, 5'= Floor Albany, NY 12233-4757 Phone: (518) 402-8935 Office of Ecology Suffolk CotmtyDept. of Health Services Bureau of Envirom-nental Management County Center Riverhead, NY 11901 Phone: (631) 852-2077 Page 6 of 6 02,'24/2~0G 09:12 5184732464 COASTAL R~SUU~Ub.!D ~!p_~__ uu/rj~ H o~b~n P~ GOLDSMITH INLET t Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats Goldsmith Inlet aad Beach 200~ lgO0 0 Jeff Woodhouse, Chairperson Joseph L. Townsend Kenneth L. Edwards Martin H. Sidor George Solomon Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Members of the Planning Board, P.O. Box 450 Southold, NY 11971 g.greenheron~verizon.net February 24, 2006 I am a member of the Kenney's Beach Civic Association Pre}'¢~a[~ga.~?mrnittee~ - - We have been closely following the approval process of the I[a&l.TW~rF~;ont Revitalization Program and are very excited about the Town's prospects now that the Town Board and the State Legislature have approved Southold's LWRP. Last month, since there is no information on the Town website pertaining to implementation, I contacted Dennis Mildner, Supervisor of the Long Island Unit of the Division of Coastal Resources, NY Department of State. He kindly responded to me as follows: "Check our website www.nyswaterfronts.com on or around March 1. I anticipate a call for Environmental Protection Fund LWRP proposals/applications to be posted at that time. While your association is not eligible to apply, The Town of Southold is, and partnerships are viewed favorably. With an approved LWRP in place, applications from the Town for a variety of projects xvill be very competitive." A quick look at the Division of Coastal Resources website reveals a wide and generous array of LWRP grant opportunities. If there is an ongoing Town project strategy or grant program we would certainly like to become involved and make our contributions to the effort, especially since "partnering" with community groups is so highly regarded by DOS. Since time is of the essence (see above), please respond as soon as possible with contact information of the Town employee designated as the LWRP grant writer. Thank you. Sincerely, Thomas Rozakis Preservation Committee Kenney's Beach Civic Association CHRONOLOGY OF 21.6 & 21.7 NOV 8,1982 --LETTER TO GEORGIOPOULOS FROM DEPY OF HEALTH REJECTING PROPOSED SUBDIVISION JULY 1,1983 -LETTER TO GEORGIOPOULOS FROM PLANNING BOARD, REQUIRING HIM TO COMPLIY WITH 2 ACRE ZONING LAW ENACTED MAY 20, 1983 MAY 2,2002 --APPLICATION FOR WETLAND PERMIT BY MA77ANOBILE MAY 10,2002 NOTICE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS MAY 13,2002 -- LEI-FERS TO TOWN TRUSTEES IN OPPOSITION TO GRANTING PERMIT-NOTIFIED TRUSTEES OF CRANBERRY BOG,PRIVATE WELLS,POSSIBLE ILLEGAL SUBDIVlSION-A SERIES OF PHOTOS DOCUMENTING FLOODING ON THE SITE JULY 20,2002 --PETTION SIGNED BY 55 RESIDENTS OPPOSING APPLICATION JULY 22, 2002 IILETTER FROM KBCA TO BOARD OF TRUSTEES OPPOSING APPLICATION SEPT 06,2002 --LETTER TO TOWN REQUESTING RE-EVALUATION OF 50FT BUFFER TO 75FT SEPT 25,2002- TOWN BOARD OR TRUSTEES APPROVES A WETLAND PERMIT BY A VOTE OF 3 TO 2 SEPT 26,2002 - LETTER TO DEPT OF HEALTH IN OPPOSITION TO GRANTING HEALTH PERMIT FOR CESSPOOL INCLUDES PETITION, KBCA LETTER IN OPPOSITION AND FLOODING PHOTOS JUNE 27,2003 --REQUEST TO BOARD OF TRUSTEES BY APPLICANT TO AMEND PERMIT TO RELOCATE CESSPOOLS JULY 15,2003 -UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN ADVISORY COUNCIL TO DENY AMENDMENT JULY 16,2003 - LETTER TO TOWN BOARD OF TRUSTEES IN OPPOSITION TO THE GRANTING OF THE AMENDMENT JULY 18,2003 --PETITION BY 43 RESIDENTS OF AREA IN OPPOSITION TO THE GRANTING OF THE AMENDMENT JULY 22,2003 --LEI-rER TO TOWN BOARD OF TRUSTEES BY KBCA IN OPPOSITION TO THE GRANTING OF THE AMENDMENT OCT 06,2003 -- LETTER TO TOWN BOARD OF TRUSTEES ADVISING THEM APPLICANT HAS FAILED TO SHOW THE ACCURATE LOCATION OF WETLAND AREAS ON HIS MOST RECENT SURVEY OCT 20,2003 - LETTER TO TOWN BOARD OF TRUSTEES ADVISING THEM SEPTIC IS LESS THAN 100 FT FROM A PRIVATE WELL MARCH 5,2004 --LETTER TO DEC OPPOSING THE GRANTING OF AN ARTICLE 24 FRESHWATER WETLAND PERMIT JULY 26,2004 --DEC GRANTS FRESHWATER WETLAND PERMIT AUGUST 2,2004 -LETTER TO DEPT OF HEALTH ADVISING THAT APPLICANT'S SURVEY SHOWS THE SEPTIC SYSTEM 71 FT FROM A PRIVATE WELL AND REQUESTING TO BE NOTIFIED OF THE BOARD OF REVIEW HEARING STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF STATE 4 I STATE STREET ALBANY, NY 12231-000 I GEORGE E PATAKI RANDY A DANIELS November 4, 2004 Charles Luyster President Kenney's Beach Civic Association P.O. Box 881 Southold, NY 11971 Dear Mr. Luyster: Thank you for your letter of October 19, 2004 regarding undeveloped lands between Kemley's Road Beach and Goldsmith Inlet in the Town of Southold and your Association's efforts to protect this area. The proposed Department of State Goldsmith Inlet and Beach Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat includes maritime dunes and maritime freshwater interdunal swales, which are rare ecological communities as identified by the New York Natural Heritage Program. These communities lie within the lands you and your organization have expressed an interest in. It is the intention of the NYS Department of State to submit the enclosed draft habitat and narrative for the proposed Goldsmith Inlet and Beach significant coastal fish and wildlife habitat for federal approval in the near future as part of the habitat designation process. Please call me at (518) 486-3108 if you have any questions about this habitat area and its p,oposed designation. Sincerely, Michael Corey Coastal Resources Specialist Division of Coastal Resources 25 30,8A(C) TOIN O~ SOOTI~D GREAT POND 27,3 c~