Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBombara, RobertJOHN P. TAGGART, ESQ. LAW OFFICES PETER S. DANOWSKI, JR, 616ROANOKEAVENUE RIVERHEAD, NY 11901 (631) 727-4900 FAX (631) 727-7451 E-Mail: pdanowski@danowskilaw.com jt aggar~@danowskilaw.com EECEJVED August 9, 2011 AUG 1 0 20 / Town Southold Town Board of Trustees P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 Attn: fill M. Doher _ry. President Re: Robert S. Bombara 1725 North Sea Dr., Southold, NY SCTM # 1000 - 54 - 4 - 19 Dear Ms. Doherty: In response to your letter dated August 8, 2011, clearly there has been no intrusion of construction within the eight (8) foot area mentioned in your letter. As is clearly indicated on the survey, the house and deck is cantilevered on pilings, and for purposes of costal erosion management permits, nothing is touching the sand in this area. With regard to your other comment, there is no requirement to place on the survey an indication that there is a non-disturbance buffer. I answered an inquiry at the public hearing, indicating my client would be agreeable to a non-disturbance buffer, obviously with the ability to cross over an area to gain access to the' beach. Very truly yours, PETER S. DANOWSKI, IR. PSD:gsg cc: Mr. and Mrs. Robert S. Bombara Southold Town Board Martin D. Finnegan, Town Attorney Lori M. Hulse, Assistant Town Attorney Jill M. Doherty, President Bob Ghosio, Jr., Vice-President James F. King Dave Bergen John Bredemeyer Town Hall Annex 54375 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD August8,2011 Peter S. Danowski, Jr. 616 Roanoke Ave. Riverhead, NY 11901 RE: ROBERT S. BOMBARA 1725 NORTH SEA DR., SOUTHOLD SCTM#54-4-19 Dear Mr. Danowski: As a follow-up to the hearing held on Wed., July 20, 2011, we provided a copy of the survey submitted with your application prepared by Young & Young dated June 22, 2011 to the Town Board for their review for consistency with their decision dated January 4, 2011. According to the response received on August 4, 2011, the proposed project does not comply with the Town Board's decision, specifically with conditions 1 and 3. A copy of the memo is attached. Please be advised that our Board is unable to proceed with the review of this application until we receive a survey reflecting the conditions of their decision. Very truly yours, Mill M. Doherty, Pre, s~dent \Board of Trustees JMD:lms Enc. Cc: Martin D. Finnegan, Town Attorney Town Board SCOTT A. RUSSELL SUPERVISOR Town Hall, 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Fax (631) 765-1823 Telephone (631) 765-1889 OFFICE OF THE SUPERVISOR TOWN OF SOUTHOLD To: From: Date: Subject: MEMORANDUM Members of the Board of Trustees Scott A. Russell, Supervisor Members of the Town Board August 4, 2011 Robert G. Bombara S C TM #'1000-54,4-19 In response to the July 25, 2011 request from the Board of Trustees, the Town Board has reviewed the Young & Young survey dated June 22, 2011 and has determined that it does not comply with condition 1 of its decision dated January 4, 2011. The January 4, 2011 decision clearly prohibits any structures and construction within 8 feet landward of the landward toe of the primary dune, whether cantilevered or otherwise. It is clear that a portion of the house and deck/pool are within this area. Attached is the June 22, 2011 survey highlighting the area where structures or construction is prohibited. Additionally, there is no indication on the survey that the undisturbed portion of the property will be maintained as a nondisturbance buffer as required by condition 3. Finally, the Town Board did not require that the applicant submit a final survey reflecting the conditions of the decision. SAR/Ik Enclosure cc: Martin D. Finnegan, Town Attorney / ~ / / / / / / / Y / / · / '/ / / ~INA~E ORITE~.IA 4~ C-ALC'ULATION5 . Young. & Young 631--727--2303 Robert C. Task NOTE5 ~A: 24,5~q SQ. FT. ? JUN 2 7 2011 5URV'EY POR At; 5out:hold, To~n oF Soul:hold fivffolk covnt:~, Nero York Gount:~ Tax Nl~p m~:t I000 s,¢uo. 54 Block 04 Lot Iq STORNII, qATER, ,eI~PlN,~, PRAINA~t= 4~ J EROSION ~.ONTROL PLAN I S~uthhold T~wn MARTIN D.FINNEGAN SCOTT A.RUSSELL TOWN ATTORNEY ®� ®F s®U,,®� Supervisor martin.finnegan@town.southold.ny.us JENNIFER ANDALORO ~ ® Town Hall Annex, 54375 Route 25 ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY P.O. Box 1179 jennifer.andaloro@town.southold.ny.usSouthold,New York 11971-0959 G ® �O LORI M.HULSE `Old, Telephone(631) 765-1939 ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY C®u ,V Facsimile(631) 765-6639 lori.hulse@town.southold.ny.us OFFICE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY TOWN OF SOUTHOLD RECEIVED MEMORANDUM JAN 14 '2011 To: Ms. Elizabeth A. Neville, Town Clerk 1 Southold Town Clerk From: Lynne Krauza Secretary to the Town Attorney Date: January 13, 2011 Subject: Bombara CEM Appeal/SEQRA For your records, I am enclosing the original, fully executed Short Environmental Assessment Form in connection with the referenced matter. We have retained a copy of this document in our file. Also enclosed is a copy of the resolution. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Thank you for your attention. /Ik Enclosures _ PR(7JECT ID NUMB617.20 ER SEAR APPENDIX C STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM for UNLISTED ACTIONS Only PART 1 -PROJECT INFORMATION (To be completed by,Applicant or Project Sponsor) 1 APPLICANT/SPONSOR 2.PROJECT NAME Robert G. Bombara Robert G. Bombara 3.PROJECT LOCATION Municipality Southold, T/O Southold County Suffolk 4.PRECISE LOCATION, Street Addess and Road Intersections, Prominent landmarks etc -or provide map Refer to Building Permit Survey 5. IS PROPOSED ACTION: ® New ❑Expansion ❑Modification/alteration 6.DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY: Construct one (1) single family residence, garage, and pool. 7.AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED: Initially 0.6 acres Ultimately 0.6 acres 8.WILL PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER RESTRICTIONS? ❑X Yes ❑ No If no,describe briefly: 9.WHAT IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT? (Choose as many as apply.) FX]Residential ❑Industrial ❑Commercial ❑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) NYSDEC - Tidal Wetlands rv7Yes ❑No If yes, list agency name and permit / approval: SCDHS — Water Supply & Sewage Disposal 11.DOES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID PERMIT OR APPROVAL? ElYes ®No If yes, list agency name and permit / approval: 12. AS A RESULT OF PROPOSED ACTION WILL EXISTING PERMIT/ APPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATION? Dyes ®No I CERTIFY. THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Applicant / Sponsor Name Thom�,a6 C. Wolpert, P.E., Agent for Applicant Date: Signature_ L����L e- l�� If the action is a Costal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment y r 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 0 Yes ❑✓ No B. WILL ACTION RECEIVE COORDINATED REVIEW AS PROVIDED FOR UNLISTED ACTIONS IN 6 NYCRR,PART 617 6? If No,a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency. Yes 0✓ No C COULD ACTION RESULT IN ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FOLLOWING-(Answers may be handwritten,if legible) C1 Existing air quality,surface or groundwater quality or quantity,noise levels,existing traffic pattern,solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion,drainage or flooding problems? Explain briefly None C2. Aesthetic,agricultural,archaeological,historic,or other natural or cultural resources,or community or neighborhood character?Explain briefly None C3 Vegetation or fauna,fish,shellfish or wildlife species,significant habitats,or threatened or endangered species?Explain briefly None C4. A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted,or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?Explain briefly None C5. Growth,subsequent development,or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?Explain briefly None C6 Longterm,short term,cumulative,or other effects not identified in C1-059 Explain briefly: None C7. Other impacts(including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy)? Explain briefly. None D WILL THE PROJECT HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS THAT CAUSED THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA(CEA)? ❑ Yes z✓ No If Yes,explain briefly. E IS THERE,OR IS THERE LIKELY TO BE,CONTROVERSY RELATED TO POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS? FYes ❑✓ No If Yes,explain briefly: PART III-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 its(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 potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY occur Then proceed directly to the FULL EAF and/or prepare a positive declaration 0✓ Check this box ifyou have determined,based on the information and analysis above and any supporting documentation,thatthe proposed action WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide,on attachments as necessary,the reasons supporting this determination Town of Southold Town Board I- Name of Lead Agency Date Scott Russell Supervisor Print or Type N e Responsib O cer in Lead Age y Title of R onsible Officer Signa re of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Sig ature of PePT(If differWromresponsible officer) s RESOLUTION 2011-68 ADOPTED DOC ID: 6510 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION NO. 2011-68 WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD ON JANUARY 4,2011: WHEREAS,the Board of Trustees on October 15, 2008, denied the application of Robert Bombara(the "Applicant") for a permit to construct a single-family residence on the premises known as 1725 North Sea Drive, Southold,New York, under the Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas Law(the "Law") of the Town of Southold; and WHEREAS, on November 12, 2008, Mr. Bombara submitted an application to the Town Board of the Town of Southold, as the governing Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review, seeking to appeal the determination of the Board of Trustees, or in the alternative, seeking a variance from the requirements of the Law; and WHEREAS,the Town Board did transmit a copy of the instant appeal to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation; and WHEREAS, on January 20, 2009, February 3, 2009, June 2, 2009, and September 7, 2010,the Town Board conducted duly noticed public hearings on the instant appeal with opportunity for all interested parties to be heard; and WHEREAS,that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the conditional approval of this application is classified as an Unlisted Action pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, 6 NYCRR, Section 617; and WHEREAS,the Town of Southold is the only involved agency pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations; and WHEREAS,the Town Board of the Town of Southold accepted the Short Environmental Assessment Form for this action; and WHEREAS,the application has been reviewed pursuant to Chapter 268 (Waterfront Consistency Review of the Town Code and the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program ("LWRP")); now, therefore, be it RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold does hereby adopt the Findings and Determination dated January 4,2011, and conditionally approves the Variance Application of Robert Bombara in accordance with the conditions set forth therein; and be it further 1 a Resolution 2011-68 Board Meeting of January 4, 2011 RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby finds no significant impact on the environment and declares a negative declaration pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations for this action; and be it further RESOLVED that the Town Board had determined that, with conditions, this action is consistent with the LWRP; and be it further RESOLVED that this Determination shall not affect or deprive any other agency of its properly asserted jurisdiction, separate and apart from the proceedings under the Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas Law considered herein. Elizabeth A.Neville Southold Town Clerk RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Christopher Talbot, Councilman SECONDER:Louisa P. Evans, Justice AYES: Ruland, Orlando, Talbot, Krupski Jr., Evans, Russell Updated: 1/3/2011 10:32 AM by Lynne Krauza Page 2 j MARTIN D.FINNEGAN SCOTT A.RUSSELL TOWN ATTORNEY OF so Supervisor martin.finnegan@town.southold.ny.us JENNIFER ANDALORO l0 Town Hall Annex, 54375 Route 25 ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY P.O.Box 1179 jennifer.andaloro@town.southold.ny.us N Southold,New York 11971-0959 G • �Q LORI M.HULSE 0��, Telephone(631) 765-1939 ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY C�(f ,� Facsimile(631) 765-6639 lori.hulse@town.southold.ny.us OFFICE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY TOWN OF SOUTHOLD RECEWED ,MEMORANDUM JAN 1 1 RECD To: Ms. Sandi Berliner From: Lynne Krauza scut -'Id Won"'19"A Secretary to the Town Attorney Date: January 10, 2011 Subject: Bombara CEM Appeal/SEQRA I am enclosing an original Short Environmental Assessment Form in connection with the referenced matter. In this regard, kindly have Scott sign and date this form where indicated and return to me for processing. Thank you for your attention. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me. /Ik Enclosure cc: Ms. Elizabeth A. Neville, Town Clerk (w/encl.) PROJECT ID NUMBER 617.20 SEAR y APPENDIX C STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM for UNLISTED ACTIONS Only PART 1 -PROJECT INFORMATION (To be completed by Applicant or Project Sponsor) 1.APPLICANT/SPONSOR 2.PROJECT NAME Robert G. Bombara Robert G. Bombara 3.PROJECT LOCATION Municipality Southold, T/O Southold County Suffolk 4.PRECISE LOCATION: Street Addess and Road Intersections. Prominent landmarks etc -or Provide map Refer to Building Permit Survey 5. IS PROPOSED ACTION: ® New ❑Expansion ❑Modification/alteration 6.DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY: Construct one (1) single family residence, garage, and pool. 7.AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED: Initially 0.6 acres Ultimately ' 0.6 acres &WILL PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER RESTRICTIONS? ❑X Yes ❑ No If no,describe briefly: 9.WHAT IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT? (Choose as many as apply.) aResidential ❑Industrial ❑Commercial ❑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) NYSDEC — Tidal Wetlands MYes EJ If yes, list agency name and permit / approval: SCDHS - Water Supply & Sewage Disposal 11.DOES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID PERMIT,OR APPROVAL? F]Yes ®No If yes, list agency name and permit / approval: I --J 12. AS A RESULT OF PROPOSED ACTION WILL EXISTING PERMIT/ APPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATION? Dyes ®No I CERTIFY. THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Applicant / Sponso Name Thomas C. Wolpert, P.E., Agent for Applicant Date: Signature O 4 6 If the action is a Costal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment } 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. 0 Yes 0 No B. WILL ACTION RECEIVE COORDINATED REVIEW AS PROVIDED FOR UNLISTED ACTIONS IN 6 NYCRR,PART 617.6? If No,a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency. Yes Z No C COULD ACTION RESULT IN ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FOLLOWING:(Answers may be handwritten,if legible) C1. Existing air quality,surface or groundwater quality or quantity,noise levels,existing traffic pattern,solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion,drainage or flooding problems? Explain briefly. None C2. Aesthetic,agricultural,archaeological,historic,or other natural or cultural resources,or community or neighborhood character?Explain briefly: None C3. Vegetation or fauna,fish,shellfish or wildlife species,significant habitats,or threatened or endangered species?Explain briefly. None C4 A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted,or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?Explain briefly- None C5. Growth,subsequent development,or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?Explain briefly. None C6. Longterm,short term,cumulative,or other effects not identified in C1-059 Explain briefly: None C7. Other impacts(including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy) Explain briefly: None D. WILL THE PROJECT HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS THAT CAUSED THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA(CEA)? ❑ Yes 0✓ No If Yes,explain briefly: E. IS THERE,OR IS THERE LIKELY TO BE,CONTROVERSY RELATED TO POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS? ❑Yes 0 No If Yes,explain briefly: PART III-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 its(a)setting(Le 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 potentially large or significant adverse Impacts which MAY occur. Then proceed directly to the FULL EAF and/or prepare a positive declaration. 0✓ Check this box If you have determined,based on the information and analysis above and any supporting documentation,that the proposed action WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide,on attachments as necessary,the reasons supporting this determination Town of Southold Town Board Name of Lead Agency Date Scott Russell Supervisor Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of Rolponsible Officer ,,". Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Sig ature of I p er(If different from responsible o Icer) RESOLUTION 2011-68 &+ ADOPTED DOC ID: 6510 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION NO. 2011-68 WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD ON JANUARY 4,2011: WHEREAS,the Board of Trustees on October 15, 2008, denied the application of Robert Bombara(the"Applicant") for a permit to construct a single-family residence on the premises known as 1725 North Sea Drive, Southold,New York,under the Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas Law(the"Law") of the Town of Southold; and WHEREAS,on November 12, 2008, Mr. Bombara submitted an application to the Town Board of the Town of Southold, as the governing Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review, seeking to appeal the determination of the Board of Trustees, or in the alternative, seeking a variance from the requirements of the Law; and WHEREAS,the Town Board did transmit a copy of the instant appeal to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation; and WHEREAS,on January 20, 2009, February 3, 2009,June 2, 2009, and September 7, 2010, the Town Board conducted duly noticed public hearings on the instant appeal with opportunity for all interested parties to be heard; and WHEREAS,that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the conditional approval of this application is classified as an Unlisted Action pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, 6 NYCRR, Section 617; and WHEREAS,the Town of Southold is the only involved agency pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations; and WHEREAS,the Town Board of the Town of Southold accepted the Short Environmental Assessment Form for this action; and WHEREAS,the application has been reviewed pursuant to Chapter 268 (Waterfront Consistency Review of the Town Code and the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program ("LWRP")); now,therefore,be it RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold does hereby adopt the Findings and Determination dated January 4,2011, and conditionally approves the Variance Application of Robert Bombara in accordance with the conditions set forth therein; and be it further J Resolution 2011-68 Board Meeting of January 4, 2011 RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby finds no significant impact on the environment and declares a negative declaration pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations for this action; and be it further RESOLVED that the Town Board had determined that, with conditions, this action is consistent with the LWRP; and be it further RESOLVED that this Determination shall not affect or deprive any other agency of its properly asserted jurisdiction, separate and apart from the proceedings under the Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas Law considered herein. Elizabeth A.Neville Southold Town Clerk RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Christopher Talbot, Councilman SECONDER:Louisa P. Evans, Justice AYES: Ruland, Orlando, Talbot, Krupski Jr.,Evans, Russell Updated: 1/3/2011 10:32 AM by Lynne Krauza Page 2 1/7/11 Peter Danowski stopped by the office and picked up a copy of the adopted resolution and findings and determinations from the 1/4/11 Town Board meeting. L. Cooper RESOLUTION 2011-68 � e ADOPTED DOC ID: 6510 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION NO. 2011-68 WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD ON JANUARY 4,2011: WHEREAS,the Board of Trustees on October 15, 2008, denied the application of Robert Bombara(the "Applicant") for a permit to construct a single-family residence on the premises known as 1725 North Sea Drive, Southold,New York, under the Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas Law(the "Law") of the Town of Southold; and WHEREAS, on November 12, 2008, Mr. Bombara submitted an application to the Town Board of the Town of Southold, as the governing Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review, seeking to appeal the determination of the Board of Trustees, or in the alternative, seeking a variance from the requirements of the Law; and WHEREAS,the Town Board did transmit a copy of the instant appeal to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation; and WHEREAS, on January 20, 2009, February 3, 2009, June 2, 2009, and September 7, 2010, the Town Board conducted duly noticed public hearings on the instant appeal with opportunity for all interested parties to be heard; and WHEREAS,that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the conditional approval of this application is classified as an Unlisted Action pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, 6 NYCRR, Section 617; and WHEREAS,the Town of Southold is the only involved agency pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations; and WHEREAS,the Town Board of the Town of Southold accepted the Short Environmental Assessment Form for this action; and WHEREAS,the application has been reviewed pursuant to Chapter 268 (Waterfront Consistency Review of the Town Code and the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program ("LWRP")); now,therefore, be it RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold does hereby adopt the Findings and Determination dated January 4,2011, and conditionally approves the Variance Application of Robert Bombara in accordance with the conditions set forth therein; and be it further Resolution 2011-68 Board Meeting of January 4, 2011 RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby finds no significant impact on the environment and declares a negative declaration pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations for this action; and be it further RESOLVED that the Town Board had determined that, with conditions, this action is consistent with the LWRP; and be it further RESOLVED that this Determination shall not affect or deprive any other agency of its properly asserted jurisdiction, separate and apart from the proceedings under the Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas Law considered herein. Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Christopher Talbot, Councilman SECONDER:Louisa P. Evans, Justice AYES: Ruland, Orlando, Talbot, Krupski Jr., Evans, Russell Updated: 1/3/2011 10:32 AM by Lynne Krauza Page 2 • r f TOWN BOARD COASTAL EROSION HAZARD BOARD OF REVIEW TOWN OF SOUTHOLD -------------------------------------------- In the matter of the Application of ROBERT BOMBARA 1725 North Sea Drive DECISION Southold,NY SCTM#1000-54-04-19 -------------------------------------------- FINDINGS AND DETERMINATION Based upon the application, documents contained in the Board's file, site inspections and testimony received at the public hearings held on January 20, 2009, February 3, 2009, and June 2, 2009 and September 7, 2010, the Town Board finds and determines as follows: ISSUE Applicant has filed an application with the Town Board, as the Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review,(the "Board"), dated November 12, 2008, requesting the following relief. 1. A reversal of the Board of Trustees' ("Trustees") October 15, 2008 determination denying the applicant's application for a permit under Chapter 111 Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas of the Town Code, pursuant to the provisions of§111-25. 2. In the alternative, and should the Board affirm the Trustees determination, the applicant has requested a variance of the provisions of Chapter 111 of the Code as provided in §111-20. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY A. Description of the property: The property that is the subject of this application is located on the seaward (north) side of North Sea Drive and is between the Long Island Sound and North Sea Drive. It is approximately 24,979 sq. ft. or .6 acre and is located in the R-40 zone, with approximately 100 ft. of road frontage on North Sea Drive. Unlike many other properties in this area which are developed with single family residences, this lot has never been developed and remains an unspoiled beach area. As confirmed by the Board of Trustees, and acknowledged by the applicant, the property is located entirely within the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area("CEHA") as established by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. -1- The applicant who purchased the property in 2006 is proposing to construct a single-family residence on this lot with associated garage, pool, water supply and sewage disposal system on this property. B. Trustees Procedural History: L Applications The applicant first appeared before the Trustees with an application filed in October 2006 which requested a CEHA permit allowing the construction of a 4,138 sq. ft. 2-story house (5-6 bedrooms), with 484 sq. ft. detached garage and 800 sq. ft. pool entirely within the CEHA. In its determination dated December 13, 2006, the Trustees denied the application, without prejudice, on the following grounds: 1. The Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council did not support the application because the development was proposed seaward of the CEHA and is prohibited under Chapter 111. 2. The LWRP coordinator recommended that the proposal be found inconsistent with the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program as no construction is permitted seaward of the CEHA and that the proposal was inconsistent with policy standard 4.1, 4.2, and 6.3. 3. That the proposal was located entirely within a natural protective (beach) area; 4. That the proposal was located in an environmentally sensitive area containing valuable habitat valued by the Town for nesting areas for threatened and endangered species and for recharge of the aquifer and the proposed construction would negatively impact an environmentally sensitive area. Thereafter and in July 2007, the applicant revised its plans and submitted three "alternative"proposals to the Board of Trustees as follows: 1. Alternate 1: 5-6 bedroom house comparable in size to the alternative presented to the Board in 2006, with the garage attached and an 800 sq. ft. pool on the seaward side of the home. 2. Alternate 2: 5-6 bedroom house comparable in size to the alternative presented to the Board in 2006, with the garage attached and an 800 sq. ft. pool on the seaward side of the home (sanitary system and shape of the house is different) 3. Alternate 3: A 5-6 bedroom two-story house (approximately 5,238 sq. ft.) on piles with a 512 sq. ft. pool surrounded by an approximate 30 ft. x 45 ft. brick patio. H. Documentation in the Trustees Record Additionally, the applicant submitted the following materials in support of the application: -2- 1. A report of Dru Associates, Inc. dated October 17, 2007 discussing the environmental impacts from the proposal and concluding that the proposed activity complies with the permit issuance standards set forth in 6 N.Y.C.R.R. Part 505 and that the issuance of a permit for development of the property is "compatible with the CEHA and Tidal Wetlands protection, since the resources protected by either of these programs will remain unaltered by the proposed home. 2. A report from First Coastal, dated October 17, 2007, concluding that the section of shoreline upon which this property is located is "dominated by low profile beach ridges that are vegetated by mature shrubs and tree fronted by a sandy beach and(m)atgin of beach grass" 3. An affidavit of John Ehlers, surveyor attesting that there has been no erosion at the site. 4. A coastal assessment report, dated October 2008 and prepared by Applied Coastal Research stating that,overall, net change in shoreline position since 1955 has been approximately zero, which does not mean the shoreline did not move during this time, but suggests that regardless of variation in shoreline movement during this 52-year period, net shoreline location is generally unchanged. The Bombara property is outside the 50-year wave impact zone. The record before the Trustees also contains a memo data October 2, 2007 from Environmental Technician, Heather Cusack and attached data regarding piping plover nesting in the area of the property. The memo indicates that the attached data show a nest east of Kenny's Beach in 2004 and a 2005 map shows a nest between Kennys and McCabe's beaches. The memo concludes that given the nesting patterns, the parcel is a piping plover habitat. Additionally,the memo points out that the State Department of State included the stretch of beach east to McCabe's beach in the Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife habitat. The record before the Trustees,also contains a memo discussing the environmental review of the proposal dated September 17, 2007 which indicates that the lot is located in the CEHA and'that the natural protective features on site include a beach and primary dune. On April 15, 2008, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation conducted a site visit to the property wherein the DEC confirmed: "that the landward limit line of the natural protective feature area(a.k.a. the CEHA line) was mapped based on the determination that the primary dune was the most landward natural protective feature. North Sea Drive was built on a portion of this primary dune. During the initial mapping phase which occurred over twenty years ago and was concluded by a public hearing, a decision was made to place the CEHA line along the north edge of North Sea Drive instead of continuing further landward to a point 25 feet from the landward toe." On October 1, 2008, the LWRP Coordinators submitted a written recommendation to the Trustees that the proposed actions were inconsistent with the LWRP standard and that the proposals did not comply with Town Code Chapter 175, Wetlands, and Chapter 111. III. Public Hearing.- The earing:The Trustees held a public hearing on this application on August 22, 2007 and on October 15, 2008 at which time all those interested were given the opportunity to speak. Peter Danowski, Esq. appeared on behalf of the applicant and presented information in support of the application, the relevant portions of such information is summarized below. Mr. Danowski, pointed out the differences in Alternatives 1 —3 with a prior application to the Trustees by the same applicant that was denied by the Trustees in 2006. Mr. Danowski also set forth certain information regarding the location of the beach area which was verified by the applicant's engineer, Doug Adams of Young & Young. Mr. Danowski also mentioned that the Trustees had granted coastal erosion permits to other property owners in the community, namely, Paskov, Betsch, Von Zubin, Pearlstein, Rosicki and Sonnenbotn; and requested that the records of each of those permit applications be incorporated into the Trustees record by reference. Additionally, several'members of the public and surrounding community testified in opposition to the proposal. Those comments in pertinent part included the following: 1. That the proposal was inconsistent with the LWRP. 2. The Conservation Advisory Committee's refusal to conduct a full review of the proposal because of its location seaward of the coastal erosion hazard line. 3. Trustees should not allow nearby pre-existing construction to legitimize,new construction that is not compliant. 4. The applicant did not make substantive changes to the plan, and therefore should not be considered by the Trustees. At the October 15, 2008 hearing, Mr. Danowski, again appeared on behalf of the applicant and presented the testimony of Mark Burns stating that this particular beach community has experienced accretion as opposed to erosion. Again, several members of the community presented information in opposition to the application including: the'potential impact of the rise in sea level and global,climate change on the'storm surge in the area and erosion; the proposal is located in a primary ' It is noted that the applicant filed an appeal to the Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of the 2006 Trustees determination which was never decided,and is deemed moot by the applicant's submission of an alternate application to the Trustees. -4- dune area on a rare virgin beach; and there are endangered species and rare wetlands located on the property. IV. Trustees,Determination, On October 15, 2008, the Trustees issued a determination denying the Applicant's request (for all three alternatives) for a Coastal Erosion Hazard Area Permit based upon the following: 1. The Conservation Advisory Counsel provided comment that the location of the Coastal Erosion Hazard line is landward of all proposed activities, and, as such, a full review of the application could not be conducted. 2. The LWRP Coordinator recommended that the application be found inconsistent with the UAW because the proposal was inconsistent with Policy 4.1, 4.2, 6, and 6.3. 3. The Board conducted a site visit with the LWRP coordinator, and the New York State Department of Environmental Specialist Robert McDonough, which confirmed that the proposed actions were entirely located seaward of the Coastal Erosion Hazard line and within a primary dune and a primary dune is a natural protective feature 4. The proposed structures, as applied for, are located on the natural protective feature of a primary dune and governed by §111-13 which prohibits all activities in such areas. C. The Town Board proceeding On November 12, 2008, the Applicant timely filed an appeal of the Trustee's determination pursuant to Town Code 111-25 and in the alternative seeking a variance from the standards set forth in the Code with the,Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review(the Board). The Board held duly noticed public hearings on January 20, 2009, February 3, 2009, June 2, 2009 and September 7, 2010 at which time all interested parties were.given the opportunity to present testimony on the application. Peter Danowski, Esq., appeared on behalf of the applicant and presented testimony on both the appeal and variance request. The testimony presented on the appeal reiterated the information provided to the Trustees as set forth in Section III above. With respect to the variance application, Mr. Danowski requested that the Board consider the purpose of Coastal Erosion Hazard Law, i.e. to protect property owners from erosion in conjunction with the expert reports entered into the record indicating that this sound front community has accreted. Additionally, Mr. Danowski also incorrectly noted that the Town is required,to update the Coastal Erosion Map every 10 years which it has not done.2 2 The Town does not have the authority nor the jurisdiction to change the Coastal Erosion Hazard Map. Pursuant to Chapter 111,the Town must follow the map as established by the NYS DEC. -5- Aram Terchunian, a coastal geologist, also testified for the applicant that the there is no documented evidence of sea level rise in this area and, as such, it should not be considered by the Board. Mr. Terchunian also testified that applicant meets all the criteria for a variance, that the area where the applicant's property is located is dominated by a series of beach ridges that have been deposited over decades and centuries and that granting a variance will not destabilize the dune system. Members of the community also provided testimony in opposition to proposal including: 1. Requests that thelown Board take into account the rising sea level and that the coastal erosion hazard line may be moved further inland in the future. 2. The existence of homes in the area, does not provide a sound basis for granting an approval. 3. A primary dune is a dynamic system and is a natural protective feature under the Town Code. 4. The approval of this proposal with set a precedent for the undeveloped lots in the area. 5. Further construction within the maritime freshwater inter-dunal swale that exists between Goldsmith Inlet and Hortons Point weakens the structure of the land and, as happened in East Hampton, could cause houses to go into the water. On April 3, 2009 the Applicant submitted additional material into the record, though the record was closed, and requested that a decision be issued. As the record was re-opened by the Town Board as discussed below, the content of this letter and its attachment were permitted to enter the record. Attached to this letter was a report of Dru Associates, Inc., Ecological Consultants, which purportedly addressed the public comments. Most notably, Dru Associates March 17, 2009 report acknowledged the presence of natural protective features on site and generally stated, without any support or indication of where the features were located that the function of the natural protective features would not be altered. Upon review of the record and prior to issuing a determination, the Town Board on April 21, 2009, noted certain deficiencies in the record with respect to the application and determined to re-open the public hearing, to permit the additional materials submitted by the applicant on April 3, 2009 and to enlist the services of En-Consultants, Inc., Robert E. Herrmann, Coastal Management Specialist ("Herrmann") to evaluate potential impacts of construction on erosion trends and on the natural protective features on the property. More specifically, the Town Board requested additional information with respect to whether the proposed construction was located within a natural protective feature, whether any construction could be located outside the natural protective feature; what impacts the proposed and/or any construction might have on erosion trends and the site's natural protective feature and its functions and protective values; and whether and how(i.e. via location, scope design, etc.)those impacts could be avoided or minimized. -6- On June 2, 2009, the Town Board re-opened the public hearing and the record to address the above issues that were not adequately addressed at the January 20, 2009, February 3, 2009 public hearings. A letter from the applicant's representative dated May 29, 2010 was accepted into the record and noted that the applicant objected to the Town Board's reopening of the hearing. Additionally, a recommendation from Herrmann dated, April 20, 2009 was entered into the record which noted a critical deficiency in the record, most notably that the applicant's site plan did not depict the most landward natural protective feature on the site and therefore, that the Town Board could not ascertain the impacts of the proposed construction on the primary dune. Once the landward geomorphic toe and landward regulatory limit of the sand ridge/primary dune was identified, Herrmann could address the questions identified by the Board. At the June 2, 2009 meeting the Board directed that deficiencies in the applicant's plan noted by Herrmann be addressed by the applicant. Thereafter, the applicants' representatives and/or technical consultants met at the property on several occasions with the Town's'representative and/or technical consultant to discuss the location landward toe of the natural protective feature. Based upon the agreement between the applicant's consultant and Herrmann of the location of the landward toe of the natural protective feature,the applicant made significant revisions to its plans and, as requested by the Town Board, submitted a an amended application to the Board on July 15, 2010, indicated on the Plan as "Alternate 6." This alternative was for an approximately 1700 sq. ft. (footprint) single-family dwelling on pilings with pool, deck, garage and septic system, with a certain portion of the proposed construction occurring over the landward toe of the natural protective feature indicated on the plan. The revised plan was forwarded to Herrmann and a public hearing was duly noticed and scheduled for September 7, 2010. On August 30, 2010, the Town Board received a report from its consultant with the following recommendations on the Alternate 6 plan submitted by the applicant on July 16t : 1. At a minimum any development should be limited in scope and situated so as to avoid,all physical encroachment on and disturbance to the geomorphic limits of the primary dune, both during construction and,afterward to avoid displacement and/or degradation of the primary dune and that all construction should be conducted 8-10 feet from the landward toe of the primary dune. 2. The applicant could relocate and/or downsize the proposed structures and incorporate additional mitigation measures to avoid degradation of the primary dune and therefore the proposal failed to meet the standards for a variance set forth in §111-20. 3. Impacts to natural resources could be mitigated with the installation of leaders, gutters and drywells. 4. Limit removal of natural vegetation and wildlife habitat and the potential introduction of fertilizers by requiring that all undisturbed -7- portions of the site be permanently maintained as a nondisturbance buffer; requiring that all cleared areas no built upon be restored with native, nonfertilizer-dependent vegetation and maintained as a landscape buffer and prohibiting the use of the such chemicals on the site 5. Additional revisions to the site plan presented by the applicant including the identification of the CEHA boundary; the depiction of the regulatory landward limit of the most landward natural protective feature; verification/update of the FEMA boundaries; depiction of a project limiting fence and staked hay bales along the proposed limits of clearing, grading and ground disturbance. On September 7, 2010, the public hearing on this matter was continued and all interested parties were given the opportunity to speak. Mr. Danowski appeared on behalf of the applicants with certain consultants to address the items raised in the Herrmann report, most notably: 1. That contrary to what was suggested by Herrmann, the County Health Department has the same septic system size requirements for two, three or four bedroom homes and their for downsizing the home would not decrease the size of the septic system and would not allow the applicant to move the home closer to the road. 2. The applicant has proposed,abuse on piles and a cantilevered deck to avoid heavy equipment on the primary dune and so that there would be no intrusive building of structures within the primary dune area. 3. Mr. Herrmann's report confirmed that there has been no long term erosion on the property. Members of the public again appeared in opposition to the application and reiterated arguments that were made at the prior hearings. The Town Board closed the hearing subject to comment by the applicant on Mr. Herrmann's report and reserving the Town's right to respond. The applicant submitted a response to the Herrmann report by letter dated September 21, 2010 which set forth the following: 1. There was no reasonable alternative site for the applicant to construct a single family dwelling and urging the Board not require that the location of the house be moved so that a variance would be required by the Zoning Board of Appeals, since the Zoning Board had denied a prior variance application to an adjacent homeowner. Additionally, the area between the proposed structure and the road is necessary-to accommodate the installation of a septic system and to provide parking for cars. The applicant also corrected an error in the record, the septic'system proposed is for a 3 bedroom house. -8- 2. The applicant offered to plant supplemental native vegetation to further protect the beach area. The applicant also agreed to erect and maintain a silt fence/hay bale construction barrier to protect the area seaward of the piling foundation. The applicant would also consent to a condition that no mechanical equipment would be allowed seaward of the piling foundation area during the construction activity. The applicant would also be willing to plant vegetation under the cantilevered deck. 3. The applicant is willing to limit the introduction of fertilizer and other contaminates and will supplement existing seaward vegetation. No clearing will be performed seaward of the construction area. 4. There is no need for approximately 8-10 feet of width on the seaward side of the structures to protect the dune. 5. The applicant also agreed to install leaders gutters and dry wells; to a condition that would require that the undisturbed portion of the site be permanently maintained as a nondisturbance buffer; a requirement that all cleared areas not built upon be restored with native, non-fertilizer-dependent vegetation and maintained as a landscape buffer; and prohibiting the use of such chemicals on the site. 6. The applicant also submitted a revised survey, dated September 21, 2010 with the changes requested in the Herrmann report. On October 4, 2010, the Board received a letter from Herrmann that confirmed that all changes requested in the August 30, 2010 report had been made by the applicant; that the applicant's consultant had confirmed that grading restrictions mandated by the County Health Department would prevent the sanitary system from being moved closer to the road and that if the proposed development was going to be moved farther from the primary dune without zoning relief, that the applicant would have to decrease or redesign the structural footprint. Herrmann also notes that the applicant failed to provide any engineering plan and/or construction narrative prepared by a licensed professional to demonstrate and certify how the proposed structures could be installed without breaching the clearing limitation and damaging the dune. No other comments were received and the record was closed on October 5, 2010. Thereafter and on November 12, 2010,the Applicant requested that the record be re-opened for the submission of a letter to the Board dated October 13, 2010 regarding certain County Health Department Regulations and a letter from Elderco, Inc., a contractor from Port Jefferson indicating the sequence of construction and how said construction sequence would protect the dune. On November 30, 2010, the Town Board, by Resolution No. 2010-942, re-opened the record for thirty days for the limited purpose of permitting the additional information requested by the Applicant to be entered into the record and considered by this Board and allowing sufficient time for comments responding to the additional information supplied by the Applicant. On December 7, 2010, the Town Board forwarded the additional materials submitted by the Applicant to the Town Engineer and Chief Building Inspector for review and comment. By letter dated December 8, 2010, the Town Engineer submitted a response for the record reiterating the recommendation of Herrmann that a minimum setback between eight(8') and ten (10') feet from the landward toe of the dune, despite the proposed construction sequence in the November 8, 2010 letter from Elderco, Inc. The Town Engineer also suggested that the setback include the proposed pool and patio areas and/or any other site improvement that will be constructed with and/or supported by the ground. Finally, the Town Engineer also noted that the proposed cantilevered framing will create the need to access the end of deck framing, the construction of which will ultimately reach out and adversely afflict the,dune and recommends that all cantilevered construction be limited so that it does not extend over or beyond the designated toe of the dune. On December 28, 2010, the Town Board received a letter from the Kenney's/McCabe's Beach Civic Association stating that the Elderco, Inc. letter submitted by the Applicant that questioned whether said letter would qualify as the requested engineering plan and construction narrative recommended in the October 4, 2010 Herrmann letter, and noting certain alleged errors in the letter. This letter also points out that the content of the Elderco, Inc. letter is so general that it could apply to any building site and that there is no documentation provided by the Applicant to confirm that Elderco, Inc. will perform the proposed work on site. On December_, 2010, the record of the proceeding was closed. APPEAL OF THE TRUSTEE'S DETERMINATION The Town Board confirms the determination of the Trustee's decision denying the application for a coastal erosion hazard permit with certain modifications for the reasons set forth below. The CEHA program sets forth a series of regulated activities that require a coastal erosion hazard permits if such activities are conducted within the CERA. Regulated activities are defined in §111-6 as: The construction, modification, restoration or placement of a structure, or major addition to a structure, or any action or use of land which materially alters the condition of land, including grading, excavating, dumping, mining, dredging,filling or other disturbance of soil. -10- The construction of a new dwelling, without question, qualifies as a regulated activity. Furthermore, there is no dispute that all proposed activity involved in this application occurs within a designated CEHA and isseaward of the coastal erosion hazard line. As such, contrary to the applicant's argument that he should not have been required to file an application for a coastal erosion management permit because the project activity is all located beyond 100 feet from the Town defined "beach" area, the applicant was clearly required by the Town Code to obtain a Coastal Erosion Hazard Permit prior to commencing construction on the site. Article II of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Chapter of the Town Code sets forth the regulations that apply within coastal erosion areas and requires a permit for regulated activities in §111-8. Section 111-8 is followed by specific criteria for the issuance of a permit in §111-9. Article II also sets forth additional regulations that apply in specific areas of sensitivity (structural hazard area(§111-10), near shore area (§111-11), beach area (§111-12), dune area(§111-13), and bluff area(§111-14)). If a proposal is located within a specific area of sensitivity,these additional regulations and prohibitions apply. In this instance, the Board of Trustees properly identified the portion of the property impacted by the construction of proposed single family dwelling as entirely within a primary dune area.3 This finding was supported by a letter submitted by the Department of Environmental Conservation to the Trustees stating the following: . . . the landward limit line of the natural protective feature area (a.k.a. CEHA line) was mapped based on the determination that the primary dune was the most landward natural protective feature. As such, the State had drawn the Coastal Erosion Hazard Line based upon the presence of a primary dune. There was no evidence in the record before the Trustees indicating anything to the contrary. The applicant's expert reports also note that the area of the property closest to North Sea Drive contains sand ridges (which qualify as dunes under §111-6). Section 111-13(A) of the Town Code sets forth permitted and prohibited actions in primary dune areas: 1. Excavating, grading, or mining of primary dunes is prohibited. 2. Clean sand of a compatible type and size is the only material which may be deposited. Any deposition requires a coastal erosion management permit. , 3 It is noted that the applicant argues in its letter of November 12,2008,that since this area is not located within a beach area,that the Trustees did not have jurisdiction. While the applicant may be correct with respect to the location of the proposed construction in relation to the location of the beach area,the applicant failed to address the Trustee's finding that the proposed construction was within a primary dune area and therefore prohibited under§111-13(C). -11- 3. All depositions must be vegetatively stabilized using species tolerant of the conditions at the site and must be placed so as to increase the size of, or restore, a dune or dune are. 4. Active bird nesting and breeding areas must not be disturbed, unless such disturbance is pursuant to a specific wildlife management activity approved, in writing, by the Department. S. Nonmajor additions to existing structures are allowed on primary dunes pursuant to a coastal erosion management permit and subject to permit conditions concerning the location, design and potential impacts of the structure on the primary dune. 6. Stone revetments or other erosion protection structures compatible with primary dunes will only be allowed at the waterward toe of primary dunes and must not interfere with the exchange of sand between primary dunes and their fronting beaches. Section 111-13(C) further states that"[a]ll other activities and developments in dune areas are prohibited unless specifically provided for by this chapter." The construction of a new single family residence does not fall within the activities that are permitted in a primary dune area under §11 1-13(A). Therefore, as determined by the Board of Trustees, the proposal qualifies as "other activities and developments" and is prohibited under §111-13(C). Based on the foregoing, the Town Board affirms the determination by the Trustees. While the applicant argues that the Trustees have granted applications for Coastal Erosion Hazard Area permits to similar applications, the Trustees correctly distinguished these prior approvals in that each application involved land that was already developed and not vacant land, as is the case in this application: 1. Pearlstein was granted a CEM permit for a 432 s.f. addition to an existing single family residence, an addition to be constructed on pilings above base flood elevation. No primary dune was identified on the property. 2. Von Zuben was granted a CEM permit for a renovation of an existing single family dwelling,placement of the house on pilings, construction of a new deck, replacement of a sanitary system, removal of concrete walls on property lines, and the construction of a new gravel driveway. Construction was not proposed on an identified primary dune. 3. Rosicki was granted a CEM permit for the construction of a proposed addition and alteration to an existing family residence including a deck and sanitary system. 4. Betsch—was denied a CEM permit initially and was granted a CEM permit only after obtaining a variance from the Town Board. The CEM permit was for the construction of a new single family dwelling and garage, in place of an existing dwelling, to be built on pilings with conditions. -12- 5. Paskoff was granted a CEM permit to replace a burned out existing structure with a new single family residence with pool. No primary dune was identified where construction was proposed. 6. Litner was required to obtain only a building permit as the additions to the existinF4 home did not constitute a major addition under Chapter 111 7. Sonnenborn received building permits for their home in 1989, prior to the enactment of Chapter 111. Furthermore, the applicant argued and presented information to the Trustees that the property and surrounding area had not experienced erosion and that the area had experienced accretion. This information was irrelevant to the Trustees consideration under Chapter 111. In this instance, once the primary dune area was identified, the Trustees had no authority to consider rates of erosion. The applicant could have used such information before this board to argue its entitlement to a variance and/or to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, the entity having authority to move the Coastal Erosion Hazard Line. The applicant also notes that four alternate plans were submitted and considered by the Trustees, however, each of these plans proposed construction that was prohibited in a primary dune area under §111-13(C). As such, the fact that the applicant submitted alternate plans that downsized the building is irrelevant and could not have been considered by the Trustees. For the reasons set forth above, the Town Board affirms the determination of the Trustees denying the applicant's request for a CEM permit. RELIEF FROM CHAPTER 111 A. Standard for Variance Relief. In the alternative to seeking a reversal of the Trustee's denial of a coastal erosion hazard permit,the applicant has,requested variance relief from the standards of Chapter 111 pursuant to §111-20. In permitting the Board to grant such relief, the Town has recognized that the "strict application of the standards and restrictions of this chapter may cause practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship." This section goes on to list those criteria that an applicant has the burden of establishing that this Board must consider when contemplating the grant of a variance from the strict application Chapter 111: A. No reasonable,prudent, alternative site is available. B. All responsible means and measures to mitigate adverse impacts on natural systems and their functions and values have been incorporated into the activity's design ant the property owner's expense. C. The development will be reasonably safe from flood and erosion damage. -13- D. The variance requested is,the minimum necessary to overcome the practical difficulty or hardship which was the basis for the requested variance. E. Where public funds are utilized, the public benefits must clearly outweigh the long-term adverse effects. B. Location of the Primary Dune and Finding of Unnecessary Hardship Prior to proceeding with a determination as to whether or how regulated activities could be conducted on the applicant's property pursuant to §111-20, this Board determined that it would be necessary to identify and locate on the site plan the property's most landward natural protective feature and its landward limit. As noted above, the consultant reports submitted by the applicant refer to the presence of"beach ridges" or"sand ridges" on the property which were readily observed by Herrmann. Section 111-6 defines a dune as a"ridge or hill of loose, windblown or artificially placed earth, the principal component of which is sand." Additionally, §111-6 defines a "primary dune" as the most waterward major dune where there arc two or more parallel dunes" or any dune "where there is only one dune present." According to Herrmann's August 25, 2010 report, which is hereby adopted by the Town Board, the beach ridge identified by the'applicant's experts qualifies as a primary dune under §111-6 and, as such, constitutes a natural protective feature. The landward regulatory limit of the primary dune occurs 25 feet landward of the landward toe of the dune identified on the property, as set forth in the definition of a"primary dune" in §111- 6. As discussed in greater detail in the above section, entitled "Appeal of the Trustees' Determination,"new construction is prohibited within a primary dune area (and, by definition, 25 ft. from the landward toe of the primary dune itself) and since the proposed construction in alternatives 1-6 as presented by the applicant would have situated new structures within the primary dune area, the applicant could not meet the standards set forth in §111-9. Since the 44 to 54-foot wide area between the road and the regulatory limit of the primary dune is arguably insufficient area to place even a minimally sized dwelling a reasonable distance from North Sea Drive, this Board concludes that the strict application of the standards and restrictions of Chapter 111 has created a practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship for the applicant. C. Analysis of Variance Criteria Pursuant to §111-20 the applicant had the burden of establishing that he has satisfied each of the criteria listed,therein. As set forth in further detail below, the applicant can satisfy each of the criteria, if certain conditions are met: 1. No reasonable,prudent, alternative site-is available. -14- The application generally states that there is no reasonable,prudent alternative site because the applicant does not own other property within the Town. However, this standard also requires the applicant to consider alternative locations for the proposed structure on property at issue in this appeal. According to the Herrmann report, should the Town permit the site to be developed the reasonable and prudent location for the proposed structures would be entirely landward of and as far behind the identified geologic primary dune as possible because the,dune, which was described by the applicant's consultant(Mr. Terchunian) as "typically very stable" and "dominated by mature vegetation", provides whatever natural protection a dwelling can have on this site. Alternate 6 does propose to locate the proposed structures predominately behind the "landward toe of the most landward beach ridge" as depicted on the applicant's site plan, however, the structures would be located physically adjacent to the beach ridge and the cantilevered deck would extend directly over it. As concluded by Herrmann and the Town Engineer, if the integrity of the beach ridge were compromised or undermined whether during or after construction, a reasonable, prudent, alternative site that situates the proposed structures further from the landward toe of the most landward beach ridge/primary dune is available on the site. The Board finds that there is an alternative location on this property to construct a home that will adequately protect the natural protective feature. The applicant can place all structures 8 feet from the landward toe of the primary dune. 2. All responsible means and measures to mitigate adverse impacts on natural systems and their functions and values have been incorporated into the activity's design at the property owners' expense. The applicant argues that Alternate 6, which proposes a house on pilings and a cantilevered deck, adequately mitigates potential adverse impacts within the primary dune area. As noted in the Herrmann report, placing the house on pilings is a requirement of FEMA, the federal regulatory program that protects the proposed structure from potential flood and erosion damage and has nothing to do with the protection of or mitigating impacts to the primary dune area identified on the plan. The July 15, 2010 application (Alternative 6) did not include a discussion of environmental impacts, including potential for causing increased erosion at the site and at adjacent locations; potential impacts on natural protective features and their function and value; and potential impacts on natural resources. In this instance, the most significant need for mitigation is that required to physically protect and preserve the primary dune by preventing its physical displacement or degradation both during and after construction (Herrmann report p. 3). While the applicant agreed to place a project limiting fence at the landward toe of the primary dune, a fence could not be maintained at that location during construction of the current proposal because the swimming pool, deck and southwest portion of the dwelling are proposed physically adjacent to and/or over the dune and, the excavation for and the installation of those structures and their foundations would necessitate workers, equipment and machinery accessing the seaward side during construction (Herrmann -15= report page 4). This would ultimately breach the proposed clearing limitation line and would disturb the primary dune. Additionally, after construction there may be loss of vegetation that could result from direct shading by the cantilevered deck that would extend directly over the primary dune (Id.). The Applicant has submitted a letter written by Michael Burner, President of Elderco, Inc., concluding that the proposed construction could be accomplished without damaging the dune and stating that no machinery will be required in the dune area south of the proposed fencing on the landward toe of the dune. However,the Town Engineer, despite review of the statements made in the Elderco, Inc. letter, has reiterated the recommendation of Herrmann that the construction and cantilevered deck and pool be set back a minimum of 8' to 10' from the landward toe of the dune to adequately protect the integrity of the dune to provide a minimal buffer area around new construction and,provide access to the new construction without the need for encroachment into the dune area. Further, the Town Engineer has opined that the cantilevered style of framing will create the need to access the end of deck framing. This Board also notes that the Applicant has not submitted any engineering plans to document and illustrate that the general statements made in the Elderco, Inc. letter are possible on this particular site. As such, the Board agrees with both Herrmann and the Town Engineer that the shading of the dune area will negatively affect the health of the dune system and that the construction process will ultimately reach out and negatively affect the dune area. The Herrmann report also identifies potential impacts on natural resources that include, but are not limited to the permanent removal of certain areas of natural vegetation; increase in runoff due to displacement of pervious sand soils with structures and impervious surfaces and the potential for introduction of fertilizers and other contaminants. To deal with these potential impacts the Town will require, and the applicant has agreed to take the following measures: L Erect a project-limiting fence and staked hay bales along the proposed limit of clearing, grading, and ground disturbance prior to the commencement of construction and maintained until the completion. , ii. The undisturbed portion of the site shall be maintained as nondisturbance buffer. iii. All cleared areas that are not built upon must be restored with native, nonfertilizer-dependent vegetation and maintained as a landscape buffer iv. No pesticides, fertilizers or similar chemicals shall be permitted on site. The Board finds that the above conditions and further a condition that all structures and construction take place a minimum of 8 feet from the landward toe of the primary dune will adequately mitigate potential adverse impacts on natural systems and their functions and values, in accordance with the recommendation of Herrmann and the Town Engineer. 3. The development will be reasonably safe from flood and erosion damage. -16- The appeal presented by the applicant relies primarily upon technical reports that document the relative stability of the adjacent shoreline for the past 40 years. However, a period of stability along a given shoreline does not necessarily indicate that the shoreline will remain stable, and regardless of its historical trends, any shoreline fronting Long Island Sound is potentially susceptible to flood and erosion damage during significant individual storm events.4 To make this proposal as reasonably safe from flood and erosion damage as is possible on a property adjacent to the Sound it should be constructed on pilings, which the applicant has committed to, and by placing it as far from the sound and a minimum of 8 feet away from the most landward toe of the primary dune is practicable and will adequately protect the integrity of the primary dune to further protect the structure from flood and erosion damage. Alternative 6 proposes to construct a single family dwelling, deck, and pool physically adjacent to and over the primary dune, which creates the potential for the degradation of the feature and undermines the feature's ability to provide protection for the development and adjacent areas against flooding and erosion. 4. The variance requested is the minimum necessary to overcome the practical difficulty or hardship which was the basis for the requested variance. The applicant also argues that the single family dwelling proposed in Alternatives 1-5 were relocated and reduced in size in the single family dwelling proposed in Alternative 6, but does not specifically address whether or how the minimum variance relief necessary to overcome the applicant's hardship. Alternative 6 proposes structures physically adjacent to the primary dune, in part to a stated desire to maintain the 40-ft. front yard setback required by the Zoning Code. The development could be shifted farther landward of the primary dune and without requiring a variance by downsizing and/or reconfiguration of the proposed structures. The approximately 1,700 sq. ft. footprint of the proposed two story dwelling is nearly twice the 850 sq. ft. minimum required by Chapter 280, and the swimming pool and deck are proposed on the seaward side of the dwelling. Given the need to balance zoning and environmental restrictions, placing the dwelling closer to the road and/or reducing the scope of the structures, the development proposed by Alternate 6 is more than the minimum relief necessary to overcome the hardship that is the basis of this appeal and the applicant has not provided any evidence or proof to the contrary. However, if the applicant moved all structures,beyond a minimum of 8 feet of the landward toe of the primary dune,this Board believes that the applicant can construct a single-family dwelling and that this is the minimum variance necessary to overcome the practical difficulty or hardship of the applicant. 4 The applicant has emphasized that this area has not had significant erosion and has actually accreted through this proceeding to support the argument that it is entitled to coastal erosion permit. This Board notes that it is not the authority that draws the coastal erosion hazard line and has no jurisdiction to do so. Chapter 111 refers to the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area Map of the Town of Southold prepared by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. While this Board may sympathize with the applicant regarding the stability of this coastline and the lack of erosion over the past 40 years, it cannot remove this parcel from the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area and must apply Chapter 111,as written. -17- 5. Where public funds are utilized, this criteria does not apply in this instance as there are no public funds being utilized. CONCLUSION Therefore, in the interests of justice and for the reasons set forth herein, this Board grants the applicant relief from Chapter 111 of the Town Code upon the following conditions: 1. All structures and construction occur a minimum of 8 feet from the landward toe of the primary dune depicted on the site plan prepared by Young & Young dated September 21, 2010. 2. The erection of a project limiting fence and staked hay bales along the limits of clearing, grading and ground disturbance prior to the commencement of construction and maintained until completion of construction. 3. The undisturbed portion of the site shall be maintained as a nondisturbance buffer. 4. All cleared areas not built upon must be restored with native, nonfertilizer- dependent vegetation and maintained as a landscape buffer. 5. No pesticides, fertilizers, or similar chemicals shall be permitted on site. 6. The installation of leaders, gutters, and drywells to control runoff from the proposed structures. The granting of this relief is subject to the conditions of such other permits as the applicant has already acquired or may otherwise have to acquire for final approval of the proposed project. Furthermore, this Board finds that the proposal is classified as an Unlisted Action pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, 6 NYCRR, Section 617, and that the Board, as Lead Agency, issues a Negative Declaration for the proposal, with the above conditions. Finally, this Board finds that this project is consistent with the LWRP pursuant to Chapter 268 of the Town Code, Waterfront Consistency Review, so long as the above conditions are adhered to. Dated: January 4, 2011 -18- Kenney s/McCabe s Beach Civic Association PO Box 881 Southold, New York 11971 26 December 2010 Supervisor Scott A. Russell, =-- ' e tri Members of the Town Board 'i Justice Louis P. Evans, d i Councilman Christopher Talbot ' ` 111, �'' `°= EC 2 `�' x., .w_ D 8 2010 ; u E Councilman Albert J. Krupski, Jr. Councilman William P. Ruland, Councilman Vincent M. Orlando A' j+`= r' ,E Office of the Town Attorney r �}'��� _ s Martin D. Finnegan, Jennifer Andaloro Town of Southold PO Box 1179 Southold, New York 1171 Dear Supervisor Russell and Members of the Town Board: RE: 1 ) Approved Resolution 2010-942 dated November 30, 2010 reopening the record pertaining to Amended Coastal Erosion Board of Appeal - Robert G. Bombara 2) Additional documentation submittals of Peter S. Danowski, Jr. on behalf of Robert G. Bombara (letters of October 13, 2010 and November 12, 2010) 3) Building Permit Survey-Alternate 6, dated September 21 2010 There are items in reference to this appeal which should be noted as the submitted appeal is considered by the Town Board. In the Town retained En-Consultants letter of Robert Herrmann dated October 4th, Mr. Herrmann strongly suggests that the "Town Board require the applicant to provide an engineering plan and construction narrative" demonstrating evidence that construction can be accomplished without "breaching the fenced clearing limit and disturbing the beach ridge.," It is not apparent that the letter submitted by Elderco, Inc. would fulfill the request of an "engineering plan and construction narrative." In fact, from errors noted in the November 8th Elderco, Inc. submitted letter, it is doubtful the company visited the site to develop a plan specific to this site, but simply changed information from a file/form letter. This is apparent from the errors noted in the letter: 1) "Re. "...North Shore Drive," 2) "fencing can be placed ...to provide access and sediment control to the area north..." and finally 3) "All of the aforementioned work can and will be done north of the staked and fenced area." -which would place it in the beach ridge. You will also note that most of the information provided in the letter could be applied to ANY building site- and is not specific to this site on North Sea Drive The "building permit survey - alternate 6" supplied by the applicant shows a building envelop which is north of the "landward toe of the landward beach ridge" of approximately 5 feet (scaled) and also north of the project limiting fence and hay bales. Even if it is assumed to be a cantilevered structure (which is not noted), it appears impossible that construction on this area can be accomplished without encroaching this area, and no substantiated evidence is provided to alleviate the concern of the Town retained expert. __Finally, there is also the implied fact that Elderco, Inc, who has supplied their opinion, must be the retained builder, and no documentation is supplied to confirm that fact, otherwise -their opinion would be of little value. Respectfully submitted for K/McBCA, oh /F. Betsch r dent i MARTIN D.FINNEGAN SCOTT A.RUSSELL TOWN ATTORNEY O� OF So�rOl Supervisor martin.finnegan@town.southold.ny.us y JENNIFER ANDALORO ~ ® Town Hall Annex, 54375 Route 25 ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY P.O.Box 1179 jennifer.andaloro@town.southold.ny.us Southold,New York 11971-0959 • a0 LORI M.HULSE �Oly Telephone(631) 765-1939 C ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY O(f ,� Facsimile(631) 765-6639 lori.hulse@town.southold.ny.us \ OFFICE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY RECEIVED TOWN OF SOUTHOLD DEC282010 MEMORANDUM Southold Tmun Clerk To: Ms. Linda Cooper, Deputy Town Clerk From: Jennifer Andaloro, Assistant Town Attorney Date: December 28, 2010 Subject: Robert Bombara/Coastal Erosion Management Appeal Attached is a copy of John F. Betsch's letter to the Town Board undated, received by our office today, in connection with the referenced matter. Kindly include this letter in your Bombara file as part of the official record. Thank you for your attention. JA/lk Enclosure ^ i Kenney's/McCabe's Beach Civic Association PO Box 881 Southold, New York 11971 26 December 2010 Supervisor Scott A. Russell, Members of the Town Board j Justice Louis P. Evans, i Councilman Christopher Talbot, Councilman Albert J. Krupski, Jr. Councilman William P. Ruland, Councilman Vincent M. Orlando, Office of the Town Attorney Martin D. Finnegan, Jennifer Andaloro DEC 2 8 2010 ; Town of Southold PO Box 1 179 Southold, New York 1171 Dear Supervisor Russell and Members of the Town Board: RE: 1 ) Approved Resolution 2010-942 dated November 30, 2010 reopening;jhe record pertaining to Amended Coastal Erosion Board of Appeal - Robe,rt. G': Bombara 2) Additional documentation submittals of Peter S. Danowski, Jr. on.:behalf; of Robert G. Bombara (letters of October 13, 2010 and November 12, 20)`Q.) 3) Building Permit Survey-Alternate 6, dated September 21 2010 There are items in reference to this appeal which should be noted as the submitted appeal is considered by the Town Board. In the Town retained En-Consultants letter of Robert Herrmann dated October 4th, Mr. Herrmann strongly suggests that the "Town Board require the applicant to provide an engineering plan and construction narrative" demonstrating evidence that construction can be accomplished without "breaching the fenced clearing limit and disturbing the beach ridge." It is not apparent that the letter submitted by Elderco, Inc. would fulfill the "engineering request of an "en q g' g plan and construction narrative." In fact, from errors noted in the November 8th Elderco, Inc. submitted letter, it is doubtful .the company visited the site to develop a plan specific to this site, but simply I y changed information from a file/form letter. This is apparent from the errors noted in the letter: 1) "Re. "...North Shore Drive," 2) "fencing can be placed....to provide access and sediment control to the area north..." and finally 3) "All of the aforementioned work can and will be done north of the staked and fenced area." - which would place it in the beach ridge. You will also note that most of the information provided in the letter could be applied to ANY building site-,and is not specific to this site on North Sea Drive The "building permit survey - alternate 6" supplied by the applicant shows:a wilding envelop which is north of the "landward toe of the landward.,b'e'a: 'rj, ridge" of approximately 5 feet (scaled) and also north of the . ..... _ project Limitin4g fence and hay bales. Even if it is assumed to be a cantilevered structure (which is not noted), it appears impossible that construction on this area can be accomplished without encroaching this area, and no substantiated evidence is provided to alleviate the concern of the Town retained expert. Finally, there is also the implied fact that Elderco, Inc, who has supplied their opinion, must be the retained builder, and no documentation is supplied to confirm that fact, otherwise - their opinion would be of little value. Respectfully submitted for K/McBCA, J _ n F. �tsch P sidet i MARTIN D.FINNEGAN SCOTT A.RUSSELL TOWN ATTORNEY Supervisor 'martin.finnegan@town.southold.ny.us O��QF S0!/l,�,ol JENNIFER ANDALORO Town Hall Annex,54375 Route 25 ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY P.O. Box 1179 j ennifer.andaloro @town.southold.ny.us CA Southold,New York 11971-0959 Q LORI M.HULSE �o�', Telephone(631) 765-1939 ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY CQUN(, Facsimile(631) 765-6639 lori.hulse@town.southold.ny.us OFFICE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY C iv iV EE:D TOWN OF SOUTHOLD DEC 202010 December 17, 2010 Peter S. Danowski, Jr., Esq. 616 Roanoke Avenue Riverhead, NY 11901 RE: Bombara Coastal Erosion Management Appeal Dear Mr. Danowski: Enclosed please find a copy of James Richter's letter dated December 8, 2010 to the Town Board in connection with the referenced matter for your information. Should you have any questions, please contact this office. Very truly yours, ajU"� nifer Aloro Assistant Town Attorney JA/lk Enclosure cc: Ms. Elizabeth A. Neville, Town Clerk •- oSUFFoc�-�, SCOTT A. RUSSELL �oo� o�� JAMES A. RICHTER, R.A. SUPERVISOR ENGINEER TOWN HALL - 53095 MAIN ROADTOWN OF SOLITHOLD,NEW YORK 11971 Fax- (631)-765-9015 O • V Tel.(631)-765-1560 �+ JAMIE.RICHTER@TOWN.SOUTHOLD.NY-US OFFICE OF THE ENGINEER TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Members of the Town Board December 8, 2010 Town of Southold 53095 Main Road, P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Re: Robert Bombara/ Coastal Erosion Management Appeal Dear Members of the Town Board: As per your request, I have reviewed the Contractors letter prepared by Michael Burner from Elderco, Inc. As you know,this letter outlines a specific construction sequence in an effort to ensure and/or guarantee that minimum standards and procedures will be used to safeguard the natural protective features & natural resources found at the Bombara site. A question has been raised as to whether the construction sequence proposed by Elderco is appropriate to ensure the necessary protection and preservation of the primary dune system as required under Chapter 111 of the Town Code. As you know, Mr. Herrmann of En-Consultants has opined that this requirement can be achieved by preventing the physical displacement and/or degradation of the primary dune both during and after construction. The Contractor has indicated that timber piling can be driven effectively without affecting the integrity of the dune system. I would agree with this concept as long as a minimal separation is maintained between the piling system and the approved location of the landward toe of dune. Even if construction machinery is not needed, access to the immediate area surrounding the pile foundation system will ultimately be a necessity. Mr. Herrmann has previously recommended a minimum setback between eight(8')and ten(10') feet from this landward toe. This recommended setback is considered appropriate in my opinion but I believe that this setback should also include the proposed pool & patio areas and/or any other site improvement that will be constructed in a manner that is in direct contact with and/or supported by the ground. This will provide a minimal buffer area around new construction in a manner that will provide access to new construction without the need for access or encroachment into the dune area. Page 1 of 2 DEC 1 3 2010 December 8, 2010 . Members of the Town Board Town of Southold Re: Robert Bombara/Coastal Erosion Management Appeal Page 2 of 2 The most recent Site Plan for this project application also indicates a cantilevered system of framing that would extend out over and beyond the landward toe of dune. In my opinion, construction of this cantilevered framing would ultimately cause unwarranted degradation of the dune system. In his letter,the contractor has referenced the installation of temporary fencing that will be installed along the landward toe of dune. This fencing will serve as a demarcation for the limits of clearing and at first look appears to protect the primary dune. However, it is my opinion that this proposed cantilevered style of framing will create the need to access the end of deck framing. It is inevitable that this construction process will ultimately reach out and adversely affect the dune area. Permanent shading of the dune area may also negatively affect the health of the dune system. I would recommend that any and all proposed cantilevered construction be limited in a manner not to extend out over or beyond the designated toe of dune. There are several items from the original Contractors construction sequence list that have not been addressed here. I would consider those items to be reasonable project conditions that I would recommend that they should be included with any pending approvals which may be issued. If you have any questions or you would like to discuss this matter in more detail, please do not hesitate to contact my office. Si cer ly; J es A. Richter, R.A. cc: Michael Verity,Chief Building Inspector °'� A MARTIN D.FINNEGAN SCOTT A.RUSSELL TOWN ATTORNEY ®� ®� SOU,,®l Supervisor fi martin. nnegan@town.southold.ny.us' y JENNIFER ANDALORO ~ Town Hall Annex,54375 Route 25 ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY P.O.Box 1179 jennifer.andaloro@town.southold.ny.us 4W Southold,New York 11971-0959 LORI M.E ULSE Ol • �Q Telephone (631) 765-1939 ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY yC®UNV Facsimile(631) 765-6639 lori.hulse@town.southold.ny.us OFFICE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY R EWC E I V E D TOWN OF SOUTHOLD DEC 16 2010 MEMORANDUM Southold Tblxti Cleat To: Ms. Linda Cooper, Deputy Town Clerk From: Jennifer Andaloro, Assistant Town Attorney Date: December 16, 2010 Subject: Robert Bombara/Coastal Erosion Management Appeal Attached is a copy of Supervisor Russell's Memorandum to Michael Verity and James Richter dated December 7, 2010, in connection with the referenced matter. Kindly include this letter in your Bombara file as part of the official record. Thank you for your attention. JA/lk Enclosure SOUryolo SCOTT A.RUSSELL Town Hall, 53095 Route 25 SUPERVISOR P.O. Box 1179 G • 0 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Fax(631) 765-1823 Ol�CQU (�� Telephone(631) 765-1889 OFFICE OF THE SUPERVISOR TOWN OF SOUTHOLD - MEMORANDUM To: Mr. Michael Verity, Chief Building Inspector Mr. James Richter, Town Engineering Inspector From: Scott A. Russell, Supervisor Date: December 7, 2010 Subject: Robert Bombara/Coasta/Erosion Management Appeal The Town Board is currently considering an appeal of a denial of a Costal Erosion Management Permit submitted by Robert G. Bombara relating to the construction of a single-family home with a deck and pool at 1725 North Sea Drive. Based on the information in the record and opinions from En-Consultants, the Town Board is considering whether to issue a permit subject to a requirement that the applicant shift the proposed dwelling landward about 8-10 feet. The rationale for this condition was the lack of any evidence in the record that established that the proposed construction could be accomplished immediately adjacent to the beach ridge (the relevant natural protective feature) without machinery and/or workers breaching the clearing limit and disturbing the beach ridge. The Applicant recently submitted a letter from a builder from Port Jefferson, Elderco, Inc., which appears to state that all of the proposed construction can be accomplished without a non-disturbance buffer and without damage to the beach ridge. Would you please review the attached letter from Elderco and provide your written opinion to the Town Board as to whether you believe that an 8-10 foot buffer is necessary to protect the natural protective feature from the impacts of the proposed construction. We will need to hear from you by Friday, December 10, 2010 so that the Town Attorney's Office can draft a decision by next Tuesday. Please call Martin upon completion of your review. SAR/lk Enclosure cc: Martin D. Finnegan, Town Attorney d e rcoInce November 8, 2010 Mr. Peter Danowski, Jr. NOV 12 2010 616 Roanoke Avenue Riverhead, New York 11901 Dear Mr. Danowski, Re: Bombara- 1725 North Shore Drive, Southold, N.Y. As requested, a complete review of the aforementioned site was conducted on Thursday, November 4, 2010. I am an experienced contractor with 35 years of construction experience. I have worked in coastal flood zones, tidal wetland areas and used piling foundations. I have concluded that the desired construction can be accomplished without damaging the environmental features or values north of the line identified on the survey and staked in the field. I have developed the following construction sequence to ensure that, both the house can be built and the environment protected: * A complete stakeout of the site will be done. * Fencing can be placed at the perimeter of the building envelope along with silt fence to provide access and sediment control to the area north of the line marked in the field. * Shrubs and plantings within the building envelope (south of the fenced line) will be removed as needed by hand. * The existing grade of the land will remain as is and not regarded in the area adjacent to the fence line. There will be some grading and addition of fill for the approved sanitary system that will not affect the dune area in any way. 73 Rockledge Path, Port Jefferson New York, 11777 Phone 631.255.4040 Fax 866.683.3086 , * Pilings will be driven for house and decking within the building envelope south of the fenced line and girders installed on the pilings. * House and deck will be framed according to approved building plans. * Decking will be completed with prescribed and approved finish materials. All of the aforementioned work can and will be done north of the staked out and fenced area. There will be no need for any machinery or labor to be in the dune area south of the fencing. Moreover, the grade of the land south of the line does not need to be flattened or . graded, thus eliminating any potential slumping of the area north of the fenced line. In the event that there is an accidental intrusion on the area north of the fenced line, the area will be replanted with native vegetation such as American Beach Grass or Bayberry, which are already thriving on this site. If I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours i hael Burn r resident 73 Rockledge Path, Port Jefferson New York, 11777 Phone 631.255.4040 Fax 866.683.3086 MARTIN D.FINNEGAN SCOTT A.RUSSELL - TOWN ATTORNEY O� OF SO!/rol Supervisor fi martin. nnegan@town.southold.ny.us y JENNIFER ANDALORO Town Hall Annex,54375 Route 25 ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY P.O. Box 1179 jennifer.andaloro@town.southold.ny.us Southold,New York 11971-0959 LORI M.HULSE Olt Telephone(631) 765-1939 ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY couff ,� Facsimile(631) 765-6639 lori.hulse@tow-n.southold.ny.us OFFICE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY TOWN OF SOUTHOLD r D EC 16 2010 MEMORANDUM eepp To: Mr. Mark Terry, Principal Planner From: Jennifer Andaloro, Assistant Town Attorney Date: December 15, 2010 Subject: Bombara/CEM Appeal- SEQRA Attached please find copies of the following in connection with the referenced matter: 1. Application for Appeal to the Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review; and 2. Survey prepared by Young & Young, last revised 9/21/10. Kindly prepare SEQRA and LWRP reviews for this appeal. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you for your attention. JA/lk Enclosures cc: Ms. Elizabeth A. Neville, Town Clerk (w/o encls.) MARTIN D.FINNEGAN SCOTT A.RUSSELL TOWN ATTORNEY ®� of S®(/l®l Supervisor martin.finnegan@town.southold.ny.us /y JENNIFER ANDALORO ~ O Town Hall Annex,54375 Route 25 ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY P.O.Box 1179 jennifer.andaloro@town.southold.ny.usG Southold,New York 11971-0959• a� LORI M.HULSE �Ol�, Telephone(631) 765-1939 ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY Cou Facsimile(631) 765-6639 lori.hulse@town.southold.ny.us OFFICE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY TOWN OF SOUTHOLD RECEWED MEMORANDUM DEC 16 2010 To: Ms. Linda Cooper, Deputy Town Clerk From: Jennifer Andaloro, Assistant Town Attorney Date: December 15, 2010 Subject: Robert Bombara/Coastal Erosion Management Appeal Attached is a copy of James Richter's letter to the Town Board dated December 8, 2010, in connection with the referenced matter. Kindly include this letter in your Bombara file. Thank you for your attention. JA/lk Enclosure sr' S�EEOCk SCOTT A. RUSSELL hoo�o �o� JAMES A. RICHTER, R.A. SUPERVISOR ENGINEER TOWN HALL - 53095 MAIN ROAD H TOWN OF SOUTHOLD,NEW YORK 11971 Fax. (631)-765-9015 Q - TeL(631)-765-1560 y o� JAMIE RICHTER@TOWN.SOUTHOLD.NY.US OFFICE OF THE ENGINEER TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Members of the Town Board December 8, 2010 Town of Southold 53095 Main Road, P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Re: Robert Bombara / Coastal Erosion Management Appeal Dear Members of the Town Board: As per your request, I have reviewed the Contractors letter prepared by Michael Burner from Elderco, Inc. As you know,this letter outlines a specific construction sequence in an effort to ensure and/or guarantee that minimum standards and procedures will be used to safeguard the natural protective features & natural resources found at the Bombara site. A question has been raised as to whether the construction sequence proposed by Elderco is appropriate to ensure the necessary protection and preservation of the primary dune system as required under Chapter 111 of the Town Code. As you know, Mr. Herrmann of En-Consultants has opined that this requirement can be achieved by preventing the physical displacement and/or degradation of the primary dune both during and after construction. The Contractor has indicated that timber piling can be driven effectively without affecting the integrity of the dune system. I would agree with this concept as long as a minimal separation is maintained between the piling system and the approved location of the landward toe of dune. Even if construction machinery is not needed, access to the immediate area surrounding the pile foundation system will ultimately be a necessity. Mr. Herrmann has previously recommended a minimum setback between eight(8')and ten(10') feet from this landward toe. This recommended setback is considered appropriate in my opinion but I believe that this setback should also include the proposed pool & patio areas and/or any other site improvement that will be constructed in a manner that is in direct contact with and/or supported by the ground. This will provide a minimal buffer area around new construction in a manner that will provide access to new construction without the need for access or encroachment into the dune area. Page 1 of 2 DEC 1 3 2010 Members of the Town Board December 8, 2010 Town of Southold Re: Robert Bombara /Coastal Erosion Management Appeal Page 2 of 2 The most recent Site Plan for this project application also indicates a cantilevered system of framing that would extend out over and beyond the landward toe of dune. In my opinion, construction of this cantilevered framing would ultimately cause unwarranted degradation of the dune system. In his letter,the contractor has referenced the installation of temporary fencing that will be installed along the landward toe of dune. This fencing will serve as a demarcation for the limits of clearing and at first look appears to protect the primary dune. However, it is my opinion that this proposed cantilevered style of framing will create the need to access the end of deck framing. It is inevitable that this construction process will ultimately reach out and adversely affect the dune area. Permanent shading of the dune area may also negatively affect the health of the dune system. I would recommend that any and all proposed cantilevered construction be limited in a manner not to extend out over or beyond the designated toe of dune. There are several items from the original Contractors construction sequence list that have not been addressed here. I would consider those items to be reasonable project conditions that I would recommend that they should be included with any pending approvals which may be issued. If you have any questions or you would like to discuss this matter in more detail, please do not hesitate to contact my office. Si cer ly; J es A. Richter, R.A. cc: Michael Verity,Chief Building Inspector LAW OFFICES RECEIVED PETER S. DANOWSKI, JR. 616 ROANOKE AVENUE RIVERHEAD,NY 11901 (631)727-4900 FAX(631)727-7451 E-mail: pdanowski@danowskdaw.com Southold Town tg®C�I JOHN P.TAGGART,ESQ. jtaggart@danowskilaw.com November 12,2010 Southold Town Board 53095 Route 25,Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971-0959 Southold Town Attorney's Office 53095 Route 25,Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971-0959 Attn: Jennifer Andaloro,Esq. Re: Robert G.Bombara Dear Sir or Madam: Please accept this letter as a formal request to re-open the hearing regarding the Bombara application to the limited extent of accepting documents and letter previously forwarded to the Town Board under cover letter dated October 13,2010 and to accept the letter of Elderco,Inc.,which letter responds to a comment from the town's consultant and which comment clearly establishes that the building plan as proposed could be built "physically adjacent to the project-limiting fence without the need to access or disturb the seaward side of it". Very truly yours, (I 111� Peter S. Danowski,Jr. PSD/eaf cc: Robert C. Bombara r=�. {; �'��`;dyt'i.;it t,l � '' ,, i; r{ud l,,l,i:t, ,. • e �, 1 .•f" 111 Ma• ;,j1:�I{�II,';•'{ November 8, 2010 Mr. Peter Danowski, Jr. 616 Roanoke Avenue ; ' Riverhead, New York 11901" .' Dear Mr. Danowski, Re: Bomba,ra- 1725 North Shore Drive, Sputhold, N.Y,' As requested, a complete review of the aforementioned site was s conducted on Thursday, November 4, 2010. I am an experienced contractor-with 35 years of construction experience: I have worked.'in'coastal:flood �zones, tidal'wetland areas and used piling foundatlon's' .`4`haVe concluded'that the desired ; construction can be aIccompllshed without'damaging the environmental features or values north of the line identified'on the survey and staked In the field. f. I have developed the following 'construction sequence to ensure that' both the house can be built and the environment protected: t * A complete,stakeout'of the site will be'done.• * Fencingcan,be placed at the perimeter of the building envelope ; along with silt fence to provide access and sediment control to the , area north of the line marked In'the fieid. * Shrubs and plantings within the bUilding'envelope (south,'of,the fenced •line) will_be•removed as ,needed by hand.' * The existing grade of the 1land 1n�lll'remain as is and not regarded in the area adjacent to the fence Iihe,Therewlll be some grading and addition of fill for, the approved sanitary system that will not affect the dune area in any way. 73 Rockledge Path, Port Jefferson New York,'11777 Phone 631.255,4040, l=ax 866.683.3086 , Yt i deckin within the building *.pilings Will be drivers:for house, an eq g envelope south of the fenced ilrse'and gWers'lnstalled on the pilings. * House and.dleck will be"fr'dmed,according'to`approved building plans. * Decking M11 be completed`with prescribed and approved finish : Materials ' ' ;t,,• All of the aforementioried'work can, and,Will be done north of the staked out and 'fenced.area�;;,Tpere Will be no need for any, machinery or labor to be In the dune area'southf�of the'fencing. Moreover, the grade of the land south of, Ilne',does''not need to be flattened or .` graded, thus eliminating any, potahtial sl6mp'1n6'df the area north ,of the fenced line., „' In the event that there Is an'accidental intrusl ' on the area, north of , the fenced line, the area',Will be,replanted With native'vegetation such as American Beach Grass or,,Baybef ry'; ,which are already thriving on this site. ' If I can be of any further assistance, please`do not hesitate to contact me. :l Very truly !ours hael Burn r resident .' j I , 'a':,;,�; ., yr •` 4 ,' , ` _ , - r ' •",'Yr .,-$' !tit , ifs . .. t _ t _ , 73' Rockiedga Path j-,i'orUefferson New York, 11777 s Phone 631.25SA040', Fax 866.683.3086`- 1318 North Sea Road � ? Southampton, New York,11068 631-20-8300• .v. Pax:631-283-6136' . r. EN�CONSULTAN`i`S.•'-0'IN ': ►.anconsultants.00m ENVIRONMIEP1TAl. POUL,TINc3 : • October 4,2010 Scott.Rtissselh Supervisor TownBoard,'Towii of Solnhgld ; F.O.•Box 1179. . ; Southold,NY 11971 f ofC Cosuttal Esoslen 1VlissnaaeMent Permit of It.G:Boutbaraa 1725 t�lorth Sea Dstive. + &uth§W ; Dear Supervisor•Itusselli use to 25 August 2010 yep ,the accompanying Based review.of Pow Daigowski's letter written in t�aspo Y � on my, pgre'young Young;;all dated 21 September .letter:from Douglas,Ada i P.B.; and-the rovised site plait pre 20to,t can'd'fer the fbQo inj The applicant a pp�ars,lacgely4greeable'tp gnitipdOft Measures I suggested 3�► my rep° end the revised sit® plan ' icted;' The uestion'of whether thq deyelopment could be,movbd now.depida the items I suggested should be.dep 4 b i6n' o beeis•addr+ess6&.specifically,.besed on the • ' clgser bo i"d via e+edgbtion•irt ®.sine of tli®saultstiy systen% ;that,the',iiumlier.of;buciroo previous labeling •of,•tho g g 4 ` sugg ms and dwcltin' as' Navin badrooins,'.I g crones tb bb'moyed,closer to.the road Go riding sanitary systein.cdWd be downshid•to'allow-the stru the i10 ps Adams,hay:clar�fiesii however,�tltaf sanitary without downsizing.`qr'el'nnii}atsng•`iuy of their'.components.�Mt':' 1ab61ed as Having 4 system,'is.in,fad desigged for'3:Bedrooms. an ,.that.the proposed dwelllhg wad:ssicorrecdll! Adams.slab'states.that grading't�estrictiogs ,namdatod•:by.tlt�;'$isffolk County I�ealth'Department bedrooius. 'Mr; ,T'herofore if the dev'elopMOnt is to 6!shifted - ;•prevent the system from be .g imo'ved siny closer fo th®road. , . , beiieye sh6pid not be ' farther from,the beitch'ridgp.withobi the need for zoning.relief(which Mr,'Danowski aPP , considgt+ed),it appears that3he'prottosed s�ruetural,footprint,would Savo to bgred egigried'and(or rddut:ed. ; ' i',increase the • mitiodbetween'the; r6posed atruc isres and the Whether by,reio Y,sugg ori to 1 ,ad` t m' ��n j�olief that ®proposod stiucluroa�-whkk Fq;shor ,O,PI>yOic l Y, Jam► to'the lseach gb, 'pttjdl po nU' W ic�ll co istr *d ptoposed''clearlbg:'llrisit a�ii!Pj =limltirig'�'enco'now:depict®d':o�t tliesifo plant canuQt. phi. Y . id ad(Voi;,workers broaching the fenced clearing-limit ihd dishii#iin$thb,beacli ridge. 'fliii:I)anov�s without miachiu�ry t; the ro eft=litniiting fence without gg t4 coq` tl dihe stnicturee could be installed physically,adjacen „ p ,i ®`i ':to act 4s di$tiDt9i'tlie;seaVv►ad `lido'of,it,.:bdf.nb plait or.other..suppq .9 ovid®>i00 ltas been.offered to or-.'su est osi.tW the Tq*n Board demonstrates how•this'feat could be accomplished.':,,ThereforO,,I reiterate my pct a:llconsed ps�fessivnal to requh,e the applica,if to prris�rido'ari engtiseering plan and conshttdion narixtive licepared by` the,:Strtm6ires'.could•,�:idled---Wh, or.`as:proposed be;"e'dIst:vmce farther demonstrate and•certify $low }�beach '. . ' • landward--witliOuf re bang the blearing limitad'i and dasnagu!g rid84• Sin ly, 5 ltobett F Herrmann Coastal Management Specialist,. Town Attorney ' ' •cc. Martin D.Finnegan, • , „ ,. Elizabeth A.Neville;Tdwn s LAW OFFICES PETER S. DANOWSKI, JR. 616 ROANOKE AVENUE RIVERHEAD,NY 11901 (631)727-4900 FAX(631)727-7451 E-mail: pdanowski@danowskilaw.com JOHN P.TAGGART,ESQ. jtaggart@danowskilaw.com October 13, 2010 RECEIVED Southold Town Board OCT 15 2010 53095 Route 25, Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Southold Tam Clef, Re: Robert G. Bombara Dear Sir or Madam: As I await any written comment from the Town or their consultants, I thought it might be helpful to address the sanitary system installation requirements, vis-a-vis the location of the residential dwelling. The Health Department's standards and policies are not easy to digest. I have asked my client's engineer to provide a further written response. Simply put, the system must be clustered away from property lines and meet certain grading requirements. There is a distinction between pre-existing lots and new proposed subdivision lots. The standards and policy bulletins talk in terms of"a four bedroom residence" as distinguished from "up to a four bedroom residence". I enclose an alternate 6 pool system with a retaining wall properly located,per the Health Department standards. In summary,we have provided a plan which meets the regulations of the Health Department at a location nearest to the public roadway, not interfering with the house construction nor a proposed driveway entrance. Very truly yours, PETER S. DANOWSKI,JR. PSD:gsg Encls. Cc: Robert G. Bombara Thomas Wolpert i LAW OFFICES ° PETER S. DANOWSKI, JR. 616 ROANOKE AVENUE RIVERHEAD,NY 11901 (631)727-4900 FAX(631)727-7451 E-mail: pdanowski@danowskilaw.com JOHN P.TAGGART, ESQ. jtaggart@danowskilaw.com October 13, 2010' Southold Town Board 53095 Route 25, Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Re: Robert G. Bombara Dear Sir or Madam: As I await any written comment from the Town or their consultants, I thought it might be helpful to address the sanitary system installation requirements, vis-a-vis the location of the residential dwelling. The Health Department's standards and policies are not easy to digest. I have asked my client's engineer to provide a further written response. Simply put, the system must be clustered away from property lines and meet certain grading requirements. There is a distinction between pre-existing lots and new proposed subdivision lots. The standards and policy bulletins talk in terms of"a four bedroom residence" as distinguished from "up to a four bedroom residence". I enclose an alternate 6 pool system with a retaining wall properly located, per the Health Department standards. In summary,we have provided a plan which meets the regulations of the Health Department at a location nearest to the public roadway, not interfering with the house construction nor a proposed driveway entrance. Very truly yours, PETER S. DANOWSKI, JR. PSD:gsg Encls. Cc: Robert G. Bombara Thomas Wolpert _ YOUNG &YOUNG Telephone 631-727-2303 400 Ostrander Avenue - Facsimile 631-727-0144 Riverhead, New York 11901 admin@youngengineering.com HOWARD W YOUNG, Land Surveyor THOMAS C. WOLPERT, Professional Engineer ROBERT C. TAST,Architect DOUGLAS E.ADAMS, Professional Engineer HAND DELIVERED September 28, 2010 Peter S. Danowski, Jr., Esq. 616 Roanoke Avenue Riverhead, New York 11901 RE: ROBERT G. BOMBARA at Southold, T/0 Southold, New York (06-0320) Dear Mr. 'Danowski: , Enclosed is a copy of the SCDHS Standards for Approval of Plans and Construction for Sewage Disposal Systems for Single .Family Residences dated November 13, 1995, for your review and file. , In particular, please note:the,following: 1.' the minimum separation distances from the nearest part of septic tanks and leaching pools to buildings, property lines and water lines are indicated in Table 1 on Page 17, 2. the minimum leaching system design for a one to four bedroom residence where the depth to groundwater is less than 9 feet is "design alternative system", as indicated in Table 3 on Page 18, 3. the alternate sewage disposal system for high groundwater conditions for a four bedroom residence requires a 1,200 gallon septic tank and six- (6) 8 ft. diameter, 2 ft. high precast concrete leaching rings, as indicated in the Addendum, Figure 10, and 4. the alternate sewage disposal system for high groundwater conditions for up to a four bedroom,residence requires a 1,000 gallon septic tank and five (5) 8 ft, diameter,, 3-ft. high precast concrete leaching rings, as indicated in the Addendum, Figure 11. Planning Engineering Land Surveying Architecture Page 2 September 28, 2010 If you have any questions, please contact us. Very truly yours, Thomas C. Wolpert TCW/mal Encl. cc: Robert G. Bo,mbara + Encl. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK i l STEVE LEVY SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE i SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY STANDARDS APPROVAL OF PLANS AND CONSTRUCTION - - SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES Brian'L. Harper, M.D., M.P.H. : Commissioner of Health Services Vito Minei, P.E. Director, of Environmental Quality November 13, 1995 m SECTION PAGE 5-101 Introduction 1 5-102 Definitions Applicable to These Standards 1 5-103 Prohibitions of Subsurface Sewage Disposal Systems 3 5-104 Plans/Permits/Approvals Required 3 5-105 Siting of Subsurface Sewage Disposal Systems 4 5-106 Subsoil and Groundwater Criteria for Subsurface Systems 6 5-107 Minimum System Requirements 7 5-108 Construction Material Requirements 7 5-109 Septic Tank Requirements 8 5-110 Leaching Pool Requirements 9 5-111 Cover Requirements 10 5-112 Distribution Box and Manhole Requirements 11 5-113 Sewer Line Requirements 12 5-114 Alternative Systems 13 5-115 Other Systems 13 5-116 Separation of Water and Sewer Lines 14 5-117 Final Grading and Backfilling 15 5-118 Sewage Ejector Systems 15 5-119 Variances 16 5-120 Approval by the Commissioner of Health Services 16 i w TABLES PAGE No. 1 Minimum Separation Distances to Sewage Disposal Systems 17 No. 2 Minimum Septic Tank Capacities 17 No. 3 Minimum Leaching System Design For A One To Four Bedroom Residence 18 No. 4 Minimum Leaching System Design For A Five Or Six Bedroom Residence 18 FIGURES No. 1 , Typical Rectangular Septic Tank 19 No. 2 Typical Cylindrical 1250 Gallon Septic Tank with Slab 20 No. 3 Typical Cylindrical 1500 Gallon Septic Tank with Dome 21 No. 4 Typical Leaching Pool 22 No. 5 Typical Sewage Systems For One To Four Bedroom Residence 23 No. 6 Typical Sewer Line Cleanouts 24 No. 7 Typical Distribution Box 25 No. 8 Alternative Sewage Disposal System for High Groundwater 26 No. 9 Alternative to Distribution Box 27 ii , �F STANDARDS APPROVAL OF PLANS AND CONSTRUCTION-- SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES 5-101,INTRODUCTION A. The purpose of these standards is to assure a safe, sanitary means of disposing of household wastewater.,Properly designed,maintained and operated sewage disposal systems minimize the possibility of disease transmission and the potential for contamination of ground and surface Waters. B. These are Standards for the Suffolk County Department of Health Services for the Administration of Section 760-502, of Article 5 (Sewage Disposal), and Section 760-710 of Article 7 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code. Facilities designed and constructed in compliance with these Standards will be in compliance with these sections of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code. C. The information presented in these Standards applies to buildings used as a single-family residence(s) and only addresses sewage as herein defined. Other solid, liquid or gaseous emissions are subject'to a separate review and approval by the Department.For details relating to other than single-family residences,refer to"Standards for Approval of Plans and Construction for Sewage Disposal Systems for Other Than Single-Family Residences". 5-102 DEFINITIONS APPLICABLE TO THESE STANDARDS Absorption Area-An area to which wastewater is distributed for infiltration to the soil. Alternative System - A subsurface sewage disposal system which contains components or design elements not explicitly described in these Standards. Backfill - 1) The operation of refilling an excavation, usually after some structure or pipe has been placed therein; 2)the material placed in an excavation in the process of backfilling. Building Sewer - The sewer line which extends from the building to the sewage disposal or sewer system. Department-The Suffolk County Department of Health Services. Design Flow-The volume of sewage to be'used for the purpose of designing the size of the sewage disposal system. Design Professional- a person licensed or registered in the State of New York and authorized by the State Education Law to design the systems described in these Standards. Page 1 s , Groundwater - The subsurface water occupying the zone of saturation below the established water table. Hydraulic Loading-The daily design volume of sewage discharged from the site. Leaching Area-The sidewall absorption area in a leaching pool below the inlet pipe. Leaching Pool-A covered pit constructed with a perforated,reinforced concrete wall through which septic tank effluent will infiltrate the surrounding soil. Perched Groundwater- Groundwater which is separated from the main body of groundwater by an aquiclude(e.g. a clay lens). Sewage-The combination of human and household waste with water which is discharged to the home plumbing system including the waste from a flush toilet,bath,sink,lavatory, dishwashing or laundry machine,or the water-carried waste from any other fixture,equipment or machine,together with such groundwater infiltration and surface water as may be present. Septic Tank-A watertight chamber used for the settling, stabilizing and anaerobic decomposition of sewage. Sewage Disposal System-Any plumbing or conveyances which result in or are capable of resulting in a discharge of sewage.,This includes,but is not limited to,building sewers,septic tanks,leaching pools, sumps,tile fields,holding tanks,treatment works,outfalls and connecting piping. The term may also refer to a part of a larger disposal system. Sewer Line-A pipe designed to convey sewage. Sewer System-(also referred to as sewerage system,public sanitary sewer,municipal sewage disposal system, privately owned communal sewerage system, and communal sewage disposal system) Pipe lines,conduits,pumping stations,and force mains,and all other constructions,devices,and appliances appurtenant thereto,used for conducting sewage,to a point'of ultimate disposal. Single-Family Residence - A dwelling unit; one or more rooms with provision for living, cooking, sanitary and sleeping facilities arranged for the use of one family. Subsurface Sewage Disposal System-A sewage disposal system designed to treat and dispose of septic tank or other treatment facility effluent by application of the effluent to a soil surface at a depth below the surface of the ground. Treatment Works-A facility designed for the purpose of removing certain constituents from sewage by mechanical means,and stabilizing, and disposing of sewage. Page 2 i u 5-103 PROHIBITIONS OF SUBSURFACE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS A. The installation of a subsurface sewage disposal system(s) is prohibited when the site to be developed is within a sewer district or has an approved sewer system and treatment works available and accessible. 5-104 PLANS/PERMITS/APPROVALS REQUIRED A. PLANS/PERMITS REQUIRED TO CONSTRUCT 1. WRITTEN APPROVAL OF PLANS REQUIRED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. Written approval of plans is required before start of construction of any new sewage disposal system. Plans shall be prepared by a Design Professional and shall conform to guidelines issued by the Department. Plans shall be prepared on plot surveys. These plans,once signed and approved by an authorized representative of the Department, become a permit to construct. Refer to Department bulletin "Procedure & Requirements for Residential Construction", Form #WWM-041(latest revision). Plan approval is not required for additions (overflows) to existing residential sewage disposal systems,but these Standards shall be used as a guideline for construction. 2. PERMITSREQUIRED FOR ALL NEWSEWAGEDISPOSAL SYSTEMS. Permits are required for all new sewage disposal systems including,but not limited to,those servicing new single- family residences, home additions, and accessory structures. 3. DESIGN SYSTEMFOR LIFETIME OF FACILITY. In addition to providing for the public health and the environment,there must be reasonable assurance that a system will be able to remain in satisfactory service without incurring large capital reinvestment over the lifetime of the facility. The sewage disposal systems permitted pursuant to these standards should remain functional for the lifetime of the facility from which they receive the sewage discharge. 4. RESPONSIBILITY OF DESIGN PROFESSIONAL. The Design Professional retained to design the sewage disposal system shall be responsible for all aspects of the system design, That responsibility includes gathering all design information as necessary, making the site evaluation, and creating the design. These Standards shall not be'construed as providing sufficiently detailed guidance as to relieve the Design Professional from undertaking whatever additional steps or measures that may be necessary to achieve an appropriate design. 5. PERMITSFROMOTHER AGENCIES. Permits from other agencies,where such permits may affect placement of the sewage disposal systems,shall be submitted to the Department prior to the Department's issuance of a permit to construct. Such permits include,but are not limited to, wetlands or natural resources permits from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, the Army Corps of Engineers, and/or the appropriate local regulatory authority (e.g. delegated agents for. administration of New York State Environmental Conservation Law (NYSECL) Articles 15, 24, 25; Wild, Scenic & Recreational Rivers; Town Natural Resources Permits; etc.). Page 3 B. CERTIFICATION OF CONSTRUCTION REQUIRED(FINAL APPROVAL) 1. SINGLE FAMILYRESIDENCES COVERED HEREIN. Sewage disposal systems for single- family residences in Suffolk County shall be constructed to conform to these Standards. Applicants are required to obtain Department certification of conformance to these Standards. 2. BACKFILLING INSPECTION PROCEDURES. Prior to backfilling, the installed sewage disposal system shall be inspected and authorized for backfilling by a representative of the Department. In the case of buildings to be served by sewers,the Sewer District is usually the designated representative of the Department. Otherwise,the Department shall be notified at least forty-eight (48) hours in advance of scheduled backfilling. Failure to contact the Department to observe the backfilling process may result in re-excavation of backfill. No approval or permit will be made or issued by the Department unless there is compliance with these requirements. 3. "AS BUILT"PLANS REQUIRED. Certification of completed construction will be granted to the applicant on "as built"plans which are to be submitted after the final satisfactory field inspection is completed. These plans shall include accurate measurements from permanent, fixed reference points to each component of the sewage disposal system and the water supply well or public water service line. These plans are to be signed and sealed by a design professional. 4. SEPARATE CERTIFICATION OFCONSTRUCTIONMAYBEREQUIRED. In some cases, the Department may also require a separate certification of construction by a licensed design professional. Occupancy of a building or discharge to any sewage disposal system is prohibited without the final approval/certification of construction issued by the Department. Refer to bulletin on "Requirements for Single Family Construction", Bulletin Number WWW-041(latest revision), for more details. 5-105 SITING OF SUBSURFACE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS A. PRIORITY FOR SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM Because the failure of a sewage disposal system has the potential for significant public health impacts, first priority during planning shall be given to the location of sewage disposal systems over the location of other improvements on the property. 1. CONSIDER ALL FACTORS CAREFULLY. The design professional is responsible to carefully consider the significance of the existing and proposed topography, soils, locations of existing and proposed water supply wells,surface waters and wetlands,groundwater conditions,and the planned locations of other improvements such as foundations,driveways,and construction on adjacent properties,property lines and other limitations of a physical or legal nature. 2. A SUPERIOR SITE SHALL NOT BE FOREGONE. A disposal site available prior to development which is adequate for installation of a disposal system which can conform to these standards shall not be sacrificed to enhance the siting of other improvements being considered for the site. Page 4 B. SITE CONDITIONS PROHIBITED. Sewage disposal systems shall not be located: 1. In areas with a surface elevation lower than the 10 year flood level; 2. In any area subject to imminent erosion, which cannot be controlled so as to protect the sewage disposal system; 3. In areas where the maximum high groundwater level is less than one foot below the original ground surface; 4. In areas with slopes greater than 15%; 5. In areas where the existing subsoils bontain meadow mat,bog,silts,clays,or other impervious material extending below the groundwater table; 6. In areas where groundwater conditions are not conducive to the proper functioning of subsurface sewage disposal systems; 7. In a swale; 8. Where the topography concentrates runoff onto or into the area where the system is proposed; 9. Where surface water discharges would be induced to artificially raise the groundwater level below the system; 10. In any area or under any part of a building, roadway, driveway, or other improvement that does or may prevent reasonable access for repair or maintenance of the system. C. SITE CONDITION REQUISITES. Sewage disposal systems shall be located: 1. On land owned in fee by the Applicant; 2. On the same parcel as the building to be serviced; 3. In an unimproved area which allows adequate access for maintenance and fifty percent expansion of the leaching facilities. Deepening the system is not permitted in lieu of providing this expansion area; 4. In the"front yard". A location other than the front yard will be considered in order to protect drinking supply wells and to accommodate unique grading situations, provided it is in conformance with the other aspects of these Standards; 5. At least sixty-five (65)feet from bluffs or landward of the dwelling; 6. The minimum separation distances for subsurface sewage disposal systems are presented in Table 1. Page 5 0 5-106 SUBSOIL AND GROUNDWATER CRITERIA FOR SUBSURFACE SYSTEMS A. SOIL INVESTIGATION Subsoil conditions shall be, shown on the plan. The nature of the soil shall be determined by excavation of one or more test holes at the site of the proposed subsurface sewage disposal system. The soil investigation shall be subject to the following conditions: 1. TEST HOLES. The test hole shall be carried to a depth of six feet in excess of the proposed leaching pool bottom or, in the case of unusual soil, until a strata of six feet of sand and gravel, acceptable to the Department, is encountered. The test holes shall be a minimum of seventeen(17) feet deep or six feet into groundwater. A test hole log and grade elevation at the test hole location shall be indicated on the'plan. 2. RESPONSIBILITY OF DESIGN PROFESSIONALS. The design professional,by providing this information on the submitted plan,is considered as certifying the results. Test holes listed as"by others"are unacceptable unless independently certified by a design professional.Test holes undocumented as to time and location of test are not acceptable. 3. ADDITIONAL TEST HOLES. Additional test holes witnessed by a representative of the Department may be required prior to approval to construct in areas of unusually poor soils or where data on record with the Department indicates inconsistent conditions. 4. REMOVAL OF SOILS UNSUITABLE FOR LEACHING POOLS. Unsuitable soils shall be removed and replaced with sand and gravel, acceptable to the Department,for a diameter six feet greater than the leaching pool(three foot collar)extending down into a minimum six foot strata of acceptable sand and gravel. In those areas where these criteria cannot be met,consult the Department. Percolation tests will be required in accordance with 10 NYCRR,Appendix 75A.4 for absorption systems where groundwater is less than or equal to eight feet below grade and where unsuitable soils cannot be removed. B. GROUNDWATER INVESTIGATION Groundwater elevation, if encountered shall be shown on soil test logs submitted on plans. The plans are subject to the following conditions: 1. MEANHIGHTIDE. In areas subject to tidal action,groundwater elevations shall be measured at mean high tide and be so noted on plans. 2. GRADING PLANREQUIRED IFLESS THANSEVENFEET TO GROUNDWATER. In cases where groundwater elevation is less than seven feet below surface elevation a grading plan is required to•be shown on the plans. The grading plan shall indicate plan and profile views of the disposal system,the residence first floor and the waste pipe invert,respectively,and final grade elevation. The plan view shall indicate final grade by showing one foot contour lines for at least twenty(20) feet from the leaching system. Page 6 C. DEPARTMENT INSPECTION PRIOR TO INSTALLATION In the case of unacceptable soil and/or groundwater conditions, inspection of the excavation by a representative of the Department is required prior to the installation of the leaching pool. 5-107 MINIMUM SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS A. SEPTIC TANK CAPACITY Septic tank minimum capacity shall be provided in accordance with Table 2. B. LEACHING POOL LEACHING AREA The minimum leaching area is specified in Tables 3 and 4. 5-108 CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS A. DEPARTMENT APPROVAL REQUIRED All materials used in the sewage disposal system shall be approved by the Department prior to use. B. APPROVAL PROCEDURE 1'. DESIGNDRA WINGS. Drawings of products which meet the functional design criteria of this code and which contain thereon the signed, dated manufacturer's'certification as to the structural integrity of the designed and manufactured product for the purpose intended shall be filed with the Department. 2. APPROVED PRODUCT DRAWINGS KEPT IN DEPARTMENT FILE. Once approved, a copy of the product drawing shall be kept on file in the Department. Products so approved are approved for general use and do not require finther or repeated product submittal or approval unless such approval'is withdrawn by the Department. C. PRODUCT IDENTIFICATION All materials shall be identified as to manufacturer and have the identification visible at the time of inspection. D. GUIDELINES USED BY THE DEPARTMENT Compliance with the National Sanitation Foundation, The'American Society of Testing and Materials and/or The American Water Works Association requirements and specifications shall be used as a guideline in reviewing applicable materials of construction for approval by the Department. Page 7 5-109' SEPTIC TANK REQUIREMENTS A. SEPTIC TANK CONSTRUCTION,CRITERIA(See Figures 1,2,&3) 1. TYPICAL CONFIGURATIONS Typical septic tank configurations are shown in Figures 1,2, &, 3. Alternate tank configurations may be accepted if designed in accordance with IONYCRR,Appendix 75-A. - 2. INVERT SEPARATIONAND LIQUID LEVEL. The outlet invert shall be six inches below the inlet invert. The invert must be a minimum of four feet above the tank bottom,unless the tank is otherwise'designed in accordance with IONYCRR,Appendix 75-A. 3. AIRSPACE. ,There shall be a minimum one foot air space measured from the outlet invert to the bottom of the tank cover. 4. -ACCESS OPENINGS, COVER AND CASTING. There shall be one 20-inch diameter covered opening located over the inlet and a second opening provided over the• outlet. The outlet opening shall be equipped with a 20-inch diameter watertight and insect-proof locking cast- iron cover at final grade. ° 5. TRAFFIC'TOPS FOR TRAFFIC CONDITIONS. When a septic tank is approved to be installed i6 a'driveway or parking area,traffic bearing tops shall be used. 6. COMPRESSIVE STRENGTHREQUIREMENTS Concrete shall have a minimum compressive strength of 3,000 pounds per square inch(psi)at 28 days set. 7. DESIGNSTRENGTHAND WALL THICKNESS. Wall thickness shall be a minimum of three inches unless the design has been certified by a New York licensed professional engineer as complying with'all appropriate requirements for thin-wall construction. All walls,bottom and, top shall contain reinforcing to resist an applied force of 300 pounds per square foot(psf). 8. WATERTIGHT TANKS. All joints shall be sealed so that the tank is watertight and certified'as to watertightness after installation. Tanks that are cast in place must be.certified by a licensed professional engineer and, as a minimum,have the floor and walls monolithically poured. 9. GARBAGE GRINDERS REQUIRE SPECIAL SEPTIC TANK PROVISIONS. An additional 250 gallons,of capacity and seven square feet of surface area is required when a garbage grinder.can reasonably be expected`at the time of construction. A gas deflection baffle or other acceptable outlet modification and a dual compartment tank or two tanks in series shall' also be provided. 10. DESIGN TANKS ACCORDING TO 75-A. Unless otherwise stated,tanks shall be designed based upon 10 NYCRR,Appendix 75-A. Page 8 • K B. SEPTIC TANK INSTALLATION STANDARDS 1. INSTALL TANK ACCORDING TO MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS. All applicable recommendations provided by the manufacturer shall be implemented. 2. INSTALL TANK LEVEL. The septic tank shall be installed at level in all directions (with a maximum tolerance in any direction of+/-one quarter inch)on a minimum 3 inch thick bed of properly leveled and compacted sand(free from rocks)or pea gravel. 3. DROP `T' OR EQUIVALENT BAFFLE. All outlets from the septic tank shall be provided with drop `T' or equivalent baffle approved by the Department extending into the liquid one third of the liquid depth. 4. GAS DEFLECTION BAFFLES. Gas deflection baffles are recommended for installation below each effluent drop `T'. 5. . SINGLE OUTLET. Tanks shall be provided with a single outlet. A distribution box is required for all systems with multiple leaching pools unless an alternative design is approved by the Department. One acceptable alternative design is shown in Figure 9. 6. AMMMUMDIRECT FLOW PATH. The outlet shall be located at the maximum possible flow path from the inlet. 7. GROUND COVER OVER SEPTIC TANK. The top of the septic tank shall not be located greater than four feet or less than one foot below final grade. For septic tanks with domes,the top of the dome shall not be,located greater than two feet or less than one foot below final grade. 5-110 LEACHING POOL REQUIREMENTS A. LEACHING POOL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION 1. TYPICAL LEACHING POOL AND LAYOUT. Atypical leaching pool is shown in Figure 4. Typical leaching pool layouts are shown in Figure 5. 2. DISTANCE TO GROUNDWATER. The bottom of any leaching pool system shall beat least three feet above the highest recorded groundwater level at the proposed system's location and at least two feet for shallow alternative systems approved by the Department. 3. ABSORPTIONRATES. For areas of sand and gravel,the design of the leaching pool shall be based upon a maximum leaching rate of 1.5 gallons of sewage per day per square foot of sidewall area. Minimum size disposal systems for sand and gravel conditions are given in Table 3 and Table 4. 4. ONE TO FOUR BEDROOMS. The minimum disposal systems for a one to four bedroom single-family residence are described in Table 3 (also see Figure 5). Page 9 S. FIVE OR SIXBEDROOMS The minimum disposal'systems for a five or six bedroom single- family residence are described in Table 4. 6. ; PIPE DIRECTLY. .The leaching pools shall be 'piped directly from the septic tank or a distribution box (See Figure'-5). 7. PRECAST REINFORCED CONCRETE.' Leaching pools are to be-constructed of precast reinforced concrete(or equal)leaching structures, solid domes,and/or slabs. 8. DIAMETER. Leaching pools shall be a minimum of eight feet in outside diameter. 9. MULTIPLE POOLS OF UNIFORM SIZE. When more than one leaching pool is used, all pools shall be,of nominally'equal size. 10. ACCESS OPENINGS. Access openings with a minimum diameter of twenty(20)inches shall be provided for each pool as shown in Figure,4. 11. GROUND COVER OVER LEACHING POOLS. Leaching pool covers shall be at least one foot below grade,but not more than two feet. For deeper systems, "dummy"rings shall be used to bring the'top of the"slab or dome towithin four feet of final grade. 12. . AMMM_UMDEPTH OF LEACHING POOL. The maximum permissible depth of a precast concrete leaching pool is twenty-five(25)feet below grade. 13. • CHIMNEYS. Leaching pool "chimneys" shall lie'of reinforced precast concrete, securely affixed, and may not exceed two feet in height; or four feet, if a locking east-iron cover is installed at grade. 14. SAND AND GRAVEL REQUIRED. The effective leaching area of a leaching pool(below the inlet pipe)shall be installed entirely in sand and gravel, acceptable to the Department. 15. DEBRIS. The bottom and sidewall area of the leaching pools shall be free of debris before backfilling. 5-111 COVER REQUIREMENTS A. PRECAST REINFORCED CONCRETE All covers, when not required to be brought to grade, shall be of precast reinforced concrete, (or equal). B. DIAMETER Covers over three feet in diameter are not permitted. Page,10 v C. CAST-IRON COVERS All cast-iron covers shall be set at finished grade, be locking, watertight, insect-proof, and be approved for sewerage use. 5-112 DISTRIBUTION BOX AND MANHOLE REQUIREMENT A. MANHOLES OR CLEANOUTS Manholes or cleanouts(see 5-113 A.5,8)shall be provided on sewer lines wherever there is a grade change or alignment change further than ten feet from the foundation and otherwise at intervals not exceeding 100 feet. Refer to Figure 6 for cleanout detail. This requirement does not apply to pipes under pressure. The following additional criteria apply to the design and construction of manholes. 1. The bottom of the manhole shall be coved or benched. The bench shall be the same width as the diameter of the pipe and shall extend upward at least three-quarters the diameter of the pipe. 2. The manhole shall have a minimum inside diameter of four feet and be reinforced precast concrete only. 3. The base and walls of the manhole shall be monolithically constructed of reinforced precast concrete. 4. There shall be a coupling located within four feet of the manhole on both the inlet and outlet side. 5. If the manhole is more than four feet in depth,rungs shall be provided every twelve inches. 6. The manhole shall be provided with a 24-inch diameter,locking,watertight and insect-proof cast-iron cover to grade, located so as to be over the rungs, if any are necessary. 7. For sewer lines connecting to community sewerage systems,the house connection shall not be piped directly to a system manhole.Consult the proper sewer authority,e.g.sewer district,for other design criteria. B. DISTRIBUTION BOXES Distribution Boxes. The following criteria apply to the design and construction of distribution boxes. Refer to Figure 7 for distribution box detail. 1. The base and walls of the distribution box shall be monolithically constructed of approved reinforced concrete,fiberglass,or plastic and installed in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions in addition to these requirements. 2. All outlets from the distribution box shall be at the same level to insure the even distribution of flow. Page 11 3. To minimize, frost action and. reduce the possibility of movement once installed, distribution boxes must be set on a bed of sand or pea gravel at least 12 inches'thick. 4. The drop between,inlet and outlet inverts shall be at least two inches. A baffle is required at the inlet side of the.box when the pitch of the pipe from the septic tank to the box exceeds one-half inch per foot. 5. The distribution box shall have a minimum inside diameter of four feet. 6. Distribution boxes with bottoms more than four feet,in depth from finished grade are not permitted. 7. The distribution box shall be provided with a twenty-four (24) inch diameter, locking, watertight and insect-proof cast-iron cover to grade. 5-113 SEWER LINE REQUIREMENTS A. The following criteria apply to the design and construction of sewer lines for subsurface sewage disposal systems: 1. All sewer lines shall be a minimum of four inches in diameter. 2. There shall be a length of cast-iron sewer line extending through the foundation to a point a minimum of two feet beyond the foundation wall. 3: The sewer line from the building cast-iron pipe to the septic tank and to the leaching pool(s) shall meet or exceed commercial standards class 2400 sewer pipe, or ASTM standards for plastic sewer pipe with a minimum SDR 35 rating. In the Town of Huntington,cast-iron pipe is required between the building foundation and septic tank inlet. 4. Slip-ring connectors of the proper type shall be used at the cast-iron joint. 5. The sewer line from the building to the septic tank shall have a minimum pitch of one-quarter inch per foot and a clean-out or manhole every fifly,(50)feet. Refer to Figure 6. 6. The sewer line from the septic tank to the leaching pool(s)shall have a minimum pitch of one- eighth inch per foot. 7. Sewer line'trench(es) shall be firmly tamped. All backfill shall be firmly tamped by hand about the pipe. The pipe(s)shall be securely cemented atthe point of entry into the septic tank and leaching pool(s). 8. There shall be no bends in the sewer lines to the septic tank. If bends are unavoidable,then, , for bends within the first ten' feet from the house foundation, the sewer line shall be constructed of cast-iron from the house foundation up to and including the bend. Long sweep elbows shall be used and bends shall not exceed forty-five(45)'degrees as measured along the Page 12 0 i axis of the starting pipe. For bends further than ten feet from the house foundation an approved manhole or clean-out shall be installed. For projects with a large number of bends consult the Department prior to installation. 9. All sewer lines shall be straight. When sections of pipes are used,they shall be of the same material and connected with couplings of the same material. The couplings shall be securely installed and watertight. Directional changes through the use of appurtenances may be permitted if absolutely necessary. 10. When using more than one typical leaching pool, all sewer lines from the distribution box to the pools shall be set in the distribution box at the same elevation. 5-114 ALTERNATIVE SYSTEMS A. The treatment systems addressed thus far in'these Standards are considered conventional or typical systems and may be used on sites with adequate soil percolation and vertical/horizontal separation distances unless otherwise prohibited. Many sites are not suitable for such systems. The purpose of these Standards is to assure proper treatment of sewage rather than to restrict use of land. In cases where conventional systems are not suitable,alternative designs of sewage disposal systems may be considered by the Department on a limited experimental basis or for replacement systems on difficult sites provided: 1. The system shall,be designed by a licensed professional engineer' t 2. It is clearly demonstrated that the proposed system is physically equivalent or better than the conventional systems, in respect to storage capacity, leaching area, land area utilization, grading, accessibility, maintainability, reparability, life expectancy, energy usage, effluent quality and reliability. 3. An engineering report determines that the proposed design is most suitable for the building site and that the proposed sanitary system will function properly without causing any health hazard and will minimize the impact on the surrounding environment. 4. The design professional supervises the installation of the system and certifies that the system was built in accordance with the approved plan and submits as-built plans of the system. B. Alternative systems, on an experimental basis, are inappropriate for realty developments or subdivisions and will not be approved for same. 5-115 OTHER SYSTEMS A. In the event it is determined that any of the following types of disposal systems are necessary,they will be considered by the Department provided a conventional subsurface sewage disposal system is provided, capable of meeting the requirements of these Standard and the following special conditions: Page 13 1. Holding tanks. Such tanks shall meet the same construction requirements as a septic tank, except that the holding tank shall not have an "outlet". Volume of the tank shall be determined by the Department. ; 2. Composters. These units shall be installed in accordance with the manufacturers instructions. The units shall have a label indicating compliance with the requirements of the National Sanitation Foundation(NSF)Standard 41 or equivalent. Only units with a five-year warranty or more shall be installed. 5-116 SEPARATION OF NATER AND SEWER LINES A. The following criteria shall apply to the installation of sewer lines in respect to water lines: 1. PARALLEL INSTALLATION a. Water lines shall be laid at least ten feet horizontally from any sewer line. b. When local conditions prevent a horizontal separation of ten feet, a water line may be laid closer to a sewer line provided that the bottom of the water line is at least eighteen (18) inches above the top of the sewer line. When this vertical separation cannot be obtained,the sewer line shall be constructed of materials and joints that are equivalent to water main standards of construction and shall be pressure tested to assure water tightness prior to backfilling. 2. CROSSINGS a. The crossing of water and sewer lines should be avoided unless proven absolutely necessary. In such cases: 1) sewer lines shall be laid below the water line and provide a separation of at least eighteen inches between the bottom of the water line and the top of the sewer line; and 2) sewer line joints shall be at least ten feet from the point of crossing. b. When local conditions prevent placement of the water line above the sewer line, the following additional conditions apply: 1) a vertical separation of at least eighteen(18)inches shall be provided between the bottom of the sewer line and the top of the water line; and 2) water line joints shall be at least ten feet from the point of crossing; and 3) sewer lines shall be constructed of materials and j oints that are equivalent to water main standards of construction for the entire length of the sewer line and shall be pressure tested to assure watertightness prior to backfilling.` Y Page 14 5-117 FINAL GRADING AND BACKFILLING A. FINAL INSPECTION At the time of completion, the system shall be left visible for inspection. Prior to inspection, the bottom of the pipe trench shall be backfilled with granular material and stabilized to provide a firm bedding. The property lines shall be"staked" in order to ascertain that the system is located on the property in accordance with these Standards. B. BACKFILL& GRADING The completed system shall be backfilled and covered with suitable soil following approval to do so by the Department. The property shall be graded so as to minimize surface drainage into the system. A maximum five percent slope shall be maintained for a minimum of twenty(20) feet horizontally >> from the nearest edge of the leaching pool(s) before tapering off to prevent seepage of the leachate .. through the toe or edge of the slope. Steep grades further than twenty (20) feet from the leaching pools shall be stabilized pursuant to local codes. C. RETAINING WALLS 1. In cases where the maximum five percent slope cannot be maintained, the utilization of retaining walls,or other means,may be approved. In such cases,the retaining walls,or other means, shall be designed by a licensed professional engineer or registered architect and be shown as part of a grading and plot plan. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Department prior to construction. 2. Retaining walls shall be designed in accordance with good engineering practice and applicable building codes. In addition,retaining walls cannot be closer than ten feet from the nearest part of the sewage disposal system. Retaining walls within twenty(20)feet of a leaching pool(s) shall be waterproof concrete. 5-118 SEWAGE EJECTOR SYSTEMS A. All systems should be designed to flow by gravity. Only when absolutely necessary should pumps be used.In such cases,the sewage ejector system shall be designed by a licensed professional engineer and plans must be reviewed and approved by the Department prior to construction. B. Minimum requirements shall include: 1. Dual pump system with easy access and removal; with a locking cast-iron cover to grade; 2. High-level alarm with interlock to annunciate upon startup of second pump; 3. Electronic control to alternate pump selected as lead pump; 4. Freeze protection; €, Page 15 ti 5. Pump station located after outlet of septic tank;, ` -6,, Pump station and other related appurtenances located above_the highest recorded groundwater table. 5-119 VARIANCES A. The Commissioner of the Department of Health Services, on written application, may grant a variance, in accordance with-Section 760-220 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code, from a specific, provision of these Standards in a particular case, subject to appropriate conditions,'where such variance is in harmony with the general purpose, and intent of the Standards, and when such application for a variance has been considered by a Review Board appointed by the Commissioner. B. The Commissioner may impose more stringent requirements in a specific,case'when necessary to insure an adequate and satisfactory sewage and waste disposal system. 5-120 APPROVAL BY THE COMMISSIONER OF HEALTH SERVICES In accordance with 760-221 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code,the foregoing are Standards for Sewage Disposal Systems for Single-Family Residences approved by the Suffolk County Commissioner of Health' 'Services and include the required details for'submission of plans and other information to the Suffolk',; County Department of Health Services to assure conformity to the�approved Standards. These Standards are effective November 13, 1995. ; Revised 1/9/04 Page 16 TABLE 1-MINIMUM SEPARATION DISTANCE TO SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS (IN FEET) Building Wells(1) From the _Cellar Slab Prop.Lines Water Leach Storm Public Private Surface Swim Pool Nearest Part of Lines 3 Pools Drains Waters 2 Septic Tanks 10 5 5 10 8 20 175 75 75 20 Leaching Pools 10 10 5 10 8 20 200 1001150 100 20 Leaching Pool 10 10 - _ 5 10 8 20 200 No closer than existing 20 Addition pool or 100 - NOTES: 1. Distances between leaching pools and wells are based upon the depth of the well(s)involved or realty subdivision requirements. Refer to"Standards and Procedures for Private Water Systems". 2. Distances between leaching pools and wetlands are subject to approval by the New York-State Department of Environmental Conservation prior to' issuance of Suffolk County approval co 3. If proven to be absolutely necessary,water lines may be approved within 10 feet of a sewage disposal system,provided the water line is protected from i contamination or disturbance(e.g.Installation of line inside a larger diameter line for protection). - 4. Increased distance may be required,based upon site conditions. - ` .TABLE 2-MINIMUM SEPTIC TANK CAPACITIES Number of Bedrooms Minimum Tank Capacity(gallons) Minimum Liquid Surface Areas . ft. - 1,2,3 or 4 - 1,000 27 . - 5 or 6 1,500 41 NOTES: .- Tank size requirements for more than six bedrooms shall be calculated by adding 250 gallons and seven square feet of surface area for each - additional bedroom. A garbage grinder shall be equivalent to an additional bedroom for determining septic tank capacity. TABLE 3--MINIMUM LEACHING SYSTEM DESIGN FOR A ONE TO FOUR BEDROOM RESIDENCE Depth to Groundwater Minimum Leaching System 300 fl sidewall area Over 17'feet 1pool; 12'deep,8'dia.ors stems below 11 to 17 feet 2pools; 6'deep, 8'dia. or system below 9 to 11 feet 3pools;4'deep,8'dia. less than 9 feet Desi Alternative System NOTES: A distribution box is required for all multiple pool systems unless an alternative design is approved by the Department. For other designs involving larger diameter pools or deep systems(sewer lines greater than 4 feet below grade)contact the Department. CD o TABLE 4-MINIMUM LEACHING SYSTEM DESIGN FOR A FIVE TO SIX BEDROOM RESIDENCE Depth to Groundwater Minimum Leaching System 400 ft2 sidewall area Over 21 feet 1pool; 16'deep, 8'dia. ors stems below 13 to 21 feet 2pools; 8'deep, 8'dia.ors stems below 11 to 13 feet 3pools;6'deep, 8'dia. ors stem below less than 11 feet Design Alternative System NOTES: A distribution box is required for all multiple pool systems unless an alternative design is approved by the Department. For other designs involving more than six bedrooms,deep systems(sewer lines greater than 4 feet below grade)or larger diameter pools contact the Department. FIGURE I TYPICAL RECTAN G U LAR SEPTIC TANK --- ------ ii I a • i \� i i • i W I • ---I— ------ ------------J L = 2W to 4W FINISHED GRADE LOCKING CASTING TO GRADE IV COVER TO GRADE IF DROP Tp IS USED ON INLET. 1' MIN - 2' MAX 4' MAX --*--CHIMNEY LOCATE DROP Y TOP s f e 20' MIN • .•.4• UNDER ACCESS' 20 MIN a OPENING FOR INLET -� MAINTENANCE. 10 ��A MIN. 4' DIA. APPROVED �4 6' 12' ' PIPE PITCHED 1/4-PER FT. _0 OUTLET 'tz i� PIPE PITCHED/8-PER FT. " � 16' MIN. �.18. FLOW —1 BAFFLE L `I e e a .•` ••a!a . ► aaa `See Section 57109 for Actual Design Details FIGURE 2 , TYPICAL CYLINDRICAL 12,50 GALLON SEPTIC TANK WITH SLAB FINISHED GRADE LOCKING CASnNG TO GRADE IF COVER TO USED ON INLET. 1'' MIN -1 2' MAX 4' MAX _L -r—CHIMNEY .1� • LOCATE DROP 'T' UNDER TOP • 20' MIN 20' MIN ` • 6' MIN OPENING FOR ACCESS ••�! MAINTENANCE. 1 INLET - T : T MIN. 4" DIA. It 6' 10' • CLASS 2400 y -rte Oun.Er PIPE OR : �• MIN. 4" DIA. EQUIVALENT ___Ttf• CLASS 2400 PITCHED MIN. 16'MIN. PIPE OR FLOW 18, EQUIVALENT BAFFLE ' 1' —1 PITCHED MIN. 4'-6' 4' .�. .a• •• 8' TYPICAL DETAILS OF -CONSTRUCTION 1 .- A MINIMUM OF- 4 INCHES APPROVED REINFORCED PRECAST CONCRETE BOTTOM AND 3 INCH WALLS. 2• AN '8 FEET IN - DIAMETER BY 5 FEET HIGH APPROVED REINFORCED PRECAST CONCRETE SOLID RING. 3. AN APPROVED REINFORCED PRECAST CONCRETE 6 INCH THICK SLAB TOP IN LAWN AREAS. , 4. DROP T's MUST BE PINNED OR OTHERWISE FIRMLY ATTACHED. 5• LIQUID DEPTH MUST BE 4 FEET. 6. FLOW BAFFLE OR DROP 'T' REQUIRED. FIGURE 3 TYPICAL CYLINDRICAL 1500 GALLON SEPTIC TANK WITH DOME FINISHED GRADE LOCKING CASnNG TO GRADE IV IV IV /7 V MIN., 2' MAX. 20' MIN, MAKE DROP T ACCESSIBLE MIN. 4" DIA. FOR-MAINTENANCE. zl _ APPROVED it PIPE6' PITCHEDD OUTLET ---► MIN. 4" DIA. 1/4"/1• .� '� !� APPROVED PIPE — _ FLOW 1 10AIN. 18' a PITCHED BAFFLE 1/8"/1' ?e e4 e 4' ;:w: ... ...t; TYPICAL DETAILS OF CONSTRUCTION 1 . A MINIMUM . OF -FOUR INCHES , CONCRETE. BOTTOM. 2. AN � 8 FEET IN DIAMETER BY 6' FEET ,HIGH APPROVED REINFORCED PRECAST CONCRETE SOLID RING. 3. AN APPROVED REINFORCED PRECAST CONCRETE SOLID DOME OR SLAB MIN. 6" THICK. 4. THE OUTLET AND INLET PIPES MUST BE LOCATED WITHIN THE SOLID RING. 5. DROP T MUST BE PINNED'° OR OTHERWISE FIRMLY ATTACHED. 6. LI,QUID' DEPTH MUST BE 5 FEET. 7: FLOW BAFFLE OR DROP 'T' REQUIRED. TYPICAL LEACHING POOL FIGURE 4 'FINISHED J/ J/ 4/ J/ GRADE V MIN„ 2' MAX. CONCRETE' COVER 4' MAX, CONCRETE CHIMNEY INLET - 7 MIN. 4" DIA. APPROVED PIPE - PITCHED , 0 El ❑. EJ ❑ \\��� 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ MAX, 25' o 1 \\\ co o 0 > 1711, Lv y o- �` ` 3' MIN. LEACHING %'�%% COLLAR \A SECTIONS 3' MIN. 6' MIN. PENETRATION INTO A VIRGIN STRATA OF SAND•AND GRAVEL HIGH SEASONAL GROUNDWATER BACK FILL MATERIAL' TO BE CLEAN SAND AND GRAVEL FIGURE 5 THE THREE' TYPICAL MINIMUM SEPTIC TANK AND LEACHING POOL SYSTEMS FOR A ONE TO FOUR ' BEDROOM RESIDENCE PRECAST 8' DIA. L. P: 12' 12'-6' 17' MIN. S.T. 31MIN. HIGH SEASONAL GROUNDWATER SEPTIC TANK AND ONE POOL PRECAST 8' DIA. L. P. L.P. 6. D.B. � T MAX. 4' 6'-6' 11' MIN. DEEP 31MIN. HIGH SEASONAL S.T. GROUNDWATER SEPTIC TANK & TWO POOLS PRECAST 8' D,IA. L. P. KEY: S.T. = SEPTIC TANK 1 L.P. = LEACHING POOL -7 D.B. = DISTRIBUTION BOX L.P. D.B. L. P. T . 4' 4'-6' 9 MIN. MAX. 4' DEEP 3' MIN, HIGH SEASONAL S.T. GROUNDWATER SEPTIC TANK & THREE POOLS STOPPER OR SLATE OR OTHER STOPPER OR END PLUG SUITABLE COVER END PLUG W LTJ Q E- 4 SEWER PIPE5' ELBOWS 30' ELBOW 45'- ELBOW - _• __ _ 60' WYE _ ALTERNATE "A" ALTERNATE "B" CLEANOUT DETAIL" FOR AREAS- NOT SUBJECT -TO VEHICULAR TRAFFIC IN ALL VIEWS,, ALTERNATE "A" IS FOR BENDS, ALTERNATE "B" IS FOR USE WITH BLDG. EXTENSION/CONNECTION FIGURE 6 CLEANOUT DETAIL FIGURE ' 7 TYPICAL DISTRIBUTION BOX, LOCKING CASTING TO GRADE . MIN, 4' 4' MAXIMUM 2' MIN. ABOVE O 1 N OUTLET INVERT 2 MIN, ENDCAP TYPE LEVELING ' DEVICES INLET BAFFLE REQUIRED IF INLET PITCH EXCEEDS 1/2' PER FOOT FIGURE & 'ALTERNATE SEWAGE D-ISP❑SAL- SYSTEM F❑R HIGH GROUNDWATER C❑NDITI❑NS 'F❑R ' ❑NE T❑ THREE BEDR❑❑M RESIDENCE, LOCKING.CAST IRON COVER TO GRADE FINISHED GRADE Q 4 DETAILS ❑F CONSTRUCTION , 1. USE ONE (1) 1000 GALLON REINFORCED PRECAST "CONCRETE. SEPTIC •TANK, 2, USE FIVE (5) 8 FT. DIAMETER,. 2 FT, HIGH PRECAST-CONCRETE LEACHING RINGS, 3. USE 4 INCH DIAMETER; APPROVED SEWER ,PIPE THROUGHOUT. ' 4. THE WASTELINE FROM THE SEPTIC' TANK SHOULD •ENTER THE MIDDLE RING AS HIGH AS POSSIBLE 5. USE F❑UR CROSS-❑VER PIPES BETWEEN THE MIDDLE RING AND THE FOUR OUTSIDE RINGS, 8 INCHES AB❑VE THE BOTT❑M.' 6. BACKFILL MATERIAL SHALL BE COARSE SAND AND GRAVEL, 7,- SLABS SHALL BE BETWEEN 40' AND 14' BELOW GRADE, SOLID CONCRETE COVER SHALL BE 'BETWEEN 6' AND 12' BELOW GRADE, 9. BOTTOM OF POOL SHALL BE A MINIMUM ❑F, 2 FEET ABOVE HIGH SEAS❑NAL GROUNDWATER, FIGURE 9 ALTERNATIVE TO DISTRIBUTION BOX SEPTIC TANK ®�ga 1/2 EFFECTIVE tog® LEACHINPOOLG DEPTH 4" DIAMETER CROSSOVER LEACHING PIPE. POOL AliDEfviDUM, FIGURri 1 CERNATE SEWAGE ,DISPOSAL SYSTEM-FOR-411GP ,t�OUNDWATEH CONDITIONS FOR OUR BEDROOM EDRppM LOCKING CAST IRON COVER TO GRADE 2 II `/ `j ` ` FINISHED GRADE 14 �. D Q 3 ' O r�Q 2 9 DETAILS OF CONSTRUCTION 1. USE ONE (1) 1,200 GALLON REINFORCED PRECAST CONCRETE SEPTIC TANK. R. USE SIX (6) 8 FT. DIAMETER, 2 FT. HIGH PRECAST CONCRETE LEACHING RINGS. . 3. USE 4 INCH DIAMETER, APPROVED SEWER PIPE THROUGHOUT, I. THE WASTE LINES FROM THE SEPTIC TANK SHOULD ENTER THE MIDDLE RINGS AS HIGH AS POSSIBLE. 5, USE A CROSS—OVER PIPE BETWEEN THE MIDDLE RINGS AND THE FOUR OUTSIDE RINGS, 8 INCHES ABOVE THE BOTTOM. 3, BACKFILL MATERIAL SHALL BE COARSE SAND AND GRAVEL. -ABS SHALL BE BETWEEN 10' AND 14' BELOW GRADE. JOLID CONCRETE COVER SHALL BE BETWEEN 6' AND 12' BELOW GRADE. '. BOTTOM OF POOL SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 2 FEET ABOVE HIGH SEASONAL GROUNDWATER. SHOW AREA FOR 50% EXPANSION OF THE LEACHING POOLS WHICH MAXIMIZES SIDEWALL 'AREA. o MAXIMIZE THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE FOUR (OUTER) SATELLITE POOLS, rJ7!rJJ/ZUUtJ lb;b4 6318525755 WASTEWATER MGNT PAGE 01 COUNTY OF SUFFOLK I STEVE LEVY SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECVnVE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES Ftl11WAY1JP1 J. CHAUDHRY,D.O.,M.S. COmrdnivner TO: FROM: DATE, SUBJECT. +� .. — �7 O2IL PAGES: Ineludln this e If this Is nOt received in Its entirety, please Cell s31�852�570Q. • i o! � CONRIDE"ALITY NOTICE: This fax trgMinIg*lon 18 Intended only for the use of the tndhdduel ore � mnd may contain coddaral lnfvrmatbn belonging to the sender which hi protected by privl which it IN mddmo ed reciplent,you are hereby notified that any disclosure,Copying,dlQb"on or the taking of■ l°� If you ars not the In d this information Is strictly proh@Med. K u have any action in roljamae on tIV corms of or fax and daide the original message. rerxived this tranimfaston In em,, P10"a notify the sender hwmediatQfy by pIq►Iv DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 011ica of waStWatar MamMement•360 Yaphank Avenue,Suite 2C,'Yaphank NY 11980 Pe (831)852-BM Fax(631)852.5755 01)lOJI-0 Z)Z) - - WASTEWATER MGNT PAGE 62 ADD NDU1vi r iu Z_ 11 SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM FOR , ;HIGH GR • CONDITIONS FOR UR TO 'A FOUR -BEDROOM RESIDENCE LOCKING CAST IRON COVER TQ GRADE __ r 1 3' MIN. in LOCKING CAST IRON COVERS TO GRADE 3 IN (. BOTTOM OF P[]OL SHALLDBEAALOr MINI CONST TION '. SHOW AREA FOR 50 X EXPANSION OF THE LEACHIN E HIGH SEASONAL ,GROUNDWATER. ;. USE ©NE (I) 1,000 GALLON REINFORCED F'RECAS ' G POOLS. - USE FIVECS) $ FT. DIAMETER, T CONCRETE SEPTIC� TANK, 3 f T, HIGH PRECAST CONCRETE LEACHING RINGS OR FOUR (4)FT. IIAMETER, 3 FT, ,HIGH PRECAST CONCRETE LEACHING FZ USE 4 INCH DIAMETER, RINGS, SPACED 8' APART (�, APPROVED SEWER PIPE THRf3UGHOU',T, THE WASTELINE FROM THE SEPTIC TANK SHOULD ENTER HIGH AS POSSIBLE. TWE DISTRIBUTION POOL AS CROSS-OVER PIPES ARE TO BE STRA DROP 'T'S AND MUST BE LEVEL, 11/2 ABOVE:,IGHT 4• TOM of THE BOT TER PVC SDR 35, WITHOUT BACKFILL MATERIAL SHALL DE COARSE SAND AND ,GRAV ,THE LEACHING RINGS, SLABS SHALL, BE 12' MINIMUM BELOW GRADE, EL. SCJLID CONE-RETE COVER SHALL 13` B!ErwEEN 6' ANTI to+ nr _ LAW OFFICES ° PETER S. DAN0WSK1, JR. 616 ROANOKE AVENUE RIVERHEAD, NY 11901 - . '(631) 727-490,0 •FAX'(631)727-7451 E-mail: pdanowski@danowskdaw.com JOHN P.TAGGART, ESQ. jtaggart@danowskilaw.com RECEIVED October 21, 2010 ®CT '2 2 201 Southoidlown Clerk- Jennifer Andaloro, Esq. Southold Town Board 53095 Route 25, Box 1179 Southold,New York 11971-0959 Re: Robert G. Bombara Dear Sir or Madam: My forwarding, Health Department information,which has apparently now been rejected,was an attempt to provide further detailed information in response to Councilman Krupski's comments at the public hearing. My client would ask for a prompt determination by the Board, granting the appeal consistent with the last submitted plan. Please advise when this matter will be next discussed so that my client and representatives can be in attendance. Veryt my yours, P ER S. DANOWSKI,JR. PSD:gsg cc: Robert G. Bombara Town Clerk Young&Young Aram Terchunian MARTIN D.FINNEGAN SCOTT A.RUSSELL TOWN ATTORNEY O� �F SU[/j�l Supervisor martin.finnegan@town.southold.ny.us y JENNIFER ANDALORO h O Town Hall Annex, 54375 Route 25 ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY P.O. Box 1179 jennifer.andaloro@town.southold.ny.us G Southold,New York 11971-0959 LORI M.HULSE ,Ol�, Telephone(631) 765-1939 �UNT`I,N Facsimile(631) 765-6639 ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY C lori.hulse@town.southold.ny.us OFFICE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY TOWN OF SOUTHOLD RECEIVED October 18, 2010 OCT 19 2010 Peter S. Danowski, Jr., Esq. 5cvfl� evC5 616 Roanoke Avenue `� �a$ Riverhead, NY 11901 RE: Bombara Coastal Erosion Management Appeal Dear Mr. Danowski: This office and the Town Clerk's office are in receipt of your letter dated October 13, 2010 providing the Town Board with additional information and materials to consider on the above matter. As you know, the Town Board closed the public hearing and record on this application on October 5, 2010, after receiving the applicant's response to the report of the Town's expert, Robert Herrmann, on September 21, 2010 and after receiving additional comments from Robert Herrmann on October 5, 2010 (a courtesy copy of which is enclosed). Unfortunately, the applicant has not requested that the public record remain open for the submission of additional materials to the Town Board for its consideration. The record on this matter is closed and your letter of October 13, 2010 and the additional materials attached thereto cannot be considered by the Town Board in making its final determination. As such, we are returning all copies of your letter. Please be advised that you may formally request that the Town Board re-open the record to accept additional information and until the record is re-opened, the Town cannot accept any additional information for consideration. Should you have any questions, please contact this office. Very trul yours, Je ifer daloro Assistant At JA/lk Enclosures cc: Ms. Elizabeth A. Neville, Town Clerk OCT, 5. 2010 12:48PM N0. 239 P. 1 1319 North Sea Road Southampton,New York 11968 631- 838360 .EN*CONSULTANTS INC,' Fax:631283- • wWw o0consultants.wmcam ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING RECEIVED Ootobcr 4,2010 Scott Rusaell,Supm vi.wr L'� Town Bold,Town of Southold P.O.Bax 1179 Southold,NY 11971 Southold tbwn Clerk Re:!A>faeai of the Dente of COW04 Fr_W9n went Xgoit of R G Bombom 1725 North Sesr,Dx'twe. Dear Supervisor Aussell: Based cm my,review of Peter Darvwskfs letta written in response to my 25 AuguA 2010 report;ft amotn PanYinS letter from Dobglas Adams, PE,; and the revised site plan prepa vd by Young&Young.all dated 21 September 2010,I cart offer the following comments, 'The applicam appe s largely ageeable to mitigation,measures I suggested in my Feport, and'the revised site plan now Aepicts,the lte=I suggested should be depicted,' The question of whet a the development could be moved cl45et'to the road via r+eductiQu in the size-of the sanitary system has also beers addressed,.-Specifically,based on the previous labeling of the dwelling as having 4 bedivatnsy I hadsuggested that the'number of bedrooms and cottespon&4 sanitary 'system cQuf d be downsi=d 1p allow the proposed structures tb be moyed closer to ft toad witbm downsizing or•eliminating aay of thea components.'Mr.•Adams has clarified,however,-that the ftub o system is in fact c egi ed for.3 bedrooms,and that.the propoMd dwelling was•incorrectly labeled as having 4 bedroa Mr. Admits also stares,that grading restrictions utandateri by the $uoUc County Health Department ptgvent the system from being moved'any closer to the road. 7lrettfore,:if the proal'*fed development is m be shifted farther from the beach ridge without the need for zcmmg relief(which Mr.Danowslni appe='to believe should not be oonsidered.,it'appews that the proposed soctural,foo4)K nt wQWd.have to,be redesigned and/or reduced. Whct1W 6y t`elocoon or redesign,my suggestion to increase the separation between the proposed structtrr+es and the beach ridge was predicated upon my belief that the proposed stmdure -which ate shorn physicaW adjscent to the proposed cle=wg limit and pmjiq lnn�fence;now,dapicte d.on The sift p4m--snot be ph3+si6aliy coast mctcd without-machinery and/or workers breaching t$e fenced clearing limit and disii t ing the beach ridge. Mr.Dauowsid suggests to the,co> 4wy that the structures,could be installed physically adjacent to,the pr'oj=11Witing fotAce without the need to access or disturrb'the seaward side of it,but no plan or other supporting evidence has been offered to demote stow this.feat could be accomplished. Therefore, I reiterate my prior suggesgon tet the Town Board. requite the applicant to provide an enone;cring plan and construction narrative prepared by it licensed professional to demonstrate and certify how the�.strucrwes ,cmild be instoled--whetter as proposed or sbpae distance farther land without breeching the cleating limitation and damaging flte beach ridge. ' Isttr T Rtr4.Hamann - , , . . Coastal Mauage�at 3pccialist , cc; Martin D_Finnegan,,T.oWn Attomoy Elimbet$A.Neville Town Clerk JOHN R TAGGART, ESQ. LAW OFFICES PETER $. DANOWSKI, 616 ROANOKE AVENUE RIVERHEAD, NY 11901 (631) 727-4900 FAX (631) 727-7451 E-mail: pdanowski@danowskilaw.com jtaggart@danowskilaw.com September 21, 2010' RECEIVED Southold Town Board 53095 Route 25, Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 SEP 2 2 2010 ~oulhokl Town Cler~ p~¢; Apneal ofthe Denial of Coastal Erosion Management Permit of Robert G. Bombara Dear Sir or Madam: In responding to the letter report of En-Consultants, Inc. that was provided to me at the Town Board's last public hearing, I concur with some comments and disagree with others. [ have also asked our design consultant, Young & Young, to provide further detail as requested by Mr. Herrmann. This information in some instances does not seem necessary, but has been provided. It should be pointed out that my client has produced six [6) alternate plans and the latest was reviewed by the Town's environmental consultant. The Town Board also required the submission of an application and held a public hearing. As has been pointed out, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation bas issued a tidal wetland permit as to one of the plans. In earlier reports filed with the Town and made part of the public record for this Board's consideration, my client's environmental consultants identified the beach area and vegetation as it existed on the parcel. As is stated in Mr. Herrmann's report, the beach ridge most landward location was identified and confirmed by Mr. Herrmann, and this line was, in fact, placed on the survey plan submitted to the Town. Mr. Herrmann has agreed that there is insufficient area for placement of even a minimally sized dwelling a reasonable distance from the road and therefore it was reasonable to conclude that strict application of the standards and restrictions has created a difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship for the applicant which provides grounds for appeal under Chapter 111. Southold Town Board Page 2 September 21, 2010 Responding to the alphabetized paragraphs beginning at Page 3: (A) The applicant states there is no alternate reasonably prudent site available. The Town Board should not propose the location of a residence violative of the Zoning Code provisions in its Town. As has been pointed out, a neighboring property owner was granted Trustees' permission to alter a residential dwelling on the very adjacent property. However, the Zoning Board of Appeals in that specific instance denied relief from the Town Zoning Code. The area landward of the proposed residential structure must also accommodate the installation of septic systems as required by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services, and provide on site parking for motor vehicles. The building construction will, in fact, as proposed, allow for some parking underneath the residence, which will necessarily, because of grading and FEMA requirements, further elevate the structure. [B) My client has always offered to plant supplemental native vegetation to further protect the beach area. Additionally, my client has always understood that it would erect and maintain a silt fence/hay bale construction barrier to protect the area seaward of the piling foundation. Although also understood, my client would consent to a condition that no mechanized equipment would be allowed seaward of the piling foundation area during construction activity. [n other words, any work to be performed on the proposed cantilevered deck would be performed by construction workers only. Planting of vegetation underneath the cantilevered deck area can be accomplished. (C) My client is willing to limit the introduction of fertilizer and other contaminates and will, as mentioned, supplement the existing seaward vegetation. No one is suggesting any clearing seaward of the construction area. The development will be reasonably safe from flood and erosion damage. Clearly there is a reason that this property is not located within a "structural hazard area" as defined by the State. Substantial evidence has been documented and provided to the Town previously. There has been no erosion to this site. In fact, there is no evidence to suggest that construction of homes in the immediate vicinity of this parcel has caused erosion. Rather, there is evidence of Southold Town Board Page 3 September 21, 2010 accretion to the beach front area adjacent to the homes. That, in fact, the Town has correctly allowed for the reconstruction of homes or the constructions of additions to homes along the same Sound front area. (D) Since it is apparently the Town's position that the proposed home should not be located further seaward, the applicant is restricted by both side yard setbacks and the front yard set back from the public street, as well as the constraints caused by the requirements of the Suffolk County Health Department. The sanitary system must be distanced from property lines and properly engineered with consideration for existing and proposed topography. It should be pointed out that the sanitary system is the minimum required for a three bedroom home. A fourth bedroom by recent policy determination from the County Health Department would require a sixth sanitary pool improvement. With regard to potential alternatives/modifications to Alternate 6, there is no need for mechanical construction access seaward of the proposed structures. The silt fence/hay bale installation along the limit line can be accomplished without causing harm to the beach ridge. There is no need for approximately 8 to 10 feet of width on the seaward side of the structures. As mentioned above, the sanitary system as currently proposed meets the design policy for a three bedroom house. It is agreed the drainage system of leaders, gutters and dry wells can be installed. Further conditions for mitigation are also acceptable. These include (a) requiring that the undisturbed portion of the site be permanently maintained as a nondisturbance buffer; (b) requiring that all cleared areas not built upon be restored with native, nonfertilizer-dependent vegetation and maintained as a landscape buffer; and (c) prohibiting the use of such chemicals on the site. Very truly yours, PETER S. DAIqOWSKI, JR. PSD:gsg Cc: Robert G. Bombara Jennifer Andaloro, Esq. Doug Adams YOUNG & YOUNG 400 Ostrander Avenue Riverhead, New York 11901 Telephone 631-727-2303 Facsimile 631- 727-0144 admin~youngengineering, com HOWARD W. YOUNG, Land Surveyor THOMAS C. WOLPERE Professional Engineer DOUGLAS E. ADAMS. Professional Engineer September 21, 2010 Peter S. Danowski, Jr., Esq. 616 Roanoke Avenue Riverhead, New York 11901 Robert G. Bombara At Southold, Town of Southold, New York (2006-0320) Dear Mr. Danowski, Pursuant to your request, we have read the assessment of Robert Herrmann of En-Consultants regarding "Appeal of the Denial of Coastal Erosion Management Permit ofR. G. Bombara, 1725 North Sea Drive, Southold', and offer the following comments. Mr. HcLmlann mentions the potential to move the proposed sanitardj system landward in an effort to make additional room for the proposed residence to also move landward. He goes on to say that reducing the number of proposed bedrooms from four to three would reduce the size of the system and make further room for the residence to be moved landward. The indication on the plans that the residence was four bedrooms was incorrect and has been amended to read three bedrooms. The system currently shown on the plans accommodates a three bedroom residence. From that perspective, the system cannot be downsized. Also, as there are Suffolk County Department of Health Services restrictions on the grading above and around a conventional sanitary system, the system cannot be moved southerly (landward). Enclosed please also find seven (7) sets of the Building Permit Survey - Alternate 6, last dated September 21, 2010. The survey has been amended as mentioned above, as well as pursuant to page 6, items I through 4. -~ Please call our office if you have any questions would like to discuss the matter further Best regards, Dou~dams, PE /dea cc: Mr. Bombara + encl. Planning Engineering Land Surveying Architecture m / / f / ./__ _~ / / / /~ // /// / / / / TE~T HOLE /- PEP~CENT A[2JACENT A~-,~A COVEt~.A~E Pt~.OPOSED F~.A~IE HOUSE : 1,6~ 50. FT. = 6.8% DEC~ : 814 50. FT. : 9.3% POOL = 92q 5~. FT. = 1.3% / NO'1"~5 AP-,EA = 24,~-'l~' 5~. FT. VERTIOAL DATU~ = N.A.V. DATU~ (1~) ~10~OI54 H LAST ~AT~ 5~PT. 25, 2OO~ AMOUNT OF FILL ~UI~E~ = 200 C.~. ~ FILL TO BE CLEAN BANK-~UN 5AN~ AND ~AVEL FROH AN APP~OVE~ UPLAND 51~. ZONIN~ USE DIST~lOT = '~-40' 5.4*). / / / 539 + /5~/ 5.59 .31 58 Young & Young 400 Ostrander Avenue, Riverhead. New York ~90~ 63 ~-727-2303 Howard ~. Young, Land Su~eyor Thom~ C. Wolpert, ProfesSorial Engineer Dougl~ E. Ada~, Professorial Engineer Robert C. Architect HEALTH ]2EPARTI',4ENT UOE 5U~,VET'OI~.'5 CE~.TIFICATh HOYqA~D ~. h"OUN~, FOR .OE E T BOIvI AI ,A At Ooutholcl, To~n of ~outholct 5ufFolk County, Ne~ York, Cour'lt~ T(:~x ~Ct[:~ District IOOO Section 54 Block 04' Lot AI'4ENDED EAJILDIN¢ PEt~,J,41T DATA SEPT. 21, 2OIO ~SDEC AHE~N~ AU¢. I~, ~O~ A~NT~ NOV. 25, 2OO~ A~EO ~ILDIN¢ ~EHIT DATA NOV. 24, 20~ A~E~ ~IL~I~ ~HIT DATA OCt. ~ NO. 2OO¢-OB20 I OF 2 1200 ~ ~EPI~C TANK ~°u~a~N~ 1" [L-2.S0 (MON0U~C) DISTRIBU110N POOL I ~--lo.~ I I EL-lO.4 I o o _I_~ LEACHING POOLS HY~LIG P~OFILE ~C, ALE= ~ Young & Yo~tng 400 Ostra~der Ave~t~e, Riverttead~ Ne~ York 631 - 727-2303 H~ard ~. Yo~, La~ T~ C. ~olpe~, ~ofes~l D~ E. A~, ~ofes~al Engineer Robot C. T~ Architect H;=AJ..TH ~EPAf~'r'h4ENT ROBEET ¢. EOIvlE, ARA AL ~ouLholcl, To~n o~ ~outholcl ~olk Gounf.~J, No~ York CO[J~l~ T~X ~OF~ District I000 Section 54 Block 04 Lot Iq AlvlEh~E~ I~JILDIhkS, PL:R. IvlIT DATA N¥~,I:;~C. AHEN~HENT~ $C. tTH~ AHENDHEN'T'~ AIV~-'~ EIUILEPlIq~ IL:la, HIT DATA AIv~NI:;~D' E~LII[.~IN~S, P'L=fadvllT Al~'hE:71~:7 I~LIIl_tTIIq~ t-'~l,,d~llT DATA MAP Pfa, L=PAR,,E~ ~h 21, 2OIO A~. I&, 2OIO NOV. 25, 2OO~ NOV. 24, 2OO~ E, CPT, 14, 2OO~ AU~. F/, ;2COq Ms Elizabeth Neville Southold Town Clerk PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 17235 Soundview Ave Southold, NY 11971 Septemberl 0, 2010 RECEIVED [~P 1 3 2010 Dear Ms Neville; Sot,~fiold Town This letter is in reference to the buildings proposed by Mr Bombara on a 100 foot lot between Mc Cabes and Kenney's beaches. The owners of the adjacent 200 foot lot, called "Club 18" are opposed to the construction of any buildings on his lot by Mr. Bombara. We believe that the last small bit of pristine danes, beach plums and waterfront should be preserved as it now exists. It is a small treasure, available for viewing by all who pass by, a piece of history. As a boy, my brother Whitney and I hunted rabbits there with our father Clem and Uncle Bob There were no houses then, and I wish the Town had been as enlightened then in its efforts at preservation as it is now. I sympathize with Mr Bombara, who naturally assumed there would be no problem in getting permission to build since there were so many houses there already. Perhaps the Town could partially alleviate his monetary loss by purchasing his development rights in a bargain sale. Unfortunately for Mr Bombara, the time has finally come to draw the line and stop construction on fragile dune areas Please forward this letter to the appropriate members of the Town Board. Thank you for your help. Sincerely y,~ours, Edward C. Booth. SOUTHOLDTOWNBOARD PUBLIC HEARING September 7, 2010 9:00 AM Present: Supervisor Scott Russell Justice Louisa Evans Councilman Albert Krupski, Jr. Councilman William Ruland Councilman Vincent Orlando Councilman Christopher Talbot Town Clerk Elizabeth Neville Town Attorney Martin Finnegan This hearing was opened at 9:01 AM SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Would anyone like to come and address the Town Board on this particular coastal appeal? Mr. Danowski? TOWN CLERK NEVILLE: I think we should read the notice first. COUNCILMAN TALBOT: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Town Board of the Town of Southold sets September 7~ 2010 at 9:00 a.m. in the Town Meeting Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York 11971, as the time and place to continue the public hearing on the Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review Appeal of Robert G. Bombara~ relating to an amended application proposing new single-family dwelling, garage and swimming pool proposed to be located at 1725 North Sea Drive~ Southold~ SCTM//1000-54-4-19. I have a copy that it was posted on the Town Clerk's bulletin board on August 11, 2010 and that the legal notice was published in the Suffolk Times dated August 20, 2010. PETER DANOWSKI: Good morning. I recognize you may not have a lot of time in this meeting room because the Justice Court is about to proceed. By agreement with the office of the Town Attorney and this Board, I have requested and been granted permission to respond in writing subsequent to my comments being made today. I will be preparing written responses and I will ask for some experts to prepare some written responses. To Mr. Herman's report, Mr. Herman .... Bombara Appeal Public Hearing, continued September 7, 2010 TOWN CLERK NEVILLE: Mr. Danowski, can you pull the mic up? 2 MR. DANOWSKI: I can. Again, by stipulation we will be responding in writing. I would indicate that Mrs. Bombara, my client and her daughter are in the audience today, very concerned and very interested in this application. You might understand if you have been here for the last four years that it has been at least four years this application has been pending before various Boards. This is the sixth altemate plan for consideration by the town. And quickly, very quickly, my client purchased this property with an understanding they could build on it. They in fact had called the Building Department shortly before they agreed to buy the property and were advised., ill-advised at the time, that they could build on the property and quite frankly, I think the Building Department looked at the zoning code only and didn't look at the issue of coastal zone erosion which may have been a relatively new concept. On ail of the plans we submitted, all six, the distance to a structure from the beach defined area, which is defined as 100 feet in the town code, was met with ail the applications; the original application plus six alternatives. Since the original application, the State of New York DEC has issued a tidal wetlands permit for alternate plan number three which was closest to the water than this last proposed plan that is now before your Board for consideration. I make mention of this became my client has tried to address concerns, questions, issues raised by various parties representing the town. This latest plan was drawn to be code compliant. In fact, I think in my conversations with Miss Andaloro I said I think one of the key things here is when you look at a plan that you distribute it around so everybody takes a shot at it so that at the end of the day we know we can build what we are showing on the plan. That is a specific concern because the way we have addressed this is by trying to look at the town zoning code and trying to build the building envelope as far back to the road as possible without violating the zoning code. Therefore, you will see on this plan that we are distanced 40 feet from the road. We can't get any closer without violating the zoning code albeit consultants sometimes will suggest advice that is not very lawerly and suggest perhaps we should build out a plan that requires variances, I have seen and experienced zoning boards deny applications after other town agencies have granted permission, so I specifically looked to the west of this site and Mr. Tenedios' application, where I believe that was in fact the case, where the zoning board did deny the application after permits were issued by the Trustees. So this is a code compliant plan. There was another comment made, I think inaccurately, in the report and I certainly have respect for Mr. Herman but he treaded on the rules of the Suffolk County Health Department. The Health Department rules for septic systems for one, two, three or four family housing, I mean bedroom housing. It doesn't distinguish if you have got a three bedroom or two bedroom or a four bedroom, the minimum requirements are the same for each. So there is no ability to lessen the requirements of the Health Department. We have depicted the plan that is approvable by the Health Department and we can't vary from their standards. So there is nothing I can do about their requirements. We have located the septic system, we have located the house to be in compliance with both the Health Department and the zoning code. We have taken the extra step of not only building or proposing to build on poles, we have also taken the extra step of cantilevering the deck area and we are not talking about going in with heavy equipment of the seaward side of the line that was established by Mr. Herman, we are saying your local carpenters would get hired, would Bombara Appeal Public Hgaring, continued September 7, 2010 3 be in charge of cantilevering a deck on a construction side, so that there won't be intrusive building of structures within an area forward of this line as established by Mr. Herman and as depicted on the plan. I think if you look at communities throughout the east end, whether it is the south fork or the north fork, cantilevering has been easily accomplished with well engineered plans. Certainly, if we can walk to the beach, a carpenter can walk to do some nailing. The other good part about Mr. Herman's report is something I think I spent a great deal of time in trying to establish and I think easily established because there was no opposition to this, the factual proof here, there has been no long term erosion on this property. Never has been, there has been accretion and in fact, I know Mr. Krupski can look at me and remember the Betsch application because that was clearly what he claimed and I sort of mention his name afl the time because he raised the same arguments that I am raising today, and had this been pointed out this is not a structural hazard area, the town's position as I understand it now is that the reason that we are being very careful in how we build this house is not because the sound front is not going to erode, it is not because the structure will be washed away, it is because you choose to want to take the beach area and protect as much of it as you can. And I understand that. That is why we have moved the house back, downsized the house, built it on poles, cantilevered the deck. So I think this is the best we can do in shrinking everything that we sought out to do and I would like to think that this Board would recognize that and each of you be reasonable in granting this appeal based upon this amended plan. I would also note that, you know, there have been houses along this stretch of beach and they have been improved over periods of time and despite all those houses and despite all the additional construction, there hasn't been any increase in erosion and that is why we are suggesting to you that somehow if you build a house, you are going to add to erosion, that isn't going to happen. Empirically if you look at everything, you will see it hasn't happened. And that is why when we proceeded to litigation in the very beginning because of the denial of the tidal wetlands permit and I have to make mention of this, that traditionally in enforcing your laws, you have requested, required or permitted plans that set back 100 feet from the tidal wetlands. Each one of these plans, all six plans, set back more than 100 feet with any structure. And yet despite that, we were denied the tidal wetlands permit. And so I think as we pursue this appeal we will also be hopefully hearing that the tidal wetlands permit can issue consistent with the DEC issuing the permit. Having said that, I would like to respond in writing. I have Doug Adams from Young and Young available today to testify concerning the Health Department standards and the layout of the plans but I think at this point, I will respond in writing and I would just ask you to close the hearing but allow me to submit both expert reports and further comments from myself. Thank you. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Thank you. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Thank you. Would anyone else like to come up and address the Town Board on this particular hearing? LILLIAN BALL: Hi, Lillian Ball, Southold Town. I think is a very, very important piece that sets precedent. The Betsch property had a building, footprint there previously. This is virgin beach, it is virgin beach that is all in the FEMA flooding zone. I don't Bombara Appeal Public Hearing, continued 4 September 7, 2010 know really where a building envelope could be on this property that would not be in the flood zone and as we saw at the meeting with the NOAA people, for coastal erosion hazard areas, past erosion is not an indication of future erosions. We don't know how much of the shoreline is going to be threatened currently but we see indications that there will be sea level rise. I have sat in on meetings from the sea level rise task force in meetings where they have real indications of substantial sea level rise. The coastal resilience tool that the Nature Conservancy has developed has indicated that there will be substantial rise there, you can't allow somebody a building permit in an area where they have a very good chance to be flooded and then they are going to come back to you and say, oh, would you please help me fix my flooded home? You know? it is a very dangerous precedent. I think that the previous situation that was quoted at the Betsch family home, which was there, there was a footprint there, this is virgin beach. It has never been built on and once it is gone, it is never coming back. I really would recommend voting against any construction happening on this particular property. Thank you. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Would anybody else like to come up and address the Town Board? BENJA SCHWARTZ: Benja Schwartz, Cutchogue. Across the street from my house, there is a house for sale by owner. They are asking $379,000. It is a tear down but I assure you, it is a buildable lot. In fact, you could even use the foundation, it has got a beautiful foundation, great location. One procedural point, Mr. Danowski began by saying that he had some kind of agreement with the Town Board, I don't know how that is working on the record but I have no objection to keeping the hearing open but if it kept open, I believe it should be kept open for everybody. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I think his request was to close the hearing but keep it open for written response, written commentary and that is certainly something that we would extend to everybody. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: We have a report from a consultant that the Town Board hired and so he is requesting that he be able to respond to that report, which is reasonable. MR. SCHWARTZ: And I am sure he wouldn't object if other people had the opportunity to, too, to respond in writing. MR. DANOWSKI: Inaudible. MR. SCHWARTZ: Because it sounded like he was trying to reserve that right for himself only. I was walking on the beach two days ago on the sound and I picked up more garbage than seashells and there are some houses down there with cement block steps going down to the water and then they have taken all the beautiful rocks on the sound beach not only put in a wall of rocks but cemented all of the little rocks in place and it is just not the same place that even as a little as two or three years ago, it was a beautiful beach. If I owned property, I would want to do something with it. but if I Bombara Appeal Public Hearing, continued 5 September 7, 2010 bought property I would make sure and this is a lesson that the Building Department doesn't have the authority and the final say so. I am sure these people are knowledgeable enough to know that and should have checked it out before they bought it. I hope they find a place to build a nice home and become part of our community but from what I know and there is a lot I don't know about this application, it sounds like it is not code compliant. There is a very important code that would not be complied with if this application were approved. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Would anybody else like to address the Town Board on this issue? ANNE MURRAY: Good morning, I am Anne Murray from East Marion. I urge the Town Board not to approve this building project. As Lillian pointed out, this is virgin beach and I would also like to point out that even though the Building Department may have misinformed this family when they bought the property, I believe that the buyer was an attorney and had an obligation to do complete due diligence, so any thought of blaming the town for this I think is kind of beyond the point at this point. Thank you. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Mr. Huntington? RAY HUNTINGTON: Ray Huntington, Cutchogue. Is Mr. Herman going to do, further testify at this hearing and give highlights of the report because I am not sure how many people have seen this report? SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: We did not request his presence here, we asked for a written report and he surrendered that to the town. I could certainly make that available to anybody that would want to see it. MR. HUNTINGTON: Good. TOWN ATTORNEY FINNEGAN: It is already part of the record, so anyone can request a copy of it. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: We will make it available to anyone. In fact, we will make it available today. Would anybody else? FRANK WILLS: My name is Frank Wills, I live in Mattituck. I have been out here, Wading River and Mattituck since about the mid 50's. Both times I lived on the bluff and before I bought the place, I checked on what average erosion was. I was told in '62 that the previous 70 years the erosion rate in Mattituck and in Wading River was one to two foot a year. Regardless of what you did. If you put up a jetty, obviously down stream the erosion rate would accelerate. In Mattituck, (inaudible) on jetties, we were losing 40 foot of beach a year. So I am very skeptical as to any reports of saying that there has been no erosion over several years on any north fork beach. Bombara Appeal Public Hearing, continued September 7, 2010 SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Would anybody else like to comment? Lillian? MS. BALL: The coastal erosion hazard area line I am told is not on any of these maps, surveys or permit applications. COUNCILMAN TALBOT: We have a copy of the survey here that shows it. MS. BALL: That does show it? COUNCILMAN TALBOT: Yes. MS. BALL: Inaudible. This is the most recent one? COUNCILMAN TALBOT: Showing the landward toe and the most landward beach ridge, we are showing the FEMA elevations, (inaudible) elevation 11. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: The coastal erosion hazard line is in the middle of the road. MS. BALL: Yes. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: And I don't think it shown on the last (inaudible). I mean, we will request that but it is not a, at this point, the location of the line, it is not like if you said well, if it was 20 feet one way or the other it would make a difference here. MS. BALL: Twelve. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Because the lines on the road, whether it is the middle or the edge, it is not going to, it is still pretty much what it is. MS. BALL: Right. Well, it is there. And it is there for a mason. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Right. That is why we are here. MS. BALL: Right. I just talked to the Department of State about it and they agree, it is a very poor place for any building. So, but I would request that any decision be tabled until this, Anne Murray said she tried twice to get a copy of the report, (inaudible) a copy of the report is really available and we can look at the report. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Sure, we will make the report available. I just want to mention, the report actually, our expert, our consultant had asked Mr. Danowski for specific items to complete this report before any decisions could be made. I had anticipated reading those at the end of public comment component but since we are discussing that, let me reiterate now what Rob Herman asked for is identification of the coastal erosion hazard area boundary, drawing the regulatory landward limit of the ridge, for example, twenty five feet from the landward toe of the ridge, verification of updated FEMA boundaries, drawing of project limiting fencing and stacked hay bales along the Bombara Appeal Public Hearing, continued 7 September 7, 2010 proposed limit of cleating, grading and ground disturbance on the plan. These would be essential and necessary before we can make any determination. MS. BALL: I would also like to point out that this is a, what's, very little spot which is left of the double dune, so that is an indication to me of a real ecologically sensitive area. It is included in the significant habitat map from the Department of State, it goes basically from Goldsmiths to Horton Point, so it is an ecologically sensitive area. And I know there has been interest on the part of the adjoining property owners in purchasing the property so that there might be some escape from a taking that would be possible in the circumstance. So I don't think it is entirely a problem of you know, nothing could be built there, it could be donated, it could be, there are a lot of different ways that it could be handled and I would like to point out that the property to the left was given a go ahead by the DEC and the Trustees, however, the Zoning Board of Appeals did successfully an article 78 against the town. So they won. That blue house where they wanted to rip it down and do an entirely new building, it does change the character of our neighborhood and those of us in Kenney's beach who have watched these huge monstrosity's go up time and time again along our shoreline, robbing us of water view's, robbing us of air, robbing us of a sense of community and making it look like a bunch of condo's or Dune Road which is worse, you know, it does change the nature of our community and it is a negative impact on our shoreline and I would hope that you would take into consideration that the article 78 was won last time around on an adjacent property. Thank you. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Thank you. Mr. Danowski, can I just ask you how long you think you need for the written response? MR. DANOWSKI: I would ask for two weeks. I mean, I can respond in a day but my experts, their time schedule really sets the bar here. I would ask for the two weeks and if I need further time, I would just call the office of the Town Attorney and see if I could attain that subject to your approval. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Okay. Thank you. And we are going to reserve the right to have your response reviewed by Mr. Herman. MR. DANOWSKI: I have no problem with that. As long as it is not at your request. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Okay. MR. DANOWSKI: Yeah, I think other thing, I want to save time here today, by agreement rather than repeat and reiterate every fact that we have produced over the life time of the applications, one of the things that was stipulated into the record as part of the record that continues to be an ongoing part of the record was all of the files along Kenney's Beach Road that was stipulated into the record at the original Trustees hearing, we have kept them there so that you could look at what has been granted over the years at each individual parcel on Keuney's Beach Road. So I just want to make sure that is part oftbe record again. Thank you. Bombara Appeal Public Hearing, continued 8 September 7, 2010 SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Thank you. COUNCILMAN TALBOT: Mr. Danowski, can you tell me what the latest survey is showing the proposal? Is it, I have one here November 25, 2009. Is that the latest? COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Does it say alternate number six? COUNCILMAN TALBOT: Yes. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: I think that is it. COUNCILMAN TALBOT: I have a question regarding, this came up the first time I saw it, the first floor elevation of the structure? MR. DANOWSKI: Yes? COUNCILMAN TALBOT: The first floor elevation, you can see on there, it is a VE zone, FEMA zone and elevation is 13 feet. MR. DANOWSKI: Correct. COUNCILMAN TALBOT: And by code you would be two feet of free board and then start your framing. So if you had 13, 14 and 15 and then if you a foot of framing your first floor elevation could be at 16 if approved. MR. DANOWSKI: Okay. COUNCILMAN TALBOT: I just wanted to know why you shorted at 18, you know, an extra two feet? MR. DANOWSKI: I think one of the questions is the garage under the house and we wanted to make sure there was plenty of room for the vehicle and Doug Adams is here, we will respond to that question in writing but his initial reaction to that, just whispered to me now was that the locating the vehicle with the garage under. COUNCILMAN TALBOT: Alright. MR. DANOWSKI: There are various dates on reports and we submit them for different reasons, so that you, the date that you mentioned is the correct date since that date we go to the Health Department or the DEC and we add dates but the plan is still the same. COUNCILMAN TALBOT: Okay. I saw the alternate six on here, it was my mistake. MR. DANOWSKI: Thank you. Bombara Appeal Public Hearing, continued 9 September 7, 2010 SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Okay. Would anybody else like to address this Board before I entertain a motion to close it subject to receiving written input from anyone? COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: I have a comment. I did go to look at the site last week, to refresh my memory, to take another look at it. I do have a question for the applicant in a second but I was watching something on the Weather Channel, there is a storm, I guess a tropical storm converging on Texas and Mexico and there is a fella down there and I forget what his title was but he said they were confident that they could weather the storm, they had done a lot of work on dune restoration and they felt that that was their best bet. When the storm hit, the dune was their best protection to protect their upland, you know, all the structures and personal property etc. and I think that that should be the Town Board's goal here is to protect the natural protective features, whatever it is and people, you know, and then the report and I have read the report and I am familiar with the file, to say what, you know, how important it is or how minimal it is but it is actually what it is. And in a storm event, it will provide some protection not only for that piece of property and if that is developed but also how that is developed will affect the neighbors property. So I think that is what the Town Board really has to consider. And the question I have for the applicant and this is in no way to suggest that I am trying to steer the applicant towards a variance but this is just a question. The septic system, as it is, as shown on the survey, is landward of the house, alright? Between the house and the road. Could that be reconfigured in a more linear fashion or is that, it is clustered right now. And what is the setback of the septic system from the road, the public road? MR. DANOWSKI: I will respond to both of those in writing with Doug Adams, if he wants to whisper in my ear, I can repeat it but not that I am knowledgeable on the Health Department issues. I don't think the spreading of it, I think there is a distance from property lines that we have to pay attention to and there are, you know, requirements that pool systems and the number of pools and the depth of them are mandated by the Health Department, we can't change those regulations. I think one of your earlier comments though, that I appreciate that I distinguish is that no one suggests that the houses that exist have caused erosion along the beachfront, so as much as I agree with you about the purpose for sandy beach areas, the fact that we built the house there would be further erosion, I don't think there is any enapirieal proof that there would be. In fact, and I think about sometimes snow fencing gets put up, some structures get put up to capture sand, any time structures actually aid and cause accretion, so I am halfway there with you but not all the way. Thank you. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Thank you. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: What I would like to do know if entertain a motion from a Board member to close the hearing. What we will do is we will, we are going to close the hearing and we are only going to entertain written response for the next two weeks and then we will take this issue up and have a decision within 30 days? TOWN ATTORNEY FINNEGAN: And then the Town will have t~vo weeks. Bombara Appeal Public Hearing, continued 10 September 7, 2010 SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Okay. That's good. This heating was clos(,'d at 9:31 AM Southold Town Clerk MARTIN D. FINNEGAN TOWN ATTORNEY martin finnegan@town southold.ny.us JENNIFER ANDALORO ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY jennifer.andaloro@town.southold.ny.us LOR! M. HUL~qE ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY lori.hulse(q)town.southold.ny.us OFFICE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 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 August 31, 2010 Peter S. Danowski, Jr., Esq. 616 Roanoke Avenue P.O. Box 779 Riverhead, NY 11901 RE: Bombara Coastal Erosion Management Appeal Public Hearing on Amended Application: 9/71t0 at 9:00 a.m. Dear Mr. Danowski: With respect to the referenced matter, please find enclosed a courtesy copy of En-Consultants, Inc.'s report, prepared by Robert E. Herrmann, for your information. As you are aware, the public hearing on the Amended Application is scheduled for Tuesday, September 7, 2010, at 9:00 a.m. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to call me. Very truly yours, · ioro ~ ~ttorney JA/Ik Enclosure cc: Members of the Town Board Ms. Elizabeth A. Neville, Town Clerk MARTIN D. FINNEGAN TOWN ATTORNEY mar tin.finnegan@town.southold.ny.us JENNIFER ANDALORO ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY jennifer.andaloro@town.southold.ny.us LORI M. ttULSE ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY lori.hulse@town.southold.ny.us OFFICE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 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 To: From: Date: Subject: MEMORANDUM Members of the Town Board Martin D. Finnegan, Town Attorney August 31,2010 Bombara Coastal Erosion Management Appeal Public Hearing: September 7, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. Enclosed please find a copy of En-Consultants, Inc.'s report, prepared by Robert E. Herrmann, in connection with the referenced matter for your information. As you are aware, the public hearing on the Amended Application is scheduled for Tuesday, September 7, 2010, at 9:00 a.m. MDF/Ik cc: Ms. Elizabeth A. Neville, Town Clerk EN-CONSULTANTS, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING 1319 North Sea Road Southampton, New York 11968 631-283-6360 Fax: 631-283-6136 www. enconsultants.com August 25, 2010 Scott Russell, Supervisor Town Board, Town of Southold P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: "AppeM of the Denial of Constnl Erosion Mnnn~ement Permit of IL G. Bombanh 1725 North Sea Drive. Southold' Denr Supervisor Russell: As requested, I have reviewed the most recently submitted version of the Coastal Erosion Application by Peter Danowski, Esq., end the accompanying site plan for the development of the captioned parcel, prepmed by Young & Young, last dated November 25, 2009. Based on my review of these materials, I offer the following assessment. Background After an application for a Coastal Erosion Management Permit was denied by the Board of Trustees and brought on appeal to the Town Board, I was asked by the Town Board in April 2009 to offer my professional opinion regarding whether and to what extent the Bomhara site could be developed in a manner consistent with the standards for permit issuance set forth in Section 111-9 and/or Section 111-20 of the Town Code, i.e, the standards for issuance of a Coastal Erosion Management Permit and/or variance for activities conducted within the boundary of the Coastal Erosion Hu~urd Area Map issued by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Requirement for Coastal Erosion Management Permit in a Coastal Erosion Hazard Area In a letter to the Town Board dated 12 November 2008 and its accompanying documents (hereinafter referred to as "the applicant's appeal"), the applicant argues first that a Coastal Erosion Management Permit should not have been required for the proposed development due to the location of the proposed construction activities more than 100 feet from the "beach," which is a "natural protective feature" regulated by Chapter 11 t. Notwithstanding the fact that the property also contains a "primary dune" as defined and discussed below, the property is located entirely seaward of the Coastal Erosion HuTurd Area boundary line shown on the New York State "Coastal Erosion HuTard Area Map," which delineates the boundaries of"erosiun huTard areas" subject to regulation under Chapter 111 of the Town Code. Because Chapter 111 requires issuance of a Coastal Erosion Management Permit for all "regulated activities" proposed to occur with an erosion baTard area and new construction is a regulated activity, a Coastal Erosion Management Permit would be properly required for the proposed activities. To determine whether a Coastal Erosion Management Permit should be issued for a given project, the proposed activities must be assessed pursuant to the standards for permit issuance set forth in § 111-9, which requires the identification of what type of erosion bu~rd area the activities would occur within. An "erosion hazard area" is defined as an area of the coastline that is a "structural buT~rd area," i.e., shorelands located landward of natural protective features where the shoreline has a long-term average recession rate of one foot or more per year, or a "natural protective feature area," i.e., an area containing "natural protective features," including a "nearshore area, beach, bluff, primary dune, secondary dune or marsh and their vegetation." The Bombara site is not located in a structural hAT, rd area, evidence of which is presented in the technical reports submitted with the applicant's appeal, but it is located in a natural protective feature area. Idantification of the most landward natural oroteetive feature Therefore, as I articulated in a letter to the Town Board dated 20 April 2009, it was necessary to identify and locate on the site plan the property's most landward natural protective feature and its landward limit before it could be reasonably determined whether and how regulated activities might be conducted on the Bombara site pursuant to the standards for permit issuance set forth in 8111-9 and/or §111-20. Technical reports submitted with the applicant's appeal refer to the presence of"beach ridges" or "sand ridges" on the Bombara site, which were readily observable during my inspection of the site. Although none of the prior site plans identified a "primary dune" on the property, a dune is defined by § 111-6 as a "ridge or hill of loose, windblown or artificially placed earth, the principal component of which is sand." In turn, a "primary dune," a defined natural protective feature, is defined as "the most waterward major dune where there are two or more parallel dunes" or the dune "where there is only one dune present." Therefore, the beach ridge identified by the applicant's experts would meet the definition of a primary dune under Chapter 111 end therefore of a "natural protective feature." I thus met at the site in October 2009 with Aram Terchunian, one of the applicant's experts, to identify and delineate what we agreed was the geomorphic toe or landward limit of the most landward beach ridge on the property. As reflected on the site plan, this geographic feature correlates roughly with the 7.5-foot elevation contour. By definition, the landward regulatory limit of the primary dune occurs 25 feet landward of the landward toe of the beach ridge. Tha~ffore, while the geomorphic toe of the beach ridge is situated at a slight angle to the road end ranges in distance to the road from 69 to 79 feet, the regulatory landward limit of the primmy dune is situated a distance of 44 to 54 feet from the road. Because new conslrucfion is prohibited within a primary dune pursuant to § 111-13(A), the previously proposed development scheme that would have situated structures through the primary dune could not have met the standards for permit issuance set forth by § 111-9, as was ultimately determined by the Board of Trustees. Appeal to the Town Board When it can be demonstrated that strict application of the standards and restrictions of § 111-9 may cause practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship to an applicant, such standards and restrictions may be varied or modified, provided that the following criteria are met pursuant to 8111-20: A. No reasonable, prudent, alternative site is available. All responsible means and measures to mitigate adverse impacts on natural systems and their functions and values have been incorporated into the activity's design at the property owner's expense. C. The development will be reasonably safe from flood and erosion damage. The variance requested is the minimum necessary to overcome the practical difficulty or hardship which was the basis for the requested variance. E. Where public funds are utilized, the public benefits must clearly outweigh the long-term adverse effects. Because the 44 to 54-foot wide area between the road and the regulatory limit of the primary dune is an arguably insufficient area for placement of even a minimally sized dwelling a reasonable distance from the road, it is reasonable to conclude that strict application of the standards and restrictions of Chapter I 11 has created a practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship for the applicant, which provides grounds for appeal under Chapter 111. However, none of the previously submitted site plans could have met the above standards for variance issuance because the location of the most landward natural protective feature was omitted from those plans and a significant portion of that feature would have been displaced in each alternate plan. I therefore suggested in my November 2009 letter that the applicant consider submitting a site plan that WOuld take into consideration the location of the vegetated beach ridge, i.e., one that could be more reasonably reviewed against the variance standards. As it is my understanding that the site plan last dated 25 November 2009, entitled "Alternate 6," represents that effort, the following section reviews and assesses this latest plan pursuant to the variance standards set forth in §111-20 with the assumption that this plan replaces all previously submitted alternatives. Assessment of"Alternate 6" nurseant to ~ 111-20 (A) No reasonable, prudent, alternative site is available. The applicant's appeal states that no reasonable, prudent, alternative site is available because the applicant owns no other property in the township. Although this may be the case, this standard may also require the consideration of a reasonable prudent, alternative site for the development on this property. If it is to be developed, the reasonable and prudent site for structures on this property would be entirely landward of and as far behind the identified geologic beach ridge as possible because the beach ridge, which was described by Mr. Terchunian as "typically very stable" and "dominated by mature vegetation," provides whatever natural protection a dwelling can be afforded on this site. Although in contrast to the previously submitted site plans, "Alternate 6" docs propose to locate the finished structures predominantly behind the now depicted "landward toc of the most landward beach ridge," the structures would be located physically adjacent to the beach ridge and the cantilevered deck extended directly over it. Thus, if the integrity of the beach ridge were compromised or undermined either during or after construction as discussed below, a reasonable, prudent alternative site for the structures would remain available on the property some distance farther landward of the beach ridge. (B) AH responsible means and measures to mitigate adverse impnets on natural systems and their functions and values have been incorporated into the activity's design at the property owner's expense. The applicant's appeal suggests that as mitigation for potential adverse impacts on natural systems and their functions and values, the proposed structures would be located on a piling foundation. Use of a piling foundation, however, which is in fact required by the current FEMA designation at this site, has more to do with making the proposed structures safer from potential flood and erosion damage than with preventing or mitigating impacts on natural systems. The most recently submitted application omits discussion of the nature and extent of the environmental impacts within the Coastal Erosion Ha?zrd Area that may be reasonably anticipated as a result of the proposed development, as required on the "Coastal Erosion Application Data" form. Such reasonably anticipated impacts would include but not necessarily be limited to 1) the potential for causing increased erosion at the site and adjacent locations; 2) potential impacts on natural protective features and their functions and values; and 3) potential impacts on natural resources, as discussed below. Because the beach ridge is the most landward natural protective feature and provides the primary natural protection against flooding and erosion, the potential of the proposed development to cause adverse impacts on natural protective features or increase erosion at the subject or adjacent sites correlates with the potential for the beach ridge to be degraded by the development. Therefore, the most significant need for mitigation is that required to physically protect and preserve the beach ridge by preventing its physical displacement or degradation both during and after construction. The location and scope of the proposed structures depicted in "Alternate 6," however, create the potential for both forms of degradation. Specifically, although there is a "limit of clearing, grading, and ground disturbance" depicted along the landward toe of the beach ridge, there is no physical barrier such as a project-limiting fence proposed to ensure compliance with this proposed limitation during construction. Even if one were depicted along the toe of the beach ridge, a fence could not be maintained at that location during construction of the current proposal because the swimming pool, deck, and southwest portion of the dwelling are proposed physically adjacent to and/or over the beach ridge, and the excavation for and installation of those structures and their foundations would necessitate workers, equipment, and machinery accessing their seaward side during construction. The purported clearing would thus be inevitably breached and the beach ridge disturbed. The plan also creates the potential for the degradation of the beach ridge after conslruction through loss of vegetation that could result from direct shading by the cantilevered deck that would extend directly over the beach ridge. Therefore, one reasonable means of avoiding these potential adverse impacts would be to downsize and/or to relocate the sffuctures to an alternate site located farther away from the beach ridge, as mentioned in the section above. Potential impacts on natural resources would include but not necessarily be limited to the permanent removal of certain areas of natural vegetation; increase in runoff due to displacement of pervious sand soils with structures and impervious surfaces; and the potential for introduction of fertilizers and other contaminants. Although the applicant's appeal includes an offer to revegetate "outside the construction activity envelope," it is critical to the protection oftbe beach ridge that that no clearing occur outside that envelope. As no other means of mitigation appear to be offered in the applicant's appeal, all reasonable means and measures designed to mitigate adverse impacts have not been incorporated into the activity's design. (C) The development will be reasonably safe from flood and enmion damage. The applicant's appeal relies primarily upon technical reports that document the relative stability of the adjacent shoreline for the past 40 years. However, a period of stability along a given shoreline does not necessarily portend that the shoreline will continue to remain stable, and regardless of its historical trends, any shoreline fronting Long Island Sound is potentially susceptible to flood and erosion damage during significant storm events. Thus, the proposed development can be made as reasonably safe from flood and erosion damage as a development situated adjacent to Long Island Sound can be made by constructing it on a piling foundation (as is required and proposed) and by placing it as far from Long Island Sound and as far behind and away from the most landward natural protective feature as is reasonably practicable. Because the beach ridge provides whatever natural protection a dwelling can be afforded on this site, preventing degradation of this feature plays a role in the safety of any development located behind it. As described above and below, however, "Alternate 6" proposes structures located physically adjacent to and over the beach ridge, thus creating the potential for the degradation of the feature and an undermining of its ability to provide natural protection for the development against flooding and erosion. And so again, a downsizing and/or relocation of the structures farther from the beach ridge would better satisfy this standard for variance issuance. (D) The variance requested is the minimum necessary to overcome the practical difficulty or hardship which was the basIs for the requested variance. The applicant's appeal states that structures proposed on one site plan were relocated and reduced in size compared to those depicted on a previous plan but does not address specifically whether or how the minimum variance relief necessary to overcome thc applicant's hardship is being requested. "Alternate 6" proposes structures located physically adjacent to the beech ridge due at least in part to a stated desire to maintain the 40-foot front yard setback required by Chapter 280. However, as alluded to in all of the above sections, the development could be shifted farther landward of the beach ridge and without encroaching on the 40-foot front-yard setback by way of further downsizing and/or reconfiguration of the proposed structures. Specifically, the 1,696 square-foot footprint of the proposed two-story dwelling is nearly twice the 850 square-font minimum required by Chapter 280, and a swimming pool and deck are proposed on the seaward side of the dwelling. Moreover, given the need to balance both zoning and environmental restrictions, placing the dwelling closer to the road should not necessarily be dismissed out of hand. Because the development could be shif~l farther from the beach ridge by relocating structures closer to the road and/or by reducing the scope of the structures, the development proposed by "Alternate 6" arguably necessitates more than the minimum relief necessary to overcome the hardship that is the basis of the appeal. (E) Where public funds are utilized, the public benefits must clearly outweigh the long-term adverse effects. As the project will be privately funded, this standard is not applicable. ~Findin~ Due to the location of the defined primary dune, strict application of the standards for permit issuance set forth by § 111-9 limits the potential for residential use of the subject property to such a degree that review of an appeal of the application for a Coastal Erosion Management Permit pursuant to Chapter 111, Article IV, is warranted. Due to the limited area of the property that is located between the defmed landward limit of the primary dune (i.e., more than 25 feet landward of the identified beach ridge) and the road, it cannot be reasonably expected that the property could be developed entirely outside the regulatory limits of the primary dune. But at a minimum and for all the reasons described in the sections above, any development should be limited in scope and situated so as to avoid all physical encroachment on and disturbance to the geomomhic limits of the beach ridge, both during construction and at~erwards, such that the physical displacement and/or degradation of the beach ridge is avoided and its naturally protective functions and values are retained and preserved. To the contrary, "Alternate 6" proposes to locate structures physically adjacent to and over the landward toe of the beach ridge, which creates the potential for the disturbance, displacement and degradation of the beach ridge both during and after construction. Because relocating and/or downsizing the proposed structures and incorporating additional mitigation measures could allow for such degradation to be avoided, the development proposed by "Alternate 6" fails to meet all of the standards for variance issuance set forth by §111-20. potential Alternatives/Modifications to "Alternate 6" A relocation of the identical development plan closer to the road might create the room necessary to implement the identical site plan without traversing the limit of clearing, grading, and ground disturbance on the landward side of the beach ridge and therefore without physically degrading the beach ridge during construction. The cantilevered deck could also be situated entirely landward of the beach ridge, which would eliminate the potential for post-construction degradation of the beach ridge due to direct shading. Such relocation could result in the complete elimination of structures located adjacent to and/or seaward of the landward toe of the beach ridge as well as a decrease in the area of structures being placed within the defined regulatory limit of this natural protective feature. The minimum extent of any such relocation would be a function of how much space is realistically required for construction access on the seaward side of the proposed structures such that the piling foundation and su'uetures could be installed without breaching the proposed limit of clearing, grading, and ground disturbance. To ensure protection of the beach ridge and areas seaward thereof, enough space would need to be allowed for installation of a physical barrier along the proposed clearing limit that could be maintained throughout the entire ennstrnetion process. Common construction practice suggests that an area approximately 8 to 10 feet wide on the seaward side of the structures would be the minimum space necessm3', but the Town Board may wish to require submission of 5 certified plans and construction methodolo~ by the project engineer to guarantee the feasibility of whatever separation distance is ultimately proposed. Although such relocation would require some relief from the required front yard setback and the burden of justifying that relief would remain on the applicant, it appears from aerial imagery and ground observation that other structures along this developed shoreline are similarly located. Both the extent of any zoning relief necessary and the setback from the natural protective feature could be optimized by also downsizing the scope of the relocated structures. It is worth noting that if the location of the septic system were identified as a limiting factor in relocating the piling foundation closer to the road even after a reasonable dowusizing of the dwelling, the currently proposed system is a high groundwater or "alternative system" designed for a four-bedroom house, which requires more space than does a system designed for a three-bedroom house. Thus, while there is currently room to move even the four-bedroom system marginally closer to the road, there would be additional room available to locate a three-bedroom system. Potential impacts on natural resources could also be mitigated. For example, the potential increase in runoff due to displacement of pervious sand soils with structures and impervious surfaces could be mitigated through the installation of a drainage system of leaders, gnRers, and drywells designed to capture and recharge roof runoff. The removal of natural vegetation and wildlife habitat and the potential introduction of fertilizers, pesticides, and other contaminants used on lawn or landscape vegetation could be mitigated or prevented by a) requiring that the undisturbed portion of the site be permanently maintained as a nondisturbance buffer; b) requiring that all cleared areas not built upon be restored with native, nonfertilizer-dependent vegetation and maintained as a landscape buffs, and c) prohibiting the use of such chemicals on the site. Site Plan Requirements If the Town Board and applicant elect to consider an alternative design as described above, the following issues should also be addressed on the revised site plan: 1. Identify Coastal Erosion HATsrd Area boundary; 2. Depict 25' landward offset of delineated "landward toe of the most landward beach ridge," i.e., the regulatory landward limit of the most landward natural protective feature; 3. Verify or update FEMA boundaries pursuant to recent changes to flood zone designations and convert topographical data to 1988 NAVD; Depict a project-limiting fence and staked haybaies along the proposed limit of clearing, grading, and ground disturbance to be erected prior to commencement of construction and maintained until completion; Should you have any questions or wish to discuss the above further, please let me know. S~'Hemnann- Coastal Management Specialist cc: Martin D. Finnegan, Town Attorney Elizabeth A. Neville, Town Clerk 6 EN-CONSULTANTS, INC. (Environmental Consulting) TERRASSESSMENTS, INC. (Phase I Environmental Inspections) ROBERT E. HERRMANN CURRICULUM VITAE 1319 North Sea Read Southampton, NY 11968 Phone: 631-283-6360 Fax: 631-283-6136 Email: rheL~r~ann@enconsultants.com EDUCATION PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE OTHER EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATIONS Duke University, Nicholas School of the Environment, Durham, NC Master of Environmental M~nagement, May 1997 Concentration: Coastal environmental management, specializing in wetlands and developed shorelines. Relevant courses in wetland delineation; wetland ecology and management; wetland hydrology; biogeochemistry; ocean and coastal law; beach and coastal processes; applied ecology and ecosystem management; corporate environmental management; resource economics; GIS-guided conservation m~nagement. Master's Project: The effects of shoreline hardening on Long Island, NY. Brown University, Providence, RI Bachelor of Arts, Biology, June 1993 Relevant courses in marine biology; field biology; plant biology; evolutionary biology; invertebrate zoology; ornithology; oceanography; applied ecology; behavioral ecology. Coastal Management Specialist, Eh-Consultants, Incorporated, Southampton, NY Provides environmental consulting services specJ~li~ng in coastal environmental planning and permit acquisition for all counties of Long Island, NY. Services include wetland delineation; development of management plans for erosion control and beach, bluff, and wetlands restoration or enhancement; on-site inspections and evaluations to determine inhabitant flora and fauna, significant environmental attributes, and appropriate methods of development or resWration; design of vegetative restoration plans; preparation of environmental permit applications to Village, Town, County, State, and Federal agencies. 1993 - 1995; 1997 - Present Environmental Analyst, Town of SouthampWn, Southampton, NY Performed detailed study of the effects of shore hardening structures on the quality of Long Island pubhc ocean beaches. Conducted dry beach measurements and examined site-specific historical data such as aerial photographs and survey maps to determine current conditions and geomorphic evolution of over 47 miles of ocean shoreline. Presented findings to the Southampton Town Board. Summer 1996 Research Assistant, Duke Wetland Center, Duke University Sorted benthic macrofauna and dried marsh soils as part of a NOAA-funded study of the functional evolution of restered salt marshes in North Carolina. Fall 1995 Researcher, School for Field Studies Center for Marine Resource Studies, South Caicos, T.C.I., British West Indies Utilized SCUBA to survey and map fish biodiversity at a 3000 m2 coral patch reef. Submitted map and report to the island's government in effort to persuade officials to incorporate reef into the South Caicos National Parks System. Summer 1993 Certified Wetland Delineator Certified by Rutgers, The Stats University of New Jersey, in the methodology of delineating wetlands, including the identification of wetland vegetation and hydric soils. Certified Environ~nental Inspector Certified by the Environmental Assessment Association (CEI No. 14365) to conduct Phase I Environmental Assessments prior to sale, purchase, or refinancing of residential and commercial real estate in Long Island, NY. MARTIN D. FINNEGAN TOWN ATTORNEY martin.finnegan@town.southold.ny.us JENNIFER ANDALORO ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY j ennifer.andaloro (a/town.southold.ny.us LORI M. HULSE ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY lori.hulse@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 To: From: Date: Re: OFFICE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Trustees Jennifer Andoloro August 16, 2010 Bombara Coastal Erosion Hazard Area Permit Appeal REC£1VED AUG I 6 $outhold Town Clerk Attached please find a revised application on the above referenced matter for your review and comment. The Town Board will consider the revised application at a public hearing on September 7, 2010. Please provide the Board's written comment, if any, prior to that time. Thanks Jennifer cc: Betty Neville Lori Hulse MARTIN D. FINNEGAN ;* TOWN ATTORNEY mar tin.finnegan@town.southold.ny.us JENNIFER ANDALORO ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY jennifer.andaloro(~a)town.southold.ny.us LORI M. HULSE ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY lori.hulse(~a)town.southold.ny.us SCOTT A. RUSSELL Supervisor Town Hall Annex, 54375 Pmute 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 August 2, 2010 Peter S. Danowski, Jr., Esq. 616 Roanoke Avenue P.O. Box 779 Riverhead, NY 11901 RE: Bombara Coastal Erosion Management Appeal Public Hearing on Amended Application Dear Mr. Danowski: With respect to the referenced matter, please be advised that the Town Board has re-noticed the public headng on the Amended Application, which is scheduled for Tuesday, September 7, 2010, at 9:00 a.m. I am enclosing a copy of the resolution for your information, which was adopted on July 27, 2010. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to call me. Very truly yours, _ Assistant TdWn Attorney JA/Ik Enclosure cc: Mr. Robert Herrmann, Eh-Consultants Inc. Ms. Elizabeth A. Neville, Town Clerk RESOLUTION 2010-563 ADOPTED DOC ID: 6054 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION NO. 2010-563 WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD ON JULY 27, 2010: RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold sets September 7~ 2010 at 9:00 AM in the Town Meeting Hall~ 53095 Main Road~ Southold~ New York 11971~ as the time and place to continue the public hearing on the Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review Appeal of Robert G. Bombara~ relating to an amended application proposing a new sinl[le- family dwelling, ~arage and swimmim, I~ool I}roposed to be located at 1725 North Sea Drive~ Southold~ SCTM #1000-54-4-19, and directs the Town Clerk to publish notice of such appeal in The Suffolk Times not less than ten (10) days nor more than thirty (30) days prior to such hearing and to notify the applicant by first class mail. Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Christopher Talbot, Scott Russell SECONDER: William Ruland, Councilman AYES: Ruland, Orlando, Talbot, Krupski Jr., Evans, Russell MARTIN D. FINNEGAN TOWN ATTORNEY martin.finoegan~town.southold.ny.us JENNIFER ANDALORO ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY jennitbr.andaloro@town,southold.ny.us LOR1 M. HULSE ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY lori.hulse@towo.southold.ny.us SCOTT A. RUSSELL Supervisor Town Nail Annex, 54575 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 SOUTtIOLD July 20, 2010 Mr. Robert E. Herrmann Coastal Management Specialist En-Consultants, Inc. 1319 North Sea Road Southampton, NY 11968 RE: Robert BombaralCoastal Erosion Management Permit Denial Premises: 1725 North Sea Drive, Southold, NY Dear Rob: Enclosed please find a revised application on the referenced matter for your review and comment. If you recall, I believe you already reviewed a similar plan in our last round of discussions with the applicant and you had some informal comments at that time that the applicant was unwilling to address. The applicant has formally submitted this to the Town Board. We would appreciate your formal written comments prior to the August 24, 2010 Town Board meeting. Please address your comments to the Town Board, with a carbon copy to the Town Clerk's Office. If you have any questions regarding the enclosed, please do not hesitate to call me. Thank you for your attention. JA/Ik Enclosures 9892 STATE OF NEW YORK) ) SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) Karen Kine of Mattituck, in said county, being duly sworn, says that she is Principal Clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES, a weekly newspaper, published at Mattituck, in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, and that the Notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been regularly published in said Newspaper once each week for 1 week(s), successively, commencing on the 19th day of Auqust, 2010. '~r Principal Clerk Sworn to before me this NOTIC~ IS HEREBY GlV~N that the Town Board of the Town of Southold ~in the Town Meeting Hall, 5:3095 Ma'm Road, Southold, New york 11971, as the time m~d place to ~om~nue ~he ~ p{opos'm~ new ~m~e-fm~ily dwel{i~ ~ara~e aud sw~m~n~ pool proposed to bc located at ~ ~e2-tT 8/19 ~0 dayof _(~! ,/~ 2010. NOI'ARY PUBLIC-STA'fE OF NEW YORK h!o. 01 .VO6105050 Quo~lfiecl in Suffolk County LEGAL NOTICE Notice of Public Hearing NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Town Board of the Town of Southold sets September 7~ 2010 at 9:00 a.m. in the Town Meeting Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York 11971, as the time and place to continue the public hearing on the Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review Appeal of Robert G. Bombara~ relating to an amended application proposing new single-family dwelling, garage and swimming pool proposed to be located at 1725 North Sea Drivel Southold~ SCTM #1000-54-4-19. Dated: July 27, 2010 BY ORDER OF THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Elizabeth Neville Town Clerk PLEASE PUBLISH ON August 19, 2010 AND FORWARD ONE (1) AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO ELIZABETH NEVILLE, TOWN CLERK, TOWN HALL, P.O. BOX 1179, SOUTHOLD, NY 11971. Copies to the following: The Suffolk Times Board of Trustees Town Board Members Comptroller Town Attorney Town Clerk's Bulletin Board Page 1 of l .Cooper, Linda From: Legals [legals@timesreview.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 12:31 PM To: Cooper, Linda Subject: RE: Bombara PH 9-7-10 Hi Linda, I have received the legal notice and we are good to go for the 8/19 issue. Thanks and have a great afternoon! Candice From: Cooper, Linda [mailto:Linda. Cooper@town.southold.ny.us] Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 10:53 AH To: Suffolk Times Legals Cc: Rudder, Lynda Subject: Bombara PH 9-7-10 Good morning, Please confirm receipt of this Legal Notice of Public Hearing to be published in the 8/19/10 edition of the Suffolk Times. Thank you and have a great day. Linda Cooper 8/11/2010 RESOLUTION 2010-563 ADOPTED DOC ID: 6054 THIS 1S TO'CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION NO. 2010-563 WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD ON JULY 27, 2010: RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold sets September 7~ 2010 at 9:00 AM in the Town Meeting Hall~ 53095 Main Road~ Southold~ New York 11971~ as the time and place to continue the public hearing on the Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review Appeal of Robert G. Bombara~ relating to an amended applieatlon proposing a new single- family dwelling, ~,ara~,e and swimmine nool nrooosed to be located at 1725 North Sea Drive~ Southold~ SCTM #1000-54-4-19, and directs the Town Clerk to publish notice of such appeal in The Suffolk Times not less than ten (10) days nor more than thirty (30) days prior to such hearing and to notify the applicant by first class mail. Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk RESULT: ADOPTED IUNANIMOUS] MOVER: Christopher Talbot, Scott Russell SECONDER: William Ruland, Councilman AYES: Ruland, Orlando, Talbot, Krupski Jr., Evans, Russell STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE, Tgwn Clerk of the Town of Southold, New York being duly sworn, says that on the //'r~ day of ~, 2010, she affixed a notice of which the annexed printed notice is a true copy, in a proper and substantial manner, in a most public place in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, to wit: Town Clerk's Bulletin Board, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York. Re: Bombara PH 9/7/10 Swo,..r,r~ before me this //- day of~_, 2010. N6tary Public ' LINDA J COOPER NOTARY PUBLIC, State of New York NO, 01CO4822563, Suffolk Coun~ Term Expires Deceml3er 31,20.~ Southold Town Clerk RESOLUTION 2010-563 ADOPTED DOC ID: 6054 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION NO. 2010-563 WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD ON JULY 27, 2010: RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold sets September 7~ 2010 at 9:00 AM in the Town Meeting Hail~ 53095 Main Road~ Southold~ New York 11971~ as the time and place to continue the public hearing on the Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review Appeal of Robert G. Bombara~ relating to an amended application proposing a new single- family dwelling~ garage and swimming pool proposed to be located at 1725 North Sea Drive~ Southold~ SCTM #1000-54-4-19, and directs the Town Clerk to publish notice of such appeal in The Suffolk Times not less than ten (10) days nor more than thirty (30) days prior to such hearing and to notify the applicant by first class mail. Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Christopher Talbot, Scott Russell SECONDER: William Ruland, Councilman AYES: Ruland, Orlando, Talbot, Krupski Jr., Evans, Russell JOHN P. TAGGART, ESQ. LAW OFFICES PETER S. DANOWSKI, 616 ROANOKE AVENUE RIVERHEAD, NY 11901 (631) 727-4900 FAX (631) 727-7451 E-mail: pdanowski@danowskilaw.com jt aggart@danowskilaw.corn July 15, 2010 JUL ] 6 2010 Southold Town Clerk Town of Southold P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 Attn: Elizabeth Neville. Town Clerk Southold Town Clerk Re: Robert fi. Bombara - Coastal Erosion Hazard Area Permit Dear Ms. Neville: After discussions with the office of the Town Attorney, I enclose an application which I am enclosing to each of the members of the Town Board, as well as to each of the members of the Board of Town Trustees. I have also provided a copy to the Town Clerk, the Clerk of the Town Trustees and the Deputy Town Attorney. This application asks the Town to consider approval of all necessary permits for "Alternate 6". This two-page plan provides no physical intrusion in the area North of the line establishing the landward toe of the most landward beach ridge. The plan also indicates a limit of clearing, grading and ground disturbance. The residential foot print is 1,696 square feet. The house decking and proposed pool is to be constructed on poles. No disturbance of the sand occurs North of the line. A portion of the deck is cantilevered, but no intrusion is made into the soil in the area North of the line. All construction is depicted within a building envelope limited by the Town's zoning code set backs. An attempt has been made to provide a plan that requires no variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals. The proposed small swimming pool is to the rear of the residence, within the deck area. I would expect that the Town would not endorse any plan that would require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. I would ask that you advise me of a date and time for meeting with the Town Board so that [ can verify my client's availability. Also, it may be helpful if my design professionals prepare a board presentation for ease of review. Town of Southold Page 2 July 15, 2010 I also point out that New York State DEC has issued a tidal wetland permit for an earlier plan that was closer to the Long Island Sound. All prior correspondence or testimony offered by the applicant is incorporated by reference. As has been noted in prior testimony, there is an absence of erosion in the building areas proposed in all of the alternate plans proposed by the applicant. The building area is also distanced more than 100 feet from the Long Island Sound. Very truly yours, PETER S. D^NOWSKI, JR. PSD:gsg HAND DELIVERED cc: Robert Bombara Young & Young, Surveyors N $ / / / // / // /y // // / / / /~/ / / / / / / / / 8.~ / / / / / ? / / / / / / / / / / /~d'//~;~// / / / / / / / / 9// / I / / / / 8.20 ffo~0//~6~6 / 8.49 ,r NO'I'E~ AR~A -- 2.4,~"/~ .G~. FT. · VERTIGAL DATUH = N.~,.V. DA'T'UH (M.S.L. Iq2q) · SEE FLOOD IJ',~-~JF~Nd,E FRA"F~ PANEL NUIv~ER · AH~T OF ~ILL ~UJ~g = 200 G.Y. * ~IL~I~ ~OO~INT A~A = J~ ~. ~t. · ~ONI~ ~ DIS~IGT = '~-~' / / · 8.57 10.77 53 Young & Young 400 Ostra'n, der Ave'n,'ae, Riverhead, New York 11901 631 - 727-2303 Hovo~rd W. Young, L~wd $~rveyor Thomas C. Wolp~t Robe~ C. D~ ~. Ad~, H~ALTH DEPARTHENT HOI,'~LA, RP I~. YOUNg,, N.¥.D.I.S. NO. 45~qD A~. ~u~.holct, tol,,In oF S~u~,holcl ~FFolk Count. y, l',lel,~ York Iq ~C.D~G Alvlb-N~IvI~NT~ A~L"D41:TE~D IDLIILDIN~ t%~l~dlT IDATA AHL~NIDt~]D ~JIL.IDIN~ P~lJC~IIT [DATA Alvlb'NZ7t~ I~IILIDIN~ PC-I~vIIT DATA HAP NOV. 25, NOV. 24, OGT. ~0, 200':t AU~. I't, 200~ ~.,ALE, 1"=40' NO. ~.00~,-0~20 IDJ~I~. 2C::~:~ _01 ¢2.J~p_r-'/ IOF2 0 (4 m,~l~us) 1200 GAl. SEP~IG TANK (M~OU~C) I-t'r'l:;q~NJLIC, PROFILE Yowr~g & Your~g 400 Osbrwn, der Ave~,'u,e, Riverhead, Ne~ York 11901 631-727-2303 Ho~rd ~. Y~, La~ S~or T~ C. ffolp~ ~fes~l E~ine~ Robert C. T~ A~hiteet D~ E. A~, ~ofes~l E~er HEALTH I~EPAR.'r'lvlENT U~E HOP~A~D' ~[. ¥OLIN/D, N.'T'.5. L.5. NO. 459~. E:,UR.VE't' FOR At: ~ouf. hold, To~nn oF Dou~.hold 5ut't'olk Count. y, 1~ 'Yock Count~ TOX h'lclp Dmrlct lO00 Sect{O¢'l .~4 eloc~ (~4 Lot ICl ~UIL~IN~ PL=F~IT ~ - AI.~T~ ~ ~,DH~ AHENIDbtENt~ ~ I~IL.~IN~ f:~f~llT ~ATA AHENDED BUIL~I]~, P~l~vllt DATA AHENI:::~ID BUIL.~IN~ F:~-I~flt DATA HAP PI~EPARI~:~ N~V. 25, 2Cn3q NOV. 24, 200q ~C,T. ~, 200q ~.--ru, 14, 2Cn9¢:1 ALkD. I'/, 200q ~C,A~..E = N.T.~. ,JOB NO. 200~.-0520 %. DI~9. 20O6_Ol~,2._bp._r'/ 201=2 0 Albert J. Krupski, President James King, Vice~President · Artie Foster Ken Poliwoda Peggy A. Dickerson Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 $outhold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD X Coastal Erosion Permit Application -X-Wetland Permit Application Amendment/Transfer/Extension Received Application: Received Fee:$ Completed Application Incomplete SEQRA Classification: Type I Type H. Unlisted Coordination:(dats sent) LWRP Comistency Assessment Form CAC Referral Sent: Date of Inspection: Receipt of CAC Report: __Lead Agency Determination: Technical Review:. Public Hearing Held: Resolution: Office Use Only Administrative Permit Name of Applicant Robert G. Bombara Address 98-16 163rd Avenue, Howard Beach, New York 11414 :Phone Number:( ) 718-845-4283 Suffolk County Tax Map Number: 1000 - 54-4-19 PropertyLocation: Nor°ch Sea. Drive, approx. 1,675' east of Kenney'.q Road (adjacent to LIL Pole #14) (provide LILCO Pole #, distance to cross streets, and location) AGEA~r: Young & Young Attn: Thomas C. Wolpert, P.E. (If applicable) Address: 400 Oatrander Avenue, Riverhead, New ~ork 11901 Phone: 631-727-2303 Board Of Trustees Application Land Area (in square feet): Area Zoning: R-40 GENERAL DATA' 24f879 sq. ft. or 0.6 acre Previous use ofproperty:. Intended use ofproperty: Covenan~andResffictions: Vacant Single Family Residence Yes X No If "Yes", please provide copy. Does this project reqmre a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals __ If "Yes", please provide copy of decision. Prior permits/approvals for site improvements: Agency NYS DEC Tidal Wetlands Alternate plan Date Yes X No Alternate "6" X No prior permits/approvals fro/site improvemems. Has any pemfit/approval ever been revoked or suspended by a governmental agency? x No Yes If yes, provide explanation: Project Description (use attachments if necessary): Construct one single family residence and garage, pool and associated water supply and sewage disposal facilities. COASTAL EROSION APPLICATION DATA Purposes of proposed activity:. To construct one (1) si~lgle family residence, garage and pool. 200 + - (cubic yards) (cubic yards) A backhoe will Arc wetlands present within 100 feet of the proposed activity? x No Yes Does ~e project involve excavation or filling? No x Yes If Yes, how much material will be excavated? + How much material will be filled? 200' - Mamaer in wlfieh material will be removed or deposited: be used to excavate for construction of the house, garage and pool and also used to grade the construction site. Describo the nature and extent of the envh'omental impacts reasonably anticipated resultiug from implementation of the project as proposed. (Uso attachments if necessary) The proposed operations will hot have. an effect on the tidal waters. Board of Trustees Application WETLAND/TRUSTEE LANDS APPLICATION DATA Purpose of tbe proposed operations: To construct one (1) single family residence, garage and pool. Area of wetlands on lot: 0 .square feet Pement coverage of lot: 6.8 +/-% Closest distance between nearest existing structure and upland edge of wetlands: R.A. feet' Closest distance between nearest proposed structure and upland edge of wetlands: 160 +/- feet Does the project involve excavation or filling? No X Yes Ir'yes, how much material will be excavated?.200+/- cubic yards How ,nuch material will be filled? 200 +/- cubic yards Depth of which material will be removed or deposited: 6 +/- feet 2% Proposed slope tlu:oughout the area of operations:. Manner in which material will be removed or deposited: - ,- · ' used to excavate for construction of the house, garaqe and pool and also used to grade the construction site. Statement of the effect, if any, on the wetlands and tidal waters of tile town that may result by reasoa of such proposed operations (use attacbmeots if appropriate): The proposed operations will not have an effect on the tidal waters. NOTICE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER BOARD OF TRUSTEES~ TOWN OF SOUTHOLD In the matter of applicant: Robert G. Bombara SCTM# YOU ARB HEREBY GIVEN NOTICE: 1000-54-4-19 1. That it is the intention of the undersigned to request a Permit.from the Board of Trustees to: Construct one (1) single family residence, garage, and pool. 2, That the property which is the subject of Envirol~mental Review is located adjacent to your property and is described as follows: refer to Bui,~ding Per~f.t Survey That the project which is subj eot to Environmental Review under Chapters 32, 37, and/or 97 of the Town Code is open to public comment on: . 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 S outhold . and does not reference any other agency that might have to review same proposal. eVeNERS NAME: Robert G. Bombara and Margaret M. IVlAIL~qG ADDRESS: 9s-,6 163rd Avenue Howard Beach, New York 11414 PHONE #: {718) 845-4283 Bombara Eno: Copy of sketch or plan sh0wing proposal for your convenience. PROJECT ID NUMBER PART 1 - PROJECT INFORMATION APPLICANT I SPONSOR Robert G. Bombara 3.PROJECT lOCATION: Southold, T/O Southold Munlclpallly 4. PRECISE LOCATION: Slreal Addess and Road [I,% 6t?.20 APPENDIX C STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALI'h REVIEW .SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM .for UNESTED ACTIONS Only ( To be compleled by A licant or P~oJect Sponsor) 2. PROJECT NAME Robert G. 5afloara Suffolk CounN In[ersecllons. Promlnonl ¼fldma[ka o[~ -or nmvlda mao SEQR Refer to .Building Permit Survey §. I$ PROPOSED ACTION: [] New [] Expansion [] Mndli]calJoo I allemllofl 6. DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY: Construct one (1) single family residence, garage, and pool. Alternate No. 6 7. AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED: Inlllally 0.6 acres UllimMely · 0.6 acres 8. WILL PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTIN~ ZONING OR OTHER RESTRICTIONS? [] Yes [] No If no, describe briefly: g. WHAT I$ PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT? (Choose as many as apply.) rx---]Raaldenlla, [~lnd.s~al []Commercial E~Agrlcullure J--"]ParkJForo.llOpenBpaoo · ~']Other (describe} tO. bORS ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL, OR FUNDING, NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY (Federal, Slele or Local) ~]YSD~C - Tidal Wetlands F~'~Ye~ , r--]No ff ye% .11~1 agency .oma and perm!/ /approval: SCDBS - Water Supply ,& Sewage Disposal .. COES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTION .~VE A CURRENTLY VA,D PERMIT OR APPROVe? ElY. J-XlNo I, y.,. ii., .g..c~ ..m........~ / ...m~.l: ' ..:. Except tidal wetlands permit for Alternate Plan. 12. AS A Rr~ULT OF PROPOSED ACTION WILL EXISTING PERMIT/ APPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATION? ' CERTIFY' TRAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Appilcam ! S,~_. Robert G. Bombara Da,a: If the action Is a Costal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment Board of Trustees Application County o1'~ State of New York Robert G. Bombara 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 1N 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 SOLrrHOLD 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 IN CONJUNCTION WITH REVIEW.OF THIS APPLICATION. Signaturo SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS /~'~ DAY OF Board of Trustees Application AUTHORIZATION , (where the applicant is not the owner) I, Robert G. Bombara (print owner of property) residing at 98-16 163rd Avenue, (nmiling address) Howard Beach, NY 11414 do hereby authorize Young & Young (Agent) ATTN: Thomas C. Wolpert, P.E. and/or the Law Office of Peter S. to apply for permit(s) from the Danowski,J: Southold Board of Town Trustees on my behalf, (Owner's signature) Robert G. Bombara. BombaRA APPLICANT/AGENT/REPRESENTATIVE TRANSACTIONAL DISCLOSURE FORM The Town of Soothold's Code of Ethics orohibits conflicts of interest on tile oart of town officers and emolovees. Tile numosc of this form is to nmvida information which can alert the town of nossible conflicts of interest and allow it to take whatever action is pcccssasv to avoid same. YOUR NAME: Bo~I?a~ (L~t name, first name, middle initial, unless you are applying iii the anme of someone else or other entiO/, such as a company, If so, iodicete thc other person's or compooy*s oanlo.) NAME OF APPLICATION: (Cheek ail that apply.) Tax grievance Buildiog Variance Trustee .K Change of Zone Coastal Erosion X Approval of plat Mooting Exemption from pi? or official map Planning Other (lf"Other",nmnetheactivity.) Town Board Do you personally (or through your company, spouse, sibling, parent, or child) Imvo a relationship with any officer or employee of the Town of Soothold? "Relationship" includes by blood, marriage, or business interest. "Besthes~ interest" moses 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~ X YES NO If yon answered "YES". complete time balance of this form and date and sign wbem indicated. Name of person employed by the Town of Soothold Title or position of that person Describe the relationship between yourself(the applicanffageni/repr~eentative) m~d time town officer or employee. Either check the appropriate line A) through D) and/ur describe in the space provided· Thc town off~cer or emptoyee or his or her spouse, sibling, parent, or child is (check all that apply): A) thc owner of grsater Ihan 5% of thc shares of the corporate stock of the applic4mt (when dine applicant 18 a corporation); __.B) ilia legal or beneficial owner of any interest in a noo-corporale entity (when tile applicant is not a corporation);' C) an officer, director, partner, or employee 5fthe applicant; or __.D) the actual applicant. DESCRIPTION OF RELATIONSHIP , Form TS I Submitted th[g~day of PHOTO NO. 1 ROBERT G. BOMBARA AT SOUTHOLD, T/O SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK OCTOBER13,2006 8:26A.M. PHOTO NO. 2 ROBERT G. BOMBARA ATSOUTHOLD, T/O SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK OCTOBER13,2006 8:26A.M. PHOTO NO. 3 ROBERT G, BOMBARA AT$OUTHOLD, TIO SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK OCTOBER13,2006 8:27A.M. PHOTO NO. 4 ROBERT G.' BOMBARA AT sOUTHOLD, T/O SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK OCTOBER 13, 2006 8:27 A.M. PHOTO NO. 5 ROBERT G. BOMBARA AT SOUTHOLD, T/O SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK OCTOBER13,2006 8:29A. M. PHOTO NO, 6 ROBERT G. BOMBARA AT SOUTHOLD, T/O $OUTHOLD, NEW YORK OCTOBER 13~ 2006 8:2g A.M. Tower of S0utbold LWRP CONSISTENCY ASSESSMENT FORM INSTRUCTIONS 1. 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 consisiency, *Except minor exempt actions including Building Permits and other ministerial permits not located within the Coastal Erosion Hazard.tires. 2. Before answe~g 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). 3. If any question in Section C on this form is answered "yes", then the proposed action may affect the achievement of the LWRP policy standards and conditions contained in the consistency review law. Tbns, the action should be analyzed in more detail and, if necessary, modified prior to making a determination that it is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the LWRP policy standards and conditions. If an action.cannot be certified as consistent with the LWRP policy standards and conditions, ~rtaken. A copy of the LWRP is aoailable in Che following places', online at the Town of Southold's website (southoldtown.northfork.net), th6 Board of Trustees Office, the Planning Department, all local libraries and the Town Clerk's office, B, DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSED ACTION SCTM# lOOO 54 - 4 - , 19 The Application has been submitted to (check approp[late response): Towu Board ~-~ Planlflng Dept. [-~ BuildlngDept. [~ Board of Trustees [] Category of Town of Southold agency action (check appropriate response): (a) Action undertaken directly by Town agency (e.g. capital construction, plamfing activity, agency regulation, land transaction) (b) Financial assistance (e.g. grant, loan, subsidy) (c) Permit, approval, license, certification: Nature and extent of action: Construct one (1) single family residence~ garage, pool and associated water supply and sewage disposal facilities. Locationofaction: North, ...Sea- .Drive'.,.A, approx. 1,675' east of Kenney's Road (adjacent Site acreage: 24,879 sq. ft. or 0.6 acre Present land use: Vacant R-40 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: Robert G. Bombara ' 98-16 163rd Avenue goward Beach, New York 11414 (c) Telephone number: Area Code ( ) 718--~-q--a¢m'~ (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?. NYSDEC - Tidal Wetlands Permit DEVELOPED COAST POLICY Policy L Foster a pattern of development in the Town of Soutimld that enhances community clmracter, 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 - please explain) All pcu~osed construction is situated more than 160' landward of the landward limit with FF_~ Atlach additional sheet~ if necessary Policy 2. Protect and preserve historic and archaeological resources of tim Town of Soutbold. See LWRP Section III - Policies Pages 3 through 6 for evaluation criteria [] Yes [] No ~] (Not Applicable- please explain) Attach additional sheets lfnecessatT Policy 3. Enhance visual quality and protect scenic resources throughout the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section IH - Policies PageS 6 through 7 for evaluation criteria ~-~ Yes ~--] No ~-~ Not Applicable Attach additional sheets ifn~cessary NATURAL COAST POLICIES olley 4. Minimize ioes of life, structnres, and natural resources from flooding and crosiou. See LWR~ Section HI ~ Policies Pages 8 through 16 for evaluation criteria ~] Yes ~ No [] Not Applicable Refer to Poltc~ 1 response Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 5. Protect and improve water quality and supply in the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section IH - Policies Pages 16 through 21 for evaluation criteria ~-~ Yes ~'~ No F'~ Not Applicable Refer to Policy 1 response; prOL~osed method of water supply is v~a connection to existing water main adjacent to property. Attach additional sheets ifne.~my 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 IH - Policies; Pages 22 through 32 for evaluation criteria. ' . .. Yes No · . Not Applicable Attach ad.difional sheets if necessary Policy 7. Protect and improve air qualify in the Tow0 of Southold. See LWRP Section IH - Policies Pages 32 through 34 for evaluation criteria. [] Yes ~ No [] Not Applicable Attach additional sheets ifneceasary Policy g. 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 N 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. ~'~ Ye? No ~-~ Not Applicable Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 10.~Protect Southold's water-dependent uses and promote siting of new water-dependent uses ill suitable locations. See LWRP SectiOn III - Policiesl Pages 47 through 56 for evaluation criteria. [] Yes [] No (Not Appllcable- please explain) Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 11. Promote sustainable use of living marine resources in Loug Island Sound, tile Pecouic Estuary and Town waters. See LWRP Section III - Policies; Pages 57 through 62 for evaluatioa criteria. [] Yes [] No ~ Not Applicable- pleaseexplaln Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 12. Protect agricultural lauds ill the Townof Southold. See LWRP Section III - Policies; Pages 62 through 65 for evaluation criteria. ~ Yes N No [] Not Applicable, please explain Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 13. Promote appropriate use and development of energy and lulneral resources. See LWRP Section III - Policies; pages 65 t!~rougb 68 fo~ evaluation criteria. ~'~ Yes [] No [] Not Applicable- please explata · PREPARED BY Thomas C.'Wolpert, P.E. TITLE A~ent for Applicant DATE 07/02/10 NEW YORK STATE'DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION Facility DEC ID 1-4738-03647 PERMIT Under the Environmental Conservation' Law (ECL) Permittee and Facility Information Permit Issued To: ROBERT G BOMBARA -98-16 163RD AVE HOWARD BEACH, NY 11414 Facility: B.OMBARA PROPERTY NORTH SEA DR[SCTM# 1000-54-04-19 SOUTHOLD, NY 11971 Facility Application Contact: YOUNG & YOUNG 400 OSTRANDER AVE RIVERHEAD, NY 11901 (631) 727-2303 Facility Location: fn SOUTHOLD in SUFFOLK COUNTY Facility Principal Reference Point: N~rM-E: 713.8 NYTM-N: 4549.86 Latitude: 41°04'18.9" Longitude: 72°27'18.7" Authorized Activity: Construct single family dwelling, driveway, swimming pool and patio. Install sanitary system. All work must be done in accordance with the plans prepared by Howard W. Young last revised July 2, 2009. ' Permit Authorizations Tidal Wetlands - Under Article 25 Permit ID 1-4738-03647/00001 · New Permit Effective Date: ~ Expiration Date: NYSDEC Approval By acceptance of this permit, the permittee agrees that the permit is contingent upon strict compliance with the ECL, ali applicable regulations, and all conditions included as part of this permit. Permit Administrator: GEORGE W HAMMARTH, Deputy Regional Permit Administrator NYSDEC REGION 1 HEADQUARTERS Address: .~Z/)/---''~ SUNY ~ STONY BROOKI50 CIRCLE RD STONY BROOK, NY 11790 -3409 Authorized Signature: ~~ Page 1 of 6 N S ttEST HOLE / / / / / / / /~ // // / / / / / I / / 8.~o / //'( / / / */u~, / / / / /~-/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / 9.05,(' /. 9.8~" / 6.56 +8.47 )~,~.~'+ 7.67 + 8.20 ~.~' ./~ 8.49 NOTE5 ,&PEA = 24,~'~'~1 ~. FT. · VERTICAL DATUh4 = N.~.¥. DA'f'Ut,4 (H.5.L. Iq2q) · 5EL FLOOD INSURANCE f~,ATE PANEL · AI,4OUNT OF ~ILL REGUIRED = ~OO G.¥. + · FILL TO E,E CLEAN E~ANK.-t~N ~AND AND FRO~ AN APPROVED UPLAND ~ITE. · I~JILDIN~ FOOTPRINT AI~JEA = 1,6~'6 Ex~. FT. · ZONIN~ U~E DI~'FI~ICT = / / L~;77 . ~.67 10.77 6.59 55 Young & Young 400 Os~rander Aven~e, Riverhead, New York I1901 63 ~- 727-2303 Hoauard W. Young, La~ S~eyor Tho~ a Wolperi, ~ofes~nal Engineer Rober~ C. T~, Arehi~ec~ ~ E. ida~, ~o~es~al E~ineer HEALTH DEPAt~Th4ENT U~E 5Ut~,V~r'O~'5 GERTIFIGATh HOPIAP-,D Pi. YOUNg, N.Y'.5. L.5. NO. 4D,~qD ~U~V~¥ FOR R.O RT BOIvI ARA A[ 5ouf. holcl, to~n oF 5ou~.holct ~,uFFolk C, oun[y, Ne~ York ENJII_DIN~ F:~F~J,41T .GI.J~VEY - AI_~L-i,dG~TI~ ,GC..DH~ Ah'~N[DHENT~ NOV. 25, 2OC~ AI'4ENDED E~ILDIN~ ~E~h41T DATA NOV. 24, 2~q A~ED ~ILDI~ ~MlT DATA OCT. ~, 2~ A~ED ~ILDI~ ~RMIT DATA 5E~. 14, 2~ HAP ~A~D ~. 19, 200~ ~ NO. 200~-0~20 I ~ 2 P~. 200~_0[~_~_~ o HOOf PILES (MONOUm~C) NOTE~ A~A = ~4~ ~. ~T. 4' MIN. 8' MAY~ DISIRIBUllON POOL LEACHIN$ POOLS (4- POOLS) EL-4,65 I.-I'fDRAULI~ PRIDFILIE Young & Young 400 Os~rander Avenue, Riverheac~ Nelv York 11901 631 - 727-2303 H~ard ~. Young, La~ Su~eyor T~ C. ~olp~t, ~ofes~l Engine~ Robert C. T~t, Arohiteot Doug~ E. A~, ~ofes~l E~inee~ HEALTH 12EPARTMENT USE L E~Jf~X/E'COf~'5 QERTIFIC, ATI< HO~[AR~ ~q. YOUNg, ~U~VE¥ Ia, O RT ¢. BOI,4BAt O At 5outhol~t, Town oF 5o¢.holcl ~uFFolk County, New York County Tc~x h4op District I000 Section 54 Block 04 Lot ICl ~UILI211i~PERt41T~VEY-ALTEENA~ 6 A~DED t~JILDIN5 PERMIT DATA A~ED ~1~1~ ~RMIT DATA ~ED ~ILDI~ ~MIT DATA MAP ~A~D NOV. 25, 200q NOV. ;24, 200~ O~T. ~, 200~ E~EPT, 14, 20C~[ AIJ~. I'L 200~[ ~C~AI.E= N.T.5, NO. 200~-0320 2 OF2 JOHN R TAGGART, ESQ. LAW OFRCES PETER S. DANOWSKI, ~R. 616 ROANOKE AVENUE RIVERHEAD. NY 11901 (63t) 727-4g00 FAX (831) 727-7451 E-mall: pdanowskl~dan owskllaw.eom ItaggaW~danow~kllaw.©om April 14, 2010 Jennifer Andaloro, Esq. Assistant Town Attorney Town of Southold P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 ]Re: Robert G. Rombara - Coastal Erosion Ha2ard Area Permit Dear Jennifer: Per our recent discussions, I would appreciate being invited to a Town Board meeting to discuss approval of the latest plan. You may wish to have this matter discussed at an executive session with my client, my design professional and myself present, inasmuch as there is pending litigation. Either way, I would appreciate the opportunity to once again recite the progression of plans submitted to both the Trustees and later the Town Board. As discussed, the latest plan provides no physical intrusion in the area North of the line establishing the landward toe of the most landward beach ridge. The plan also indicates a limit of clearing, grading and ground disturbance. The residential foot print is 1,696 square feet. The house decking and proposed pool is to be constructed on poles. No disturbance of the sand occurs North ofthe line. A portion of the deck is cantilevered, but no intrusion is made into the soil in the area North of the line. All construction was depicted within a building envelope limited by the Town's zoning code set backs. An attempt has been made to provide a plan that requires no variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals. The proposed small swimming pool is to the rear of the residence, within the deck area. I would expect that the Town would not endorse any plan that would require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Jennifer Andaloro, Esq. Page 2 April 14, 2010 I would ask that you advise me of a date and time for meeting with the Town Board so that I can verify my client's availability. Also, it may be helpful if my design professionals prepare a board presentation for ease of review. I think we should also point out that New York State DEC has issued a tidal wetland permit for an earlier plan that was closer to the Long Island Sound. Although I have delivered the plans to you before, I am more than happy to package all or some of the more recent plans for distribution to Town representatives. PETER S. DANOWSKI, JR. PSD:gsg cc: Robert Bombara Young & Young, Surveyors Aram Terchunlan/First Coastal MARTIN D. FINNEGAN TOWN ATTORNEY mar tin.finnegan@town.southold.ny.us JENNIFER ANDALORO ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY jennifer.andaloro@town.southold.ny.us LORI M. HULSE ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY lori.hulse@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 May 10, 2010 VIA FACSIMILE Peter S. Danowski, Jr., Esq. 616 Roanoke Avenue P.O. Box 779 Riverhead, NY 11901 RE: Bombara Coastal Erosion Management Appeal Dear Mr. Danowski: As previously discussed, the Town Board has requested that your client submit an amended application, reflecting the most recent changes to the proposed plan so that it can continue review of this application. Upon receipt of the amended application, the Town Board will most likely reopen the public hearing for additional comments. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Attorney JA/Ik cc: Mr. Robert Herrmann, En-Consultants Inc. Ms. Elizabeth A. Neville, Town Clerk #9146 STATE OF NEW YORK) ) SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) Karen Kine of Mattituck, in said county, being duly sworn, says that she is Principal Clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES, a weekly newspaper, published at Mattituck, in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, and that the Notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been regularly published in said Newspaper once each week for 1__ week(s), successively, commencing on the 25th day of December, 2008. Principal Clerk Sworn to before me this To~n Meeting Hall, 53095 Main Road, So~thold. New York 11971, as the time and place for a ~d~Ig-l~ilg-.~l~l~ relating to a proposed new single-family l~led: December 16, 2008 Town Clerk RISTINA VOLINSKI NOTARY PUBLIC-STATE OF NEW yORK No. 01.V06105050 Qualified in Suffolk county LEGAL NOTICE Notice of Public Hearing IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold sets Januar~ 20~ 2009 at 9:00 a.m. in the Town Meeting Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold. New York 11971, as the time and place for a public hearing on the Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review Appeal of Robert G. Bombara~ relating to a proposed new single-family dwelling, garage and swimming pool proposed to be located at 1725 North Sea Drivel Southold, SCTM #1000-54-4-19. Dated: December 16, 2008 BY ORDER OF THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Elizabeth Neville Town Clerk PLEASE PUBLISH ON December 24~ 2008 AND FORWARD ONE (1) AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO ELIZABETH NEVILLE, TOWN CLERK, TOWN HALL, P.O. BOX 1179, SOUTHOLD, NY 11971. Copies to the following: The Suffolk Times Land Preservation Town Board Members Comptroller Town Attorney Town Clerk's Bulletin Board Page 1 of l Cooper, Linda From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Cooper, Linda Thursday, December 18, 2008 2:16 PM JOAN ANN - Legals Neville, Elizabeth Legal Notice for 12/24 Attachments: Bombera 1-20-09.doc Please confirm receipt of this legal notice for 12/24 publication. Thank you 12/18/2008 STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE, Town Clerk of the Town of Southold, New York being duly sworn, says that on the I .']-h)~ day of,[~_.t~gd~, 2008, she affixed a notice of which the annexed printed notice is a true copy, in a proper and substantial manner, in a most public place n the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, to wit: Town Clerk's Bulletin Board, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York. Re: Bombara Appeal Pti ~ fi) Elizal~eth ~. Nex~lle Southold Town Clerk Sworn before me this ) 7?[' day of ,4ff~g,~d_ ,2008. N6tary Public/ '~ LINDA J COOPER NOTARY PUBLIC, State of New York NO. 01CO4822563, Suffo~lk Count~ Term Expire3 Dccember o!, 20~ ©FF C]AL ILl o TOWN CLERK Postage $ m ~ ~tTo his, CommisSlone [~ 625 Broadwa~ · Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. · Print your name and address on the reveme so that we oan return the card to you. · Attach this card to the beck of the ma,piece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addresse~ to: Pete Grannis, Commissioner State of New York Dept. of Enivronmental Cons. 625 Broadway ~ Albany, NY 12233 A. Signature X ~ [] Agent - (/~ [] Addressee B. Received by ( Prlnt~ Natl.) C.~D~a~/)f~lvery 4. Restricted Delivery? (Ex~a Fee) [] Yes 2. Ardcle Number ~m~,~ 7005 3110 0003 0248 0709 PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02-M-1540 ELIZABETH A. NEVH.LE, RMC, CMC TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hail, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 southoldtown.northfork, net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD December 5, 2008 Pete Grannis, Commissioner State of New York Department of Environmental Conservation 625 Broadway Albany, New York 12233 Dear Commissioner Johnson: Transmitted herewith is a copy of the "Appeal of Denial of Coastal Erosion Management Permit of Robert G. Bombara, 1725NOrth Sea Drive, Southold, N.Y. 11971 SCTM# 1000-54-4-19 It is being sent for your information in accordance with Southold Town Code Chapter 111, Section 111-25.B. This matter has been assigned to our Assistant Town Attorney Kiernan Corcoran. You may contact him at 631 765-1939 for further information. Very truly yours, Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk cc: Town Board Town Attorney Town Trustees Town Of Southold P.O Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Date: 12/05/08 * * * RECEIPT * * * Receipt#: 31119 Transaction(s): 1 1 Application For Appeal Reference Subtotal Bombara $250.00 Check#: 19733 Total Paid: $250.00 Name: Bombara, Robe~ G 98-16 163~Ave Howa~ Beach, NY 11414 Internal ID: Bombara Clerk ID: LINDAC JOHN P. TAGGART, ESQ. LAW OFFICES PETER S, DANOWSKI, ,.JR, 616 ROANOKE AVENUE RIVERHEAD, NY 11901 (631) 727-4900 FAX (631) 727-7451 E-Mail: pdanowski @ danowskilaw.com jtaggart @ danowskilaw.com Town Elerlc' / November 12, 2008 Southold Town Board 53095 Main Road, Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Re: Robert F. Bombara Property Dear Sir or Madam: I enclose administrative appeal papers with regard to an application on behalf of Robert G. Bombara, requesting a wetland permit and coastal erosion permit to construct a single family dwelling, detached garage, pool and associated water supply and sewage disposal system to be located at 1725 North Sea Drive, Southold, NY, Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000 - 54 - 4 - 19. My client was initially denied a permit without prejudice. The requisite Notice of Appeal was duly filed and my client re-submitted three alternate plans for consideration by the Southold Town Board of Trustees. This latest application was verbally denied without findings on October 15, 2008. Thereafter, written documentation was received by mail on November 3, 2008. Enclosed is a standard one page form supplied by the Town of Southold with regard to the appeal. This letter supplements this form and should be made part of the appeal. I have asked that two complete copies of the entire record be provided as is noted in the enclosed letter. One copy should be delivered to the Town Clerk pursuant to Town regulations. I had previously made the same request on filing the initial administrative appeal from the first decision rendered by the Board of Trustees. Made part of the record are the entire files related to other applications filed along North Sea Drive. These files verify that the Board of Trustees has previously granted coastal zone management permits which allow for the construction of improvements on properties similarly situated to that of Bombara. In at least one instance a residential home and improvements were constructed after a total demolition of any existing structures. Comment will be made on some of these applications. The applicant herein has no objection to those previous applications having been granted and, in fact, supports the Southold Town Board Page 2 November 12, 2008 granting of those applications, which have resulted in the construction of larger and more beautiful homes, which are an asset to the community. Those filed applications and permits granted recognize that there has been no erosion to the beach front area and, in fact, proof has been submitted to the Board of Trustees on earlier applications and on the instant application to prove that the beach area has actually accreted, rather than eroded over a more than 40 year period. This factual determination is important as the avowed purpose of the coastal zone erosion statute is not to prevent the construction of homes and improvements, but rather to protect these improvements in areas where coastal erosion has scientifically been proven. The mere placement of a line on a map by the State of New York does not confirm the existence of erosion to this segment of beach front area. No less than four experts have submitted proof with regard to this issue and other environmental concerns. Their reports have been made a part of the record. Their "curriculum vitae" has also been provided. Supplied with this letter are highlighted responses from these individuals. This testimony should have come as no surprise to the Board of Trustees, in that similar proof has been supplied to the Trustees in the past, which proof has been made part of the record. I make specific reference to the verified affidavit of John Ehlers, licensed land surveyor and written comments contained in the "Betsch" file as submitted by Mr. Betsch's counsel, Tracy Karsch Palumbo, Esq. of the firm of Twomey, Latham, Shea & Kelley, LLP. I would also note that the alternate plans, including specifically alternate plan No. 3, downsized the building, moved the garage into the residential structure, placed the house on pilings, placed the residential home a distance of as much as 157 feet from the tidal wetland, the Long Island Sound. Placement of the house this distance is beyond the 100 foot distance referenced in tidal wetlands permits and coastal zone erosion management permits issued to other home owners along this same stretch of roadway. I highlight some of the applications and decisions rendered in that regard and refer the Board to the entire record of these applicants that have been made part of the record upon stipulation by the Town. As has been pointed out in the past, the Town's own regulations by definition limit the beach area to a 100 foot distance from a marked physiographic change. Since the applicant has moved all improvements beyond the 100 foot beach area with regard to each of the now total of four (4) alternate plans, a permit should have been either not required or granted. During the pendency of the Bombara application, the adjacent neighbor to the West was granted a permit for an addition to his residential structure. The granting of this permit is fully supported by the Bombaras. See application of Steven Tenedios, which application was carried on the agenda on various dates when the Bombara Southold Town Board Page 3 November 12, 2008 application was pending. There has been no opposition from Mr. Tenedios to the Bombara application. It should also be noted that the local waterfront revitalization program reports have almost unanimously rejected the recommendation of approval for wetland and shoreline applications. Despite these form recommendations, the Board of Trustees in the past has correctly voted approval of applications, despite these LWRP reports. In fact, it has been commented on, that few, if any, applications will ever qualify for recommendations of approval. As is stated in the Dru Associates, Inc. document made part of the record and included with this letter appeal/variance, the permit issuance standard set forth in 6NYCRR Part 505 and the Town Code provisions have been met. Reiterating what was stated at the conclusion of Dr. Abrams' report. The activity is reasonable and necessary considering reasonable alternatives to the proposed activity and the extent to which the proposed activity requires a shoreline location. The land owner has no other property in the Town to construct a waterfront home. The activity will not be likely to cause a measurable increase in erosion at the proposed site or other locations. The site does not contain a physiography that is subject to erosion since there is evidence of recent accretion of sand and the sand ridges demonstrate stability, and the neighbor's home site on similar ground does not show evidence for erosion impacts. The activity prevents if possible or minimizes adverse affects on natural protective features and their functions and protect values as described in Section 505.3. The natural protective features of beach and sand ridges are stable and their protective functions will not be altered by the proposed development. The site does not support significant fish and wildlife, nor is it a host site for shoreline bird breeding or any other threatened or endangered species. In conclusion, the issuance of a permit for development of the Bombara lot is compatible with both CEHA and Tidal Wetlands protection, since the resources protected by either of these programs will remain unaltered by the proposed home and accessory uses. Also, it is the applicant's position there should not have been the necessity of filing an application for a coastal erosion management permit, in that the project activity is all located beyond 100 feet from the Town defined "beach" area. However, inasmuch as a building permit would not issue, the Town's required application forms were submitted for issuance of a tidal wetlands permit and a coastal erosion management permit. The proof in support for the issuance of a permit had been provided to the Board of Trustees and this appeal asks that the Town Board determine that a permit should have issued. Southold Town Board Page 4 November 12, 2008 Alternatively, if the Board finds that there was jurisdiction to consider an application for a permit but that the Board of Trustees did not have the power to issue a permit then the applicant would request a variance or waiver from the Town Code provisions. Certainly, if strict application of Town Code requirements prevent the issuance of any permit, this determination by itself causes practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship and the Town Board is empowered to vary or modify any such restriction or requirement. Pursuant to New York State enabling legislation the following criteria are met: 1. No reasonable prudent alternative site is available. The applicant owns no other property in the Township. 2. All reasonable means and measures to mitigate adverse impacts on natural systems and the functions and protective values described in the State enabling legislation and the Town Code provisions have been incorporated into the project's design and will be implemented at the developer's expense. The developer, as indicated in alternative plans submitted that he will build the residential structure on adequately anchored pilings such that at least three feet of open space exists between the lowest horizontal structural members, e.g. floor joists, and the surface of the land. The space below the lowest horizontal structural members could be left open and free of obstructions. Additionally, the land owner has agreed to move all construction activity more than 100 feet from the mean high water mark of the Long Island Sound and agreed to re-vegetate or supplement any areas outside the construction activity envelope. 3. The development will be reasonably safe from flood and erosion damage. As evidenced at the public hearings with submission of documentary proof no long term erosion has occurred for over 40 years. In fact, there has been accretion at the site. There has been no damage noticed on any neighboring properties which have residential improvements thereon and in fact the Board of Trustees have granted relief and the Town Board has at least on one occasion granted necessary relief for the construction of a replacement home in a larger building envelope than previously existed. 4. The variance requested is the minimum necessary to overcome the practical difficulty or hardship which was the basis for requesting it. The home has been moved as to location. It can be built on pilings with supplemental landscaping. The size of the home has been reduced. The garage has been incorporated into the residential building envelope. The swimming pool location has been moved and the swimming pool has been reduced in size. Southold Town Board Page 5 November 12, 2008 5. No public funds are being utilized. PSD:gsg Encls. HAND DELIVERED cc: Robert Bombara Very truly yours, PETER S. DANOWSKI, JR. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD APPLICATION FOR APPEAL TO THE COASTAL EROSION HAZARD BOARD OF REVIEW DATE ~, 2008 NAME OF APPLICANT: Robert G. ADDRESS: 98-16 163rd Ave., Bombara Fee: $250.00 Howard Beach, NY 11414 Danowski,Jr.,Esq. 2008; AGENT: Thomas E. Wolperto P.E.~ Young & Young; Peter S. DATE OF DECISION APPEALED FROM Verbal decision: October 15, Written resolution received by. mail: l~vember 3, 2008 SPECIFIC CHAPTER/SECTION INVOLVED Chap[er ; 111-6; 111-12 THE ALLEGED ERRORS IN THE DETERMINATION ARE: Development prohibited in area proposed. Factually, no proof of In fact, proof erosion for in excess of 40 year period. of accretion. INTERPRETATIONTHATISCLAIMED TO BE CORRECT: No erosion; issue permit with reasonable conditions as depicted on any of alternate plans submitted; more than 100 feet from Long Island Sound and beyond beach. RELIEF SOUGHT: Issuance of permit as proposed on any of plans submitted. * COPY OF THE ENTIRE BOARD OF TRUSTEE F1LE INCLUDING ANY RELEVANT MAPS MUST BE ATTACHED TO THIS APPEAL SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT THOMAS E. WOLPERT, P.E. ROBERT G. BOMBARA JOHN P. TAGGART, ESQ. LAW OFFICES PETER S. DANOWSKI, ,JR. 616 ROANOKE AVENUE RIVERHEAD, NY 11901 (631) 727-4900 FAX (631) 727-7451 E-Mail: pdanowski@ danowskilaw, com jtaggad @ danowskilaw.com November 12, 2008 Board of Trustees Town of Southold 53095 Main Road, Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Attn: Lauren Standish Re: Robert F. Bombara - 1725 North Sea Drive, Southold SCTM #1000 - 54 - 4 - 19 Dear Lauren: Please note that I will need two (2) complete cop~es of the Town s fil regarding the above. One will be delivered to the Town Clerk's Office for their consideration of the admiuistrative appeal being filed. The additional copy is 1o1' my records. My copy is not as urgent, but since the Town's form for filing the appeal includes a notation that a copy of the record must be included, it appears I tnust make this request of your office. Very truly yours, PETER S. DANOWSKI, JR. PSD:gsg James F. King, President Jill M. Doherty, Vice-President Peggy A. Dickerson Dave Bergen Bob Ghosio, Jr. Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 October 15, 2008 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Peter S. Danowski, Jr., Esq. 616 Roanoke Ave. Riverhead, NY 11901 Re: ROBERT BOMBARA 1725 NORTH SEA DRIVE, SOUTHOLD SCTM# 54-4-19 Dear Mr. Danowski: The Board of Trustees took the following action during its regular meeting held on Wed., October 15, 2008 regarding the above matter: WHEREAS, Peter S. Danowski, Jr., Esq. on behalf of ROBERT G. BOMBARA applied to the Southold Town Trustees for a permit under the provisions of Chapter 111 Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas of the Town Code of the Town of Southold, application dated July 6, 2007, and, WHEREAS, said application was referred to the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council and the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program Coordinator for their findings and recommendations, and, WHEREAS, the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council provided a written comment to the Southold Town Board of Trustees which stated, due to the location of the Coastal Erosion Hazard line being landward of all proposed activities, a full review of the application cannot be conducted at this time, and, WHEREAS, the LWRP Coordinator recommended that the proposed applications be found Inconsistent with the LWRP, and specifically inconsistent with the following coastal policies: Policy 4.1-Minimize loss of human life and structures from flooding and erosion hazards, Policy 4.2 - Protect and restore natural protective features, - Policy 6 - Protect and restore the quality and function of the Town of Southold ecosystem, - Policy 6.3 - Protect and restore tidal and freshwater wetlands, and, WHEREAS, a site visit of the properly was conducted on October 17, 2007 and in attendance at the site visit, among others, were representatives of the Town of Southold Board of Trustees, LWRP Coordinator Mark Terry and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation's Environment Specialist Robert McDonough, which confirmed that the proposed actions were entirely located seaward of the Coastal Erosion Hazard line and within a primary dune, and a primary dune is a natural protective feature, as defined in Chapter 111-6, and governed by Section 111-13, and, WHEREAS, Public Hearings were held by the Town Trustees with respect to said applications on August 22, 2007 and October 15, 2008, at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard, and, WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question and the surrounding area regarding the location of the proposed development, and, WHEREAS, the Board has considered all the testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application, and, WHEREAS, the proposed structures, as applied for, are located on the natural protective feature of a primary dune as per the Definitions in Chapter 111 Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas of the Town Code and governed by Section 111-13, which prohibits all activities in such an area unless specifically provided for in Chapter 111, and, WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the structures, as applied for, will have a detrimental effect upon the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the Town, and, NOW THEREFORE BE IT, RESOLVED, for the foregoing reasons, and because the proposed actions are located entirely within the coastal erosion hazard area and the primary dune, a natural protective feature, and because the proposed actions are not permitted in such areas pursuant to Chapter 111 of the Town Code, that the Board of Trustees deems the proposed project to be impermissible under Chapter 111 and Inconsistent with the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program pursuant to Chapter 268-5 of the Southold Town Code, based on the scope and location of the proposed structures, and overall impact of the proposed project on the tidal wetlands, and the furtherance of the policies cited by the LWRP Coordinator, and, BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that for the foregoing reasons, the Board of Trustees DENIES the Coastal Erosion Permit application of ROBERT BOMBARA to construct a single-family dwelling, detached garage, pool and associated water supply and sewage disposal facilities, and as depicted on the surveys prepared by Howard W. Young dated February 9, 2007, labeled Alternate 1, Alternate 2, and Alternate 3. This determination should not be considered a determination made for any other Department or Agency, which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. Very truly yours, Doherty, Vice-Presi~nt of Trustees JMD: Ires James F. King, President Jill M. Doher~y, Vice-President Peggy A. Dickerson Dave Bergen Bob Ghosio, Jr. Town Half 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 December 13, 2006 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Mr. Thomas C. Wolpert, P.E. Young and Young 400 Ostrander Ave. Riverhead, NY 11901 Re: ROBERT BOMBARA 1725 NORTH SEA DRIVE, SOUTHOLD SCTM# 54-4-19 Dear Mr. Wolpert: The Board of Trustees took the following action during its regular meeting held on Wednesday December 13, 2006 regarding the above matter: WHEREAS, Young and Young on behalf of ROBERT G. BOMBARA applied to the Southold Town Trustees for a permit under the provisions of the Wetland Ordinance under Chapter 275 of the Town Wetland Code and Chapter 111 of the Town Code of the Town of Southold, application dated October 17, 2006, and WHEREAS, said application was referred to the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council and the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program Coordinator for their findings and recommendations, and, WHEREAS, the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council resolved to Not Support the Wetland Permit & Coastal Erosion Permit applications because development seaward of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area is prohibited as per Chapter 111 of the Town Code, and, WHEREAS, the LWRP Coordinator recommends that the proposal be found Inconsistent with the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program as no construction is allowed seaward of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area where, as here, the natural protective feature is a beach area; and the proposed action is Inconsistent with the following policy standards: 4.1, 4.2, 6.3, and, WHEREAS, the proposed distance from the house and pool to the natural protective feature (beach) is 0 feet; and the proposed structures are within the areas the Trustees · ~ta~rwa¥ rrum LU,~ O~ me DuIKneaa TO lower dock, and replace the 5'X 14.5' decked dock. Located: 12832 Main Rd., East Marion. SCTM# 31-14-15 13. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of SUSAN MAGRINO DUNNING requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #6257 and Coastal Erosion Permit #6257C from Patricia Scott & Richard Terry to Susan Magrino Dunning, and a One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit #6257 and Coastal Erosion Permit #6257C, as issued on December 21, 2005. Located: 925 Stephenson's Rd., Orient. SCTM#17-1-2.1 V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING IN THE MATTER OF THE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS UNDER THE WETLANDS ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. I HAVE AN AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION FROM THE SUFFOLK TIMES. PERTINENT CORRESPONDENCE MAY BE READ PRIOR TO ASKING FOR COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC. PLEASE KEEP YOUR COMMENTS ORGANIZED AND BRIEF. FIVE (5) MINUTES OR LESS IF POSSIBLE 4, COASTAL EROSION & WETLAND PERMITS Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of STEVE TENEDIOS requests a Wetland Permit & Coastal Erosion Permit to renovate the existing dwelling, new second floor, replace decks, and convert existing dwelling to garage. Located: 1625 North Sea Dr., Southold. SCTM#54-4-18 Young & Young on behalf of ROBERT G. BOMBARA requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a single-family dwelling, detached garage, pool and associated water supply and sewage disposal system. Located: 1725 Nodh Sea Dr., Southold. SCTM#54-4-19 POSTPONED Catherine Mesiano, Inc. on behalf of EMMANUEL & CATHERINE ZARBIS requests a Wetland Permit & Coastal Erosion Permit for the as-built splash pad approx. 6'X 102' with small stone approx. 2" deep over filter fabric; as-built retaining wall approx. 102'LX I'D X 15"H dry-stacked, constructed of 1 course of 8" concrete pavers set 2" below grade, 1 course of 6" concrete pavers and 1 course 2.5" concrete cap; 8000 beach grass plugs planted approx. 1'on center in mesh cloth over face of bluff, approx. 100'X 100'; and inkind/inplace replacement of pre-existing 4'X 72' wood steps and 5'X 12' wood landing (top), 5'X 8' wood landing (mid) and 7'X 12' wood landing (bottom) and 6 steps to grade. Located: 2505 Soundview Ave., Mattituck. SCTM#94-1-12.2 POSTPONED YAN RIEGER requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a Iow- profile bulkhead using vinyl sheathing, a 12'X 32' platform and 4'X 18' catwalk. Located: 370 Harbor Rd., Orient. SCTM#27-4~6 POSTPONED JOHN P, TAGGAR~ ESQ. LAW OFFICES PETER S. DANOWSKI, ~IR. 616 ROANOKE AVENUE RIVERHEAD, NY 11901 (631) 727-4900 FAX (631) 727-7451 E-Mail; pdanowski@ danowskilaw.com jtaggart @ danowskilaw.com November 12, 2008 Kieran M. Corcoran, Assistant Town Attorney Town of Southold P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 Re: Property of Robert Bombara Dear Kieran: I have filed the appeal. Here is the cover letter, without the enclosures. Very truly yours, PETER S. DANOWSKI, JR. PSD:gsg Encl. JOHN R TAGGAR~ ESQ. LAW OFFICES PETER S, DANOWSKI, ~R, 616 ROANOKE AVENUE RIVERHEAD, NY 11901 (631) 727-4900 FAX (631) 727-7451 September 29, 2008 Southold Town Board of TruStees P.O. Box 1179 Town Hall A~mex, 54375 Route 25 Southold, NY 11971-0959 Dear Sir or Madam: Please be advised that I no longer have a post office correspondence to OCT - 1 /-~ :..~, ~end all future Thank you. Peter S. Danowski, Jr., Esq. 616 Roanoke Ave. Riverhead, NY 11901 Very truly yours, PETER S. DANOWSKI, JR. PSD:gsg Southold Town Board - Letter Board Meeting o Decem er 16, 2008 RESOLUTION 2008-1098 ADOPTED Item # 5.43 DOC II): 4559 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION NO. 2008-1098 WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD ON DECEMBER 16, 2008: RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold sets January. 20~ 2009 at 9:00 AM in the Town Meeting Hall~ 53095 Main Road~ Southold~ New York 11971~ as the time and place for a public hearing on the Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review Appeal of Robert G. Bombara~ relating to a proposed new single-family dwelling~ garage and swimming pool proposed to be located at 1725 North Sea DriveI Southoid~ SCTM/11000-54- 4-19, and directs the Town Clerk to publish notice of such appeal in The Suffolk Times not less than ten (10) days nor more than thirty (30) days prior to such hearing and to notify the applicant by first class mail. Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Thomas H. Wickham, Councilman SECONDER: Louisa P. Evans, Justice AYES: Ruland, Orlando, Krupski Jr., Wickham, Evans, Russell Generated December 22, 2008 Page 56 EN-CONSULTANTS, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING 1319 North Sea Road Southampton, New York 11968 631-283-6360 Fax: 631-283-6136 www. enconsultants.com November 16, 2009 Jennifer Andaloro, Town Attorney Town of Southold P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: R. G. Bombara, 1725 North Sea Drive~ Southold Dear Ms. Andaloro: I am in receipt of a copy of a 10 November 2009 letter to you from Peter Danowski. I can confirm that I met with Aram Terchunian at the Bombara property on October 14th and together staked out what we believe to be the topographic landward toe of the most landward located beach ridge on the property. As reflected on the 30 October 2009 survey prepared by Young & Young, which was also copied to me, this geographic feature correlates roughly with the 7.5-foot elevation contour. The labeling of this topographic boundary as the "Hernnann Line," however, which of course has no environmental or regulatory meaning, should be modified to indicate the delineation of the landward toe of the most landward beach ridge on the property, whose presence was previously identified both by Mr. Terchunian and R.W. Abrams in their technical reports dated October 17, 2007. At this point, I can provide you with my assessment of the project impacts on the site once the above referenced survey is updated to incorporate the most recently proposed development scheme and/or an alternative site plan whose design would take into consideration the location of the vegetated beach ridge. If the applicant elects to pursue the latter option, I would encourage him to seek Mr. Terchunian's guidance toward achieving that end. Respectfully yours, Coastal Management Specialist cc: Peter Danowski, Esq. Aram Terchunian, First Coastal Corp. NOV ] 8 2O09 Neville, Elizabeth From; Sent: To: Subject: Corcoran. Kieran Friday, December 05. 2008 12:45 PM Neville. Elizabeth RE: Bombara administrative appeal Betty, this appeal may be accepted. Please distribute a copy to the commissioner of the DEC as per Chapter 111. The Town Board will need to set a hearing date for the appeal Thanks. Kieran From; Neville, Elizabeth Sent.' Wednesday, December 03, 2008 4:24 PH To-' Finnegan, Patricia; Corcoran, Kieran Cc-' Krauza, Lynne Subject.' FW: Bombara administrative appeal still have this application and check in my safe. Did you send a reply to my office yet? Please advise. Thank you. Elizabeth A.Neville Southold Town Clerk PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Tel 631 765-1800 Fax 631 765-6145 From: Neville, Elizabeth Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 1:37 PH To: Finnegan, Patricia; Corcoran, Kieran; Krauza, Lynne Subject: Bombara administrative appeal i le: Administrative Appeal.tif >> eran, Lynne. ! received this late yesterday afternoon. I placed their $250.00 check in my safe and had Stacey scan it into laserfiche so that I could send it to you for review before accepting it. Please advise of your findings. Thank you. Betty Neville Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Tel 631 765-1800 Fax 631 765-6145 Neville, Elizabeth From: Sent: To: Subject: Corcoran, Kieran Friday, December 05, 2008 12:45 PM Neville, Elizabeth RE: Bombara administrative appeal Betty, this appeal may be accepted. Please distribute a copy to the commissioner of the DEC as per Chapter 111. The Town Board will need to set a hearing date for the appeal. Thanks. Kieran From: Neville, Elizabeth Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 4:24 PM To: Finnegan, Patricia; Corcoran, Kieran Cc: Krauza, Lynne Subject: F'W: Bombara administrative appeal I still have this application and check in my safe. Did you send a reply to my office yet? Please advise. Thank you. Elizabeth A.Neville Southold Town Clerk PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Tel 631 765-1800 Fax 631 765-6145 From: Neville, Elizabeth Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 1:37 PM To: Finnegan, Patricia; Corcoran, Kieran; Krauza, Lynne Subject: Bombara administrative appeal , File: Administrative Appeal.tif >> , Kieran, Lynne, I received this late yesterday afternoon. I placed their $250.00 check in my safe and had Stacey scan it into laserfiche so that I could send it to you for review before accepting it. Please advise of your findings. Thank you. Betty Neville Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Tel 631 765-1800 Fax 631 765-6145 - MARTIN D. FINNEGAN TOWN ATTORNEY martin.finnegan@town.southold.ny.us JENNIFER ANDALORO ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY jennifer.andaloro@town.southold.ny.us LORI M. HULSE ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY lori.hulse@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 July 13, 2009 VIA FACSIMILE Peter S. Danowski, Jr., Esq. 616 Roanoke Avenue P.O. Box 779 Riverhead, NY 11901 RE: Bombara Coastal Erosion Management Appeal Dear Mr. Danowski: As previously advised on June 8, 2009, the Town Board has requested that your client revise the previously submitted survey to include the location of the primary dune on the property identified in the letter of Robert Herrmann, Eh-COnsultants, dated April 20, 2009. If you and your client would like to meet at the proposed site to further discuss the requested revisions and the location of the dune, both Robert Herrmann and I are available on the following dates: Friday, July 17, between 3:00 and 4:00 p.m. Tuesday, July 22, after 3:00 p.m. Please advise. J~n~fier And~Ass'rstant TowJ~ttorney JA/Ik cc: Mr. Robert Herrmann, En-Consultants Inc. Members of the Town Board Ms. Elizabeth A. Neville, Town Clerk Martin D. Finnegan, Town Attorney Albert J. Krupski, President James King, Vice-President Artie Foster Ken Poliwoda Peggy A. Dickerson Town Hall 53095 Route25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NewYorkl1971-0959 Telephone(631) 765-1892 Fax(631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD X Coastal Erosion Pen-nit Application -X-Wetland permit Application Amendment/Trans fer/Extemion Received Application: Received Fee:$ Completed Application Incomplete SEQRA Classification: Type I. Type II Unlisted __Coordination:(date sent) __LWRP Consistency Assessment Form __CAC Referral Sent: Date of Inspection: Receipt of CAC Report: Lead Agency Determination: Technical Review: Public Hearing Held: Resolution: Office Use Only Administrative Permit Name of Applicant Robert G. Bombara Address 98-16 163rd Avenue, Howard Beach, New York 11414 Phone Number:( ) 718-845-4283 Suffolk County Tax Map Number: 1000 - 54-4-19 PropertyLocation: North Sea. Drive, approx. 1,675' east of Kenney's Road (adjacent to LIL Pole #14) (provide LILCO Pole #, distance to cross streets, and location) AGENT: Young & Young Attn: Thomas C. Wolpert, P.E. (If applicable) Address: 400 Oetrander Avenue, Riverhead, New York 11901 Phone: 631-727-2303 Board of Trustees Application Laad Area (in square feet): Area Zoning: R-40 GENERAL DATA' 24t879 sq. ft. or 0.6 acre Previous use of property: Intended use of property: Covenants and Restrictions: Vacant Single Family Residence Yes X No if "Yes", please provide copy. Does this project require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals __ If "Yes", please provide copy of decision. Prio,' permits/approvals for site improvements: Agency NYS DEC Tidal Wetlands Alternate plan Date Ycs. X No Alternate "6" X No prior permits/approvals fo~tsite improvements. Has any pemfit/approval ever been revoked or suspended by a governmental agency? x No Yes If yes, provide explanation: Project Description (use attachments if necessary): Construct one single f,mily residence and garags, pool and associated water supply and sewage disposal facilities. COASTAL EROSION APPLICATION DATA Purposes of proposed activity:. To construct one (1) slrlgle family residence, garage and pool. Pale wetlands present within 100 feet of the proposed activity7 x No Yes Does the project involve excavation or filling7 No x Yes If Yes, how much material will be excavated7 + How ~nuch material will be filled7 200' - Manner in wlfich material will be removed or deposited: be used to excavate for construction of the house, garage 200 -+ (cubic yards) (cubic yards) A backhoe will and pool and also used to grade the construction site. Describe the nature and extent of the enviromnental impacts reasonably anticipated resulting from implementation of the project as proposed. (Uso attaclunents if necessary) The proposed operations will hot' have an effect on the tidal waters. Board of Trustees Application WETLAND/TRUSTEE LANDS APPLICATION DATA Purpose ofthe proposed operations: To construct one (1) single family residsnce, garaqe and pool. Area of wetlands on lot: 0 .square feet Percent coverage of lot:. 6.8 +/-% Closest distance between nearest existing structure and upland edge of wetlands: N.A. feet~ Closest distance between nearest proposed sh'ucture and upland edge of wetlands: ' 160 +/- feet Does the project involve excavation or filling? No X Yes If yes, how much material will be excavated? 200+/- cubic yards How ~nuch material will be filled? 200 +/- cubic yards Depth of which material will be removed or deposited: 6 +/- feet 2% Proposed slope throughout the area of operations:~ Manner iu which material will be removed or deposited:~ used to excavate for construction of the house, garage and pool and also used to grade the construction site. Statement of tile effect, if any, on tile wetlands and tidal waters of tile town filet may result by reason of such proposed operatious (use attachments if appropriate): The proposed operations will not have an effect on the tidal waters. NOTICE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER BOARD OF TRUSTEES~ TOWN OF SOUTHOLD In the matter of applicant: Robert G. Bombara SCTM# 1000-54-4-19 YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN NOTICE: That it is the intention of the undersigned to request a Permit fi'om tho Board of Trustees to: Construct one (1) single family residence, garage, and pool. That the property which is the subject of Enviromnental Review is located adjacent to your property and is described as follows: refer to Building Permit Survey 3. That the project which is subject to Environmental Review under Chapters 32, 37, and/or 97 of the Town Code is open to public comment on: . You may contact the Trustees Office at 765-1892 or in writing. The above~referenced proposal is under review of tho Board of Trustees o£ the Town of Southold and does not reference any other agency that nfight have to review same proposal. OWNERS NAME: Robert G. Bombara and Margaret M. Bombara MAILING ADDRESS: 9~-16 163rd Avenue Howard Beach, New York 11414 PHONE#: (718) 845-4283 Eno: Copy of sketch or plan showing proposal for your convenience. PROJECT ID NUMBER 6t7.20 APPENDIX C , STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALI'I~ REVIEW .SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM for UNLISTED ACTIONS Only SEQR PART t - PROJECT INFORMATION ( To be compleled by A 1. APPLICANT I SPONSOR Robert G. Bombara 3.pROJECT EOCATION: Southold, T/O Southold Municipality 3pllcant or P~oJect Sponsor) 12, PROJECT NAME Robert G. Bombara County Suffolk 4. PRECISE LOCATION: Sires[ Addess and Road Intersections. Prom~f{enI labdma[ke sic -or orovlde Refer to .Building Permit Survey S. lS PROPOSED ACTION: [] New [--IExpanalon I'---IModlllcallon/eltsrallon 6. DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY: donstruct one (1) single family residence, garage, and pool. Alternate No. 6 7. AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED: Initially O.6 acres UIIImalely . 0.6 acres 8. WILL PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER RESTRICTIONS? ~'~ Yes [] No If no, describe briefly: g. WHAT IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT? (Choose as many ae apply.) ['~-]Reeldenllal [--']lnduslrlal ['-]Commercial ["~Agrlcuflure r--]Park/ForesllOpenSpace I---]Other(del~cribe) 10. DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL, OR FUNDING, NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY (Federal, Stale or Local) NYSDEC - Tidal Wetlands I-'~"lYea ~"]No If yes, list agency name and permll / approval: SCDHS Water Supply Sewage Disposal I t. DOES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID PERMIT OR APPROVAl.? r--]Yes E~Ne i! yes, list agency name and portal( / approval: · Except tidal wetlands permit for Alternate Plan. t2. AS A Rr~ULT OF PROPOSED ACTION WILL EXISTING PERMIT/ APPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATION? [.~]Yes ~_~,J No , CERTIFY. THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNO~NI. EDGE Applicant /Spo~__e Rober. t.~G. ~ombara Date; If the action Is a Costal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment Board of Trustees Application County of ~ ' State of New York Robert G. Bondvara 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 TltE 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 11ARMLESS AND FREE FROM ANY AND ALL DAMAGES AND CLAIMS ARISING UNDER OR BY VIRTUE OF SAID PERMIT(S), IF GRANTED. 1N COMPLETING TH1S APPLICATION, 1 HEREBY AUTi-1ORIZE THE TRUSTEES, THEIR AGENT(S) OR ILEPPdZSENTATIVES(S), TO ENTER ONTO MY PROPERTY TO INSPECT THE pREMISES IN CONJUNCTION W1TH REVIEW OF TH1S APPLICATION. Signature SWORN TO BEFORE ME Tills /~4-~ DAY OF '~t.,. ( ~( ,20 ['O. Public Board of Trustees Application AUTHORIZATION , (where the applicant is not the owner) l, Robert G. Bombara (print owner of property) residing at 98-16 163rd Avenue, (mailing address) Howard Beach, NY 11414 do hereby authorize Young & Young (Agent) AT, N: Thomas C. Wolpert, P.E. and/or the Law Office of Peter S. to apply for permit(s) from the Danowski,Jr. Southold Board of Town Trustees on my behalf. (Owner's signature) Robert G. Bombar~ " ~ ' M. BombaRA ~er~~~rgaret APPLICANT/AGENT/REPRESENTATIVE TRANSACTIONAL DISCLOSURE FORM , , · .... I e e T u i l~ n ' vi in msafion which cat I ri th t w ~ f i conill t is lc t a~ w ' t ¢ w a v ' ' pcc~ssarv Io avoid same. YOURNAME: B~a~a~ Rob.~:~ (~ name, fi~l name, middle inilial, toffees you are applying in the name of someone else or olher entity, such as a company. If so, indicate the other person's or cmnpany's name.) NAME OF APPLICATION: (Check all Ihat apply.) Tax grievance Building Varimlce Trustee .x. Change of Zone Coastal Erosion X Approval of plat Mooring Exemption from pl~t or official map Planning Other (If"Other", name tile activity.) Town Board Do you personally (or through your company, spouse, sibling, parent, or child) have a relafionship with any officer or employee of the Town of Southold? "Relafionsbip" nc udes by b cod, mamage, or bus'ness lteres, 'Business inlemst" 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 wi c tle town officer or employee owns more than 5% oftbe sbares, X YES NO If you answered "YES", complele tile balance of Ibis form and date and sign where indicated. Name o f person employed by tile Town of Soutbold Title or position of that person Describe Ihe relatlmlship between yourself (tile applieant/agenl/represeniafive) and the Iowa officer or employee. Either check the appropriate llne A) through D) and/or describe in the space provided. Thc town officer or employee or his or her spouse, sibling, parent, or child is (cheek all that apply): A) tile owner of greater than 5% of tile shares of tile corpora(e stock of die applicant (when the applicant is a corporalion); __.B) the legal or beneficial owner of any iateresi in a non-corporate enfity (when Iht applicant is not a corporntion); C) nn officer, director, parmer, or employee Of tile nppllcant; or D) file actual applicnnt DESCRIPTION OF RELATIONSIIIP Forn~ TS I Submitted th~./~._day of ~ Siguature ~ ~"~,~n___. _/~a.' Print Name P~b~rt c._ l%Om~r~ PHOTO NO. 1 ROBERT G. BOMBARA AT SOUTHOLD, TIO SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK OCTOBER13,2006 8:26A.M. PHOTO NO. 2 ROBERT G. BOMBARA ATSOUTHOLD, T/O SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK OCTOBER13,2006 8:26A.M. PHOTO NO, 3 ROBERT G. BOMBARA AT SOUTHOLD, T/O SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK OCTOBER 13, 2006 8:27 A.M. PHOTO NO. 4 ROBERT O. BOMBARA AT SOUTHOLD, T/O SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK OCTOBER13,2006 8:27A.M. PHOTO NO. 5 ROBERT G. BOMBARA AT $OUTHOLD, T/O SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK OCTOBER 13, 2006 8:29 A.M. PHOTO NO. 6 ROBERT G. BOMBARA AT SOUTHOLD, T/O SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK OCTOBER 13, 2006 8:29A.M. Town of S0uthold LWRP CONSISTENCY ASSESSMENT FORM INSTRUCTIONS All applicants for permits* including Town o£ Southold agencies, shall complete this CCAF for proposed actions that are subject to the Town of Southold Waterfront Consistency Review Law. This assessment is inteaded to supplement other in£onnation used by a Town of Southold agency in making a detenuination of consisiency. *Except minor exempt actions including Building Permits attd other mi,isterial perntits not located withh~ the Coastal Erosion ltazard ~lrea. Before answering the questions in Section C, the preparer of this form should review the exempt minor action list, policies mad explanations of each policy contained in the Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. A proposed action will be evaluated as to its significant beneficial and adverse effects upon the coastal area (which includes all of Southold Town). If any question in Section C on this form is answered "yes", then the proposed action may affect the achievement of the LWRP policy standards and conditions contained in the consistency review law. Thus, the action should be analyzed in more detail and, if necessary, modified prior to making a detennination that it is consistant to the maximum extent practicable with the LWRP policy standards and conditions. If an action .ca~mot be certified as consistent with the LWRP policy standards and conditions, it shall not be tmdertakan. 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 Plamfing Deparlanent, all local libraries and the Town Clerk's office. B. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSED ACTION SCTM# ~- 5,4 4 - 19 The Application has been submitted to (check appropriate response): TownBoard ['~ Planning Dept. [] BuildlngDept. ~ BoardofTrus~ees [] Category of Town of Southold agency action (check appropriate response): (a) Action madertaken directly by Town agency (e.g. capital construction, plamfing activity, agency regulation, land transaction) (b) Financial assistance (e.g. grant, loan, subsidy) (c) Permit, approval, license, certification: Natureandextentofaction: Construct one (1) single family residence, garage, pool and associated water supply and sewage disposal facilities. Location of action: North Sea Drive, approx. 1,675' east of Kenney' s Road (adjacent Lu LIL Pol~ ~14) Site acreage: 24,879 sq. ft. or 0.6 acre Present land use: Vacant R-40 Present zomng classtficatlot If an application for the proposed action has been filed with the Town of Southold agency, the following information shall be pt,ovided: (a) Name of applicant: Robert G. Bombara (b) Mailing address: 98-16 163rd Avenue Howard Beach, New York 11414 (c) Telephone number: ~a'ea Code ( ) 71 t~-~-~q-~gaa (d) Application number, ifm~y: Will the action be directly undertaken, require funding, or approval by a state or federal agency7 Yes ~] No [] If yes, which state or federal agency? NYSDEC - Tidal Wetlands Permit DEVELOPED COAST POLICY Policy 1. Foster a pattern of development in the Town of Soutlmld 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 - please explain) Ail proposed construction is situated more than 160' landward of the landward limit with FEMA reouiz~.~ts. Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 2. Protect and preserve historic and archaeological resources of tbe Town of Soutbold. See LWRP Section III - Policies Pages 3 through 6 for evaluation criteria ~'~ Yes ~ No ~'~ (Not Applicable- please explain) Atiach additional sheets if necessary Policy 3. Enhance visual quality and protect scenic resources throughout the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section HI - Policies Pages 6 through 7 for evaluation criteria ~] Yes ~ No F'~ Not Applicable Rezer to Folisy i response Attach additional sheets if necessary NATURAL COAST POLICIES Policy 4. Minimize loss of life, structures, and natural resources from flooding attd erosinn. Sec LWRP Section III - Policies Pages 8 through 16 for evaluation criteria [] Yes [] No F--] Not Applicable Refer to Policy 1 response Attach additlmial 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 [-~NotApplicable Refer to Policy 1 response; ~Lvposed method of water supply is via connectxon to existing water main adjacent to property. Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 6. Protect and restore the quality and function of the Town of Southold ecosystems including Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats and wetlands. See LWRP Section III - Policies; Pages 22 through 32 for evaluation criteria. .. Yes No . Not Applicable Aftach additional sheets if necessary Policy 7. Protect and improve air quality in the Tow0 of Southoid. See LWRP Section III - Policies Pages 32 tlirough 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 mid wastes. See LWRP Section HI - 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 Southoid. See LWl/JP Section II1 - Policies; Pages 38 through 46 for evaluation criteria. [--] Yes~ /So ~'~ Not Applicable Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 10.' Protect Southold's water-dependent uses and promote sitiug of new water-dependent uses iu suitable locations. See LWRP Section Ill - Policies; Pages 47 tlirougb 56 for evaluation cr~te~ ia. ~'~ Yes ~ No ~ (Not Applicable - please explala) Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 11. Promote sustaiuable use of llviug marine resources in Loug Island Sound, the Peconic Estuary and Town waters. See LWRP Section III - Policies; Pages 57 through 62 for evaluation criteria. M Yes N No [~ Not Applicable - please explain Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 12. Protect agricultural lauds iu the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section Ili - Policies; Pages 62 through 65 for evaluation criteria. [-~ Yes [--] No ~ Not Applicable - please explain AItach additional sheets if necessary Policy 13. Promote appropriate use and development of energy aud ndnerai resources. See LWRP Section II1 - Policies; Pages 65 through 68 fo~ evaluation criteria. ~'~ Yes ~] No ~ Not Applicable- please explain PREPARED BY Thomas C. Wolpert, P.E. TITLE Agent for Applicant DATE 07/02/10 NEW YORK STATE'DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENYAL CONSERVATION Facility DEC ID 1-4738-03647 PERMIT Under the Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) Permittee and Facility Information Permit Issued To: ROBERT G BOMBARA 98-16 163RD AVE HOWARD BEACH, NY 11414 Facility: BOMBARA PROPERTY NORTH SEA DRISCTM# 1000-54-04-19 SOUTHOLD, NY 11971 Facility Application Contact: YOUNG & YOUNG 400 OSTRANDER AVE RIVERHEAD, NY 11901 (631) 727-2303 Facility Location: in SOUTHOLD in SUFFOLK COUNTY Facility Principal Reference Point: NY, TM-E: 713.8 NYTM-N: 4549.86 Latitude: 41°04'18.9" Longitude: 72°27'18.7" Authorized Activity: Construct single family dwelling, driveway, swimming pool and patio. Install sanitary system. All work must be done in accordance with the plans prepared by Howard W. Young last revised July 2, 2009. Permit Authorizations Tidal Wetlands - Under Article 25 Permit ID 1-4738-03647/00001 New Permit Effective Date: ~ Expiration Date: 10/20/2014 NYSDEC Approval By acceptance of this permit, the permittee agrees that the permit is contingent upon strict compliance with the ECL, all applicable regulations, and all conditions included as part 'of this permit. Permit Administrator: GEORGE W HAMMARTH, Deputy Regional Permit Administrator Address: NYSDEC REGION 1 HEADQUARTERS .~LJ/'- SUNY ~ STONY BROOKIS0 CIRCLE RD STONY BROOK, NY 11790 -3409 Authorized Signature: Date /Zg/o~/ O~ Page I of 6 SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD PUBLIC HEARING June 2, 2009 9:00 AM Continuation of Bombara Appeal Present: Supervisor Scott Russell Justice Louisa Evans Councilman Thomas Wickham Councilman Albert Kmpski, Jr. Councilman William Ruland Councilman Vincent Orlando Town Clerk Elizabeth Neville Town Attorney Martin Finnegan This heating was opened at 9:10 AM SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Please rise and join with me in the Pledge of Allegiance. Martin? TOWN ATTORNEY MARTIN F1NNEGAN: Good morning. If I may, now that the hearing has been re-opened by the Town Board, I would first like to acknowledge receipt of a letter from Peter Danowski, the counsel for the applicant, where he has issued his objections to the re-opening of the hearing. We would also like to submit for the record the report of Robert Hemnann, dated April 20, 2009, directed to the Town Attorney's office where he addresses some incomplete items in the application, specifically with respect to the current site plan. The current site plan Mr. He,~mann has told us does not include the proper designation of the natural protective features on the subject property. This letter has already been sent to the applicant for their consideration and response, so at this point I would like to submit to the Town Clerk Mr. Hellmann's April 20, 2009 letter for the record in this proceeding and reserve the fight for the Town Board to provide further comment on the application while the record is still open, following the applicant's compliance with the recommendations Mr. Herrmann made prior to the Town Board issuing any decision on the application. I would also ask that there be a motion to adjourn this proceeding, this hearing, without date at this point because Mr. Danowski is in the hospital and I am not quite sure what his schedule is, as a courtesy to him we will just leave the matter adjourned without a date and come back with a date at the next meeting of the Town Board for a new hearing. JUSTICE EVANS: So I make a motion we adjourn the heating until further notice. Until he is out of the hospital. Bombara Public Hearing continuation 2 June 2, 2009 COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Is there no discussion at all on the substance of the submission? JUSTICE EVANS: Well, no because we are waiting for more information, that is basically why we re-opened it. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: We have the information and we are waiting for the applicant's response. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: And we have conveyed to the applicant the information we are looking for? TOWN ATTORNEY F1NNEGAN: Yes. He already has a copy of Mr. He~iiiann's proposal. JUSTICE EVANS: And we basically re-opened the hearing so he could get on board with it. So I made a motion. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: I will second that. This hearing was closed at 9:14 AM ~Elizabeth A.~l~e~ Southold Town Clerk 13~19 North~See, ROad SouthamptOn, New ¥ork.'11068 · ' ~3~:~283~6~0 . FaX: 63~28~36 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING' RECEIVED ~'ermifer Andaloro, Town ARomey Town of Southoid P.O. Box 1179 JUN 2 2009 ~outhold Town Cle~ April 20, 2009 Southold~ NY 1.1971 Re: "A ID Co r Dear Ms. Andaloro: i under se cover a pmpozal for our services r uested on behalf of the Town Board, 1 am subm flin~ ~m~... ~._~...,.tion on the captioned property, W~lali is As you r q . ' ' ' resent ~raut mr ~v, ~o,,,-.-, . ' '~ .m ' "n scokm a Coastal Erosion Manag · · · ' to dan the apphcatinn. R is y Bombera s petitio g ........... n~.,~,~ue,n a declmonbytbe Board ofTmslo.e, s Y-* ~prrentiy pending review on ap .p~? o~ t.uv su_ _w_:~,.,_~-,.,...,~ *~'wbetber and/or to what extent anen c~nsirocuon co ........... n ~[~rstanding that the Board wtsnes to ~ar our opm,,,,, ,.- .-. set forth in Section I I 1-9 (or in. the alternative Section consistent with ',he standards for permit issuance at this site in a manner namely those feinting lo ibc POtential impec~ of II~ conslmction on erosion tre~d8 and on tile site's 111-20) of the Town Coda, natural protective feature(s). Before I can properly offer such an opinion, however, I believe that a crlti~l deficiencY in the record must be , ' i ions ing Ibc viability of tim applkatton nppea~ lo haw hinged S cifically, while both the applicant s, _~__d_~e~?, protective feature" and wh?her. would adversely impact the functions and values of.~ · --- r,~lllv ubseombte sand ridge incated appr~mately 60 to feature on the site, whmh m my opinion appea~ m u~ ~,,.~------, feet north oftbe road. $Pecifically' §111'~ d~s n"d~n~" ~ a"fldge or hill °f I°°~' windbl°~a °r artlfidall¥'pl~t~d ~wth~t!~ principal component of whteh is ~md" ~ a '~'im~ d~e" ~ ~ mo~ w~d m~jor du~ whar~ fl~'~ are ~o or parallel thm~' ur the th~ "wbeto th~ is o~ly o~e d~ p~ant." d~flnitton of n "natural protective feaOlre" set Although,.. this sand .ridge appears of Tmstans nor the applicant appears lo have id0ntifled or ,b lll.6, nerther the Board tm'Ill. Nex~l~less, m~aPE -. , . . · [o.~=~ oy § natural protective feaze for the ~ of,C..haP! ._ .I.~,A by *A- ~ devaloptoenf While. d.,,,, and most landward .... .~ .--a aa.,.* ar~'stehle ~d...Will ~ im .~-- -.- ."- n~'-r-- natural proactive features o! ~ecn aaa aa,u., --r~. . . due to ils location "entirob./within the.,. 10rlmei"Y ~inne. a Board of Trustees finds that the proPOsed consm~ian is lmpermmsibte natural protective fee;om.' In doing so, the Board of Trestues mites on mgeL..Mm'y ~uidanec frote Muff of tl~ Now yo~!. P, tate -- e licant miles upon tecimi~at analyses ~rom sevon~ ...... Id Abrams who cm~ludos that the'site dune; and th app · ve alto ur. roue *. ' ' ' on ·ons of"tow p, oliin li- do ,d ont k,ow th, ons observ~.l - .. ~+.,.,,,. ~,~.h and sand ndge~, are stable. However, w~i . . L I ~lin it is diffieuR at best ~.te~bly ,'an;oral protecave "~ .'~'. ""2 ~7--'-__.~ ~.._r..~ ,~,,, s,~,ial reladonship la~vson th~ two, and the ~atoral prote~ive t~atu~ ~w.o mm,~.,,,.. ,..,. r-- render such determinations. Therefore, it is my opinion that boih ~he landward geomotphi~ ~._a~_d, landward reguinlo~ limit of the sand.'ltd$O(Pr, blla~, d~,n.© should be identified, steked o~d, and ~piotea ~.~te sar (defined by § I 1 I-6 os the POint 25 lint'landward of the landwa~ m~· -, elan. Based upon that infermattan, i cam ~ - -., , m., *k..~i]ml nrotective fee;ore; what tmP,~ ~-~h,~. w er any construction could be IOCatan ouu.~, .~-.._~-__~ ..~ C,.;..~,,,.. ImnnCts mi be avoided~%or mtnll~l~a~ · .. .... , -:beth. - ..... s.- ;..~,.... asa wltell~r a~o .u- -...0-'-.-,------ ght construction might have on the itatoral protecuvg ~r~.~.. . R~iy, Coastal Mnnngemo~$l~d~.li~t JOHN P. TAGGART, ESQ. LAW OFFICES PETER S. DANOWSKI, ~JR. 616 ROANOKE AVENUE RtVERHEAD, NY 11901 (631) 727-4900 FAX (631) 727-7451 E-Mail: pdanowski @ danowskilaw, com jtaggart @ danowskilaw.com RECEIVED dUN 1 2009 $ou~'~o~d Town ¢ler} May29,2009 Southold Town Board 53095 Route 25, Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Re: Robert G. Bombara - Coastal Erosion Hazard Area Permit Dear Sir or Madam: Please accept this letter for filing with the Town Clerk and forwarding to the respective Town Board members and the Town Attorney. My clients, Mr. and Mrs. Robert Bombara, hereby object to the re-opening of the public hearing previously held and closed after submission of written documentation and verbal testimony. The Town had ample opportunity to present testimony at the initial hearing date and at the second hearing date when the hearing was officially closed. 'Additionally, this matter has been pending for an extensive period of time and the failure to render a decision issuing a permit continues to damage my clients. Throughout the process with the Town, my clients have been more than willing to discuss matters with Town representatives and have, in fact, in total, offered four (4) alternate plans for the Town's consideration. The record is abundantly clear that there has been no erosion to my clients' specific building lot as it relates to any of the building areas on the alternate plans. Written evidence established this fact from no less than three experts provided by the applicants. Aerial photographs made part of the experts' reports have depicted the historical erosion patterns in the area of my clients' property. The sole purpose of the coastal erosion area is to protect construction occurring in areas where there has been evidence of long term erosion. There has been no evidence of such erosion. Southold Town Board Page 2 May 29, 2009 My clients object to any entry into the record of any further written or oral testimony. If, despite this objection, the Town intends to proceed, I would ask to be provided with a transcript of the proceeding and be provided with an opportunity to make comment. Very truly yours, PETER S. DANOWSKI, JR. PSD:gsg cc: Mr. and Mrs. Robert Bombara Southold Town Attorney Southold Town Clerk #9293 STATE OF NEW YORK) ) SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) Karen Kine of Mattituck, in said county, being duly sworn, says that she is Principal Clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES, a weekly newspaper, published at Mattituck, in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, and that the Notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been regularly published in said Newspaper once each week for 1 week(s), successively, commencing on the 14th day of Ma,/, 2009. Principal Clerk Sworn to before me this day of 2009. the Town Board of the Town of Southo~ ~ M¢c~ng Hall, 53~5 Ma~ Ro~, ~hold, New York 11971, as the t~ ~ pla~ t0 r~n ~e ~ ~ed t6 ~ ~ at ~ ~ted: ~y 5,2~ BY ORDEROF CHRisTINA VOLINSKI NOTA~V i~U~LiC'~TAIE O~ NEW YORK LEGAL NOTICE Notice of Public Hearing IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold sets June 2~ 2009 at 9:00 a.m. in the Town Meeting Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York 11971, as the time and place to reopen the public bearing on the Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review Appeal of Robert G. Bombara~ relating to a proposed new single-family dwelling, garage and swimming pool proposed to be located at 1725 North Sea Drivel Southold, SCTM #1000-54-4-19. Dated: May 5, 2009 BY ORDER OF THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Elizabeth Neville Town Clerk PLEASE PUBLISH ON May 14, 2009 AND FORWARD ONE (1) AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO ELIZABETH NEVILLE, TOWN CLERK, TOWN HALL, P.O. BOX 1179, SOUTHOLD, NY 11971. Copies to the following: The Suffolk Times Board of Trustees Town Board Members Comptroller Town Attorney Town Clerk's Bulletin Board STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE, Town Clerk of the Town of Southold, New York being duly sworn, says that on the ~.,¢a day of ,O3a.,d:~, 2009, she affixed a notice of which the annexed printed notice is a true copy, fna proper and substantial manner, in a most public place in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, to wit: Town Clerk's Bulletin Board, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York. Re: Bombera PH 6/2/09 ~ 9am Sworn before me this /~' dayof~, 2009. lqotary Panolic ' 0 Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk LINDA J COOP~ZR NOTARY PUBLIC, State of New York NO. 01CO4822563 Sutfolk Courg. y Term Exp res December 31, 20._~.. · Complete items 1,2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. · Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. · Attach this card to the back of the mailpieca, or on the front if space permits. 1. A~ticle Addressed to;._ o ~ $. A. Signature ~_ ~,~ [] Agent X ~C~IC~'~ Addressee Date of Delivery D. isdellveryaddre~sdlfferent fromltml~ 17 i~ yes If YES, enter delivery address below: [] No 3. Service Type ~ Mall [] Express Mall [] Registered [] Return Receipt for Memhandlse [] Insured Mall [] C.O.D, 4. Reealctdd Deltvery? (Extra Fee) [-I Yes 2. Art[cie Number (Transfer from se~lce label) PS For~ 3811, February 2004 7003 3110 0001 6549 3317 102595~2-M-1540 CO F F l ¢ J A L~I~. Certified Fee I$ } · Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete Item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. · · Print your name and address on the reveme ~ so that we can return*the card to you; · Attach thi~ card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front If space permits. 2. Article Number ~ PS Form 3811, February 2004 B. Received ~)y ( Pdntsd Name) C. Date of Deliver/ D. Isdalive~yaddmssd~efentfton3iteml? [] Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: [] No 3. Se~,l~e 'lype ~ltlfled Mall ri Expresa Mall [] Reg~temd [] Retum R~alpt for Merchandise [] Insured Mall [] C.O.D. 4. Reelected D~k, el~ (F_~m Fas) [3Yes 7003 3110 0001 8549 3300 ELIZABETH A. NEVTLLE, RMC, CMC TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold~ New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 southoldtown.northfork, net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CT,ERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD May 13, 2009 Peter S. Danowski, Jr. Law Offices 616RoanokeAvenue Riverhead, NY 11901 Dear Mr. Danowski, Jr.: Enclosed find a copy of the Legal Notice for the re-opening of the Bombara Coastal Erosion Hazard Appeal Hearing and a copy of the Town Board resolution that was adopted at the May 5, 2009 regular Town Board meeting. Sincerely, Lynda M Rudder Deputy Town Cle. rk Enos, cc: R. Bombara q005 ,~tto ocot 5~q~ ~.34~0 Southold Town Board - Letter Board Meeting of May 5, 2009 RESOLUTION 2009-350 ADOPTED Item # 5.9 DOC ID: 4967 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION NO. 2009-350 WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD ON MAY 5, 2009: RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold sets June 2~ 2009 at 9:00 AM in the Town Meeting Hall~ 53095 Main Road~ Southold~ New York 11971~ as the time and place tO reopen the public hearing on the Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review Appeal of Robert G, Bombara~ relating to a proposed new single-family dwelling, garage and swimming pool proposed to be located at 1725 North Sea Drive~ Southold~ SCTM #1000-54- 4-19, and directs the Town Clerk to publish notice of such appeal in The Suffolk Times not less than ten (10) days nor more than thirty (30) days prior to such hearing and to notify the applicant by first class mail. Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANZMOUS] MOVER: William Ruland, Councilman SECONDER: Vincent Orlando, Councilman AYES: Ruland, Orlando, Krupski Jr., Wickham, Evans, Russell Generated May 7, 2009 Page 15 Southold Town Board - Letter Board Meetin~l' 21 ,2009 RESOLUTION 2009-336 ADOPTED Item # 5.30 DOC ID: 4952 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION NO. 2009-336 WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD ON APRIL' 21, 2009: RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby authorizes Supervisor Scott A. Russell to retain Eh-Consultants, Inc. to perform a review and render an opinion in connection with Robert Bombara's Coastal Erosion appeal, in accordance with their Proposal dated April 20, 2009, at a rate of $250.00 per hour, with a minimum fee of $1,500.00 and an estimated 10 to 15 hours of work, subject to the approval of the-Town Attorney. Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Vincent Orlando, Councilman SECONDER: Albert Krupski Jr., Councilman AYES: Ruland, Orlando, Krupski Jr., Wickham Evans, Russell Generated April 22, 2009 Page 39 N S),HD / / / / / / / / / / / NO'FE~ At~EA -- :24,~-/~ Ex:~. FT'. · V~R. TICAL gATU~ -- N.~,.V'. I~ATIj~ (1~1.~.1_. · ~EE t=1-OO15' IN,~~JI~-ANC,~= IRATt~ PAN~=L NUI~I~EI~ ~,~t0~..0154 ~ LAST IDA~ HAT' 4, / / ECEi 'E JUL - 6 2007 Young & Young 400 OstYa~der Avenue, Riv~ke~ N~ Y~k 11901 631 - 727-2303 Robe~ C. T~ no~ ff. P~ L~oape HEALTH PEPAP-,TIvI~NT USE .eL,II~,VEYOt~.'5 C, ER, TII= IC, ATh HOI"4AF~D iq. ¥O. FN~, N.¥.D.L.O. NO. 4~q~ ,OBL=t T IDO A At ~out,hold, Town oF ~out,hold ~uFFolk Count, y, New York Count, q Trax l~l¢~p m=~ I000 s~u,m 54- moc~ 04 u~ Iq HAP ~ALE, 1"=40' ..lOB NO. 2OO~-O1~,:2 DJ,'~. ,200~_OIE~2._l::~_J~ N 'r~ST / / + '/.0'5 / JUL - 6 20O7 bOU[/UlOl~ Jewo Board of Trustees Young & Young 400 Osfra~de~ Ave~e, Riv~a~ N~ York ff90l H~ard ~. Y~, L~ Rob~ C. ~ Are~iteet HE~TH DEPAR~NT EdJl~XfEY'Of~'5 C, ERTIFIC. ATIC HOPiAP, D' iN. ¥C:~',~, N.Y*.5. L.5. NO. FOR P. OI ERT IDOIvI Ala. A A~ Ooul:hold, Town oF 5outholcl ~olk C..ount~l, New York d, oun~l Tax Mop oi,t~¢t lO00 S~. 54 e~-~ 04. L~t Iq HAP PTa, EP~ I L~. q, 200'/ ,Y-.ALE. 1"-40' JO{~ Iq<:). Diqd,. 2oo~._Ol&2_l:p.j-2 N TI~T HOLE / / .>. / / / / NO'I'E~ AREA = .24,~'1~ 5~. FT. · V~RTI~AL PATU~ = N.~,V. ~A'I'O~ (I'"I.~.L.. I'::{'~) · SEE FLOOD I~N~E t~.ATE PANEL ~ JUL - 6 2007 SDut~Dold Boar~ ~! Trustees 0 /l J{iJj HEALTH DEPAI~.~NT USE NO'TE~ AR.~A --- 24,~1q .~5:L FT. · ~TIGAL DA'I'L,~I = N.'~.V. DATIJ~ ('F4.~/. Iq:2q) · ~ FLOOD II'~:~F~kN~.E I~.A'i'E PANEL N!,Jt41D~R ~,IO-~-.XDID~ e LA.GT IDA'I'I~D MAt' 4, Iqq~, 1200 GAL. SEPTIC TANK (4 POOLS) {.~LIC. Young o HEAd. TH ]DI=PA~TIvI~NT U.GE~ ~URVEY'OR'~ C,~RTIFIC, ATI¢ o At. ~out:holcl, Tol,,In of ~::,uf. holct :~uffolk Gounf. B, Nel,,i 'fork NOV. 24, 20Cxt OGT. ~, 200'=t ALkS. I'1, :2OO~ ~ E~JII4DIN~ I-'t~Nu~IT IDATA AMIDNDE~ E~UII.~IN~ I-'~m'~lT I:)ATA AI,/IENIDI~2 JDUILIDIN~ I'~L-t;~IIT OATA JOE~ NO. 20¢:~=~-0~20 N 4.02 'I'E~T HOLE /~°/6'56 / / / /' / / / /' / / /~// / / ~ / ~/~ / / / / /.~/ / / /~ / / / / / / / / / // / 8.20 x ¥ ,r: NOTE~ At:~JEA -- 2,::J-~"/q 9~. FT. · VI[RTICAL PATUH = N.~,.V. gATUM (H.S.L, Iq2ct) ~610~GOI54 ~ LAST DATED HAY ~, Iqq~ · AHOUNT OF FILL f~EGUIP. ED = 200 ~.¥. · FILL TO F~O~Vl AN APPrOVeD UPLANP SI~. · ~lLgl~ FOO~JNT A~A = I~ e ZONIN6 ~ ~l~l~T = ~-~' 8.57 10.77 .#' 6.59 ¸53 B.26 HEALTH DEPAI:~.TIvlENT USE E::~If~VE¥OR'S 6EI~TIFIC, AT HOJqAP. D ~. YOUNg, N.¥.S.L.S. NO. 45~,°I~ Al. ~ouf;holcl, Toi, ln o~ ~ouf. hold ~u~t:olk C, ounf,}], Nev~ 'York ~OUfl~ TCI× ~vlclp Distrlct I000 s,:Uon 54 81~k 04 Lot I~ j ~JIL~INE, PERHIT ~ - ,N..TER. N~TE 6 J AVEK~:~D t~IL~IN$ PEf~qlT DATA AHEN[:~ BUIL~IN~ PEr,HIT DATA AHEN~;q~) EUILDIN~ E-tEqlT DATA ~=C-ALE: 1"=40' JOB NO. DIq$. 2oo~_Oli}2_bp.J-1 NtARTIN 1). FINNEGAN TOWN ATTORNEY martin.finnegan@~own.southold.ny.us JENNIFER ANDALORO ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY jen nirer.andaloro(~ town.southold.ny.us LORI M. HULSE ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY lori.hulse@town.southo]d.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 OFSOUTHOLD Mr. Robert E. Herrmann Coastal ~anagement Specialist En-Oonsultants, Inc. 1319 North Sea Road Southampton, NY 11968 December 16, 2009 RE: Robert BombaralCoastal Erosion Management Permit Denial Premises: 1725 North Sea Drive, Southold, NY Dear Rob: Enclosed please find a revised survey on the referenced matter for your review and comment. The applicant has not formally submitted this to the Town Board and would like your comments prior to doing so. JA/Ik Enclosure Please call me upon receipt to discuss. Very truly.you Asts_~tant T~ oro Attorney JOHN R TAGGAR~ ESQ. LAW OFFICES PETER S. DANOWSKI, ,JR. 616 ROANOKE AVENUE RJVERHEAD, NY 11901 ~31) 727-4900 FAX(631) 727-7451 E-mail: pdanowski@danowskilaw, com jtagga~@danowskilaw, com November I0, 2009 Jennifer Andaloro, Esq. Assistant Town Attorney Town of Southold P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 Re: Robert G. Bombara Dear Ms. Andaloro: It is my understanding that Mr. Herrmann and Mr. Terchunian have once again met on site and reviewed the first attempt to locate the "line" on the map. Enclosed please find a final line that I understand has been agreed to by each of our environmental consultants. The line depicted on the Existing Conditions Map, last dated October 30, 2009, reflects the physical staking of the line at the site. After you have reviewed the Existing Condition Map and confirm my understanding with Mr. Hen:mann, I would appreciate a phone call and a possible meeting to discuss a proposed location for building improvements. Very truly yours, PETER S. DANOWSK|, JR. PSD:gsg Encl. cc: Robert Bombara Young & Young - Attn: Tom Wolpert Aram Terchunian Eh-Consultants, Inc. - Attn: Robert Herrmann N / / / / / / ./ / / / / / / / / / 6,s/o~ / / / / / ,/ ./ ~ / / / / / ~.~/ /' / / / /~/ / / / / / / / / / / × / / NOTtE~ A~-,t~A = 24,~-/c:1 D~. FT. · VERTIGAL DA'rUM ~ N.~.V, DATLJ'4 (NI,~,L. lc:ill) D&IODC. OID4 cD LADT DATED NAY 4, I~q~D · ZONIN~ LJDE IDI.GT'~.IC.T = '~-40' J+ 6.56 / / / / 6.~9 · 8.57 10,77 + 8.20 6.39 / .53 Young & Young 400 Ostra~der Ave~e, Riverhead~ Ne~ York 63 ~- ~2~-2303 Howard W. Young, La~ T~m~ a Wolpert, ~ofes~l Robot C. T~t, Arckiteet I1901 .GI.J~'.VtEYOP.'5 C, EFe. TIFIGATI( HOP~AP4~ IN. YOUNg, L.5. NO. ~I. JRV~Y FOf~ A~. ~:~uf. hold, TOWn ot' ~::,uthold ~u~olk ¢ounf.~, Ne~l York Count, w Tox i, qmp Distrlc~ I000 s,~t~o. 04 0~o:~ 04 ~ot EXI,GTIN~ GONDITIONE~ MAP P~.EPAI~ED £ OC, T. ~o, :2OOq ~-E: 1"=.40' ~. .20C~_Ol~2_ex_condlf. lon$ IOF I 0 JOHN R TAGGART, ESQ. LAW OFFICES P------------------ETER S. DANOWSKI, 816 ROANOKE AVENUE RIVERHEAD, NY 11901 (631) 727-4900 FAX(631) 727-7451 E-mail: pdanowski@danowskilaw.com Jtagga~@danowskilaw.com September 8, 2009 Jennifer Andaloro, Esq. Assistant Town Attorney Town of Southold P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 Re: Robert G. Bombara - Coastal Erosion Hazard Area Permit Dear Jennifer: After you have had a chance to digest the enclosed Building Permit Survey, please give me a call. We have staked the "line", and removed all stakes but those for the Alternate "3" Plan. Very truly yours, PSD/eaf Enc. cc: Mr. Robert Herrmann, En Consultants Inc. cc: Mr. Robert G. Bombara Peter S. Danowski, Jr. oE[ - 2009 MARTIN D. FINNEGAN TOWN ATTORNEY martin.finnegan@town.southold.ny.us JENNIFER ANDALORO ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY jennifer.andaloro@town.southold.ny.us LORI M. HUL~E ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY lori.hulse@town.southold.ny.us SCOTT A. RUSSELL Supervisor Town H~l Annex, 54375Route 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 To: From: Date: Subject: MEMORANDUM File Jennifer Andaloro, Assistant Town Attorney July 30, 2009 Bombara On Friday, July 17, 2009, our office met with Peter Danowski, Jr., Esq., counsel for the applicant, his consultant, Barn/Avram, and the Town's consultant, Rob Herrmann, regarding the additional information requested by the Town and the revised survey. The applicant's representatives indicated that they would submit a revised survey illustrating the sand ridge system, however, the applicant will not concede that ridge system is a "natural protective feature" or primary dune. JNIk MARTIN D. FINNEGAN · TOWN ATTORNEY mar tin.finnegan@town.southold, ny.us JENNIFER ANDALORO ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY jennifer.andaloro@town.southold.ny.us LORI M. IHYLSE ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY lori.hulse@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 June 8,2009 Peter S. Danowski, Jr., Esq. 616 Roanoke Avenue P.O. Box 779 Riverhead, NY 11901 RE: Bombara Coastal Erosion Management Appeal/Variance Application Dear Mr. Danowski: Enclosed please find the Transcript of the June 2, 2009, public hearing as well as an additional copy of the letter from En-Consultants, Inc. with respect to the above application. Please note that in consideration of your letter to the Town Clerk and to the Town Attorney's Office dated May 29, 2009, indicating that you had surgery scheduled at the time of the hearing, the Town Board adjourned the hearing without a date and kept the record open. We await your response to the items raised in the attached letter from our consultant. Please advise as to when your client will be submitting the requested revised survey. Very truly yours, JA/Ik Enclosures cc: Members of the Town Board (w/encls.) Ms. Elizabeth A. Neville, Town Clerk (w/encls.) bcc: Mr. Robert E. Herrmann, En-Consultants, Inc. (w/encls.) SOUTHOLD FOWN BOARD PUBLIC HEARING Continuation of Bombara Appeal 9:00 AM Present: Supervisor Scott Russell Justice Louisa Evans Councilman Thomas Wickham Councilman Albert Kmpski, Jr. Councilman William Ruland Councilman Vincent Orlando Town Clerk Elizabeth Neville Town Attorney Martin Finnegan This hearing was opened at 9:10 AM SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Please rise and join with me in the Pledge of Allegiance. Martin? TOWN ATTORNEY MARTIN F1NNEGAN: Good morning. If I may, now that the hearing has been re-opened by the Town Board, I would first like to acknowledge receipt of a letter from Peter Danowski, the counsel for the applicant, where he has issued his objections to the m-opening of the hearing. We would also like to submit for the record the report of Robert Herrmann, dated April 20, 2009, directed to the Town Attorney's office where he addresses some incomplete items in the application, specifically with respect to the current site plan. The current site plan Mr. Herrmann has told us does not include the proper designation of the natural protective features on the subject property. This letter has already been sent to the applicant for their consideration and response, so at this point I would like to submit to the Town Clerk Mr. Herrmann's April 20, 2009 letter for the record in this proceeding and reserve the right for the Town Board to provide further comment on the application while the record 'is still c~pen, following the applicant's compliance with the recommendations Mr. Herrmarm made prior to the Town Board issuing any decision on the application. I would also ask that there be a motion to adjourn this proceeding, this hearing, without date at this point because Mr. Danowski is in the hospital and I am not quite sure what his schedule is, as a courtesy to him we will just leave the matter adjourned without a date and come back with a date at the next meeting of the Town Board for a new hearing. JUSTICE EVANS: So I make a motion we adjbum the hearing until further notice. Until he is out of the hospital. Bombara.Public Hearing continuation 2 June 2, 2009 COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Is there no discussion at all on the substance of the submission? JUSTICE EVANS: Well, no because we are waiting for more information, that is basically why we re-opened it. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: We have the information and we are waiting for the applicant's response. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: And we have conveyed to the applicant the information we are looking for? TOWN ATTORNEY FINNEGAN: Yes. He already has a copy of Mr. Herrmann's proposal, JUSTICE EVANS: And we basically re-opened the hearing so he could get on board with it. So I made a motion. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: I will second that. This heanng was closed at 9:14 AM Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk EN,CO'NSU LTANTS., INC... CONSULTING ' ENVIRONMENTAL 13~'g NorthlanDs, Read SouthampteB New!~k q~1968 · April. 2Q, 2009 Jennifer Andaloro, T6wn Affomey Town of $oulhold P.O. B ox I 179 Sonthold4 NY 1'1971 Dear Ms. Andaloro: - As u requested'on behall Ofthe T°wn B°ard' I am submi~fln$ mul~r ~parate c°ver a pmp°sld f°r Our ~ices'g~q~O~ --mYSore's ,,efition seekin' a Coastal ~oSina Management Permit ~or new. comtmction un the .capt, io.n,d.p,~..pe.?~ ~h .iS .*...... ,. . o ' fThr~teestoo~n ttmappionttoa xvls'my -- understanding that the ~oml wis~ to hear our opmton as to wn~ a~uo? m. w?.t ,%xte~n[ ,.u~ · thle eit~* iff n mnntt~r c~nsiatent with the standnrds for permit issuance set ronnm o~,.on ..... - ..... '~"_*"*" .L. 111-20) of the Town code,'namely fi~cae r0Wattn~ to ti~ potential Jmpa~ts of the construction on erosm~x ,tm~d8 ~ tl~. natural protective, feature(O. Before ! can prol~riy offer ankh an opinion, however, I bdinve that n critical d~ficiancy la th~ rei~oird ..m,,llPt be Specificali~; while both tbe applieant'l find Trustees' positions regerdlng the viability, of'the ~plication appo~'f0 feature on the site, which m my .,man ap.. to be the p~ rendll.y..o?~?ble s ,a,ml~,dge inc~~e~',~ feet north of the rOad. Specifically, § I'11-6 defines · "dune" as a "ridge or tall et !oo~ wlon0town or amno~nu~,~,~,,~,~,. principal' component' o~ which is sand~' and a "primary dune" as "the most watenvard major dime where there,are two ap parallel dunes" or the dnaz'"wJ~ere there is only one dune present." Although this sand ridge appems to meet both of these definlfluns and the~refore the definition of a yuninral forth by §111-6, neither the Board of Tmstec$ nor the applicant appears to have | dune and most landward natural protective feature for the Inal~OSe~ of Chapter 111. Nevettbele~ t oard of Tmste//S -_finds that the prepeaed conmuctton ~a lmpermmmm one to ~ls ~econon naure y natural protective feature:" In doing ~o, the Board of Tmsteas rzlin~ on: reguinta~ guidance fi, om staff of t Dcpm'tment of Environmental Omservatinn, who attest that more then 20 yeats ego No~h Eeo Road was dune; and the applicant miles upon teclminal anatyass from ~'-verai coastal expem, including observations of"low profile bench ridsan dominated by menu~ vegetation," and Dr. Ronald Abrams, "natural protective feataren, beach and sand ridges, ere stable." However, v~tbeut konwing and the ontund'protectlve feature and therefore the apatinl teintionship between tho two, 1 .render such determinations. T~erefore, it in my op~non mat bom t~ ~odwa~ ~omo~h~ ~ ana ~ward ree~to~ Ueit of ~.* ,mi (defined by §I11-6 es ,the POint 25 .feet lafldWun:l of tho landward too) should be idiot!fled,., s. Mlmd..on~...a.m~!!~:~ featare;.whether.uny consti*unilo~ couM be located ouinide tim naturul pro~ve feature;, wlJat.~ constnmtiou might have on theimtural giv0 feature; nd whethes end how those impa,~s fight.be 8voM~;l~r .ll~flllRg~, 05/29/2009 15:52 6317277451 PETER $ DANOWSKI PAGE 02/~2 JOHN P. TAGGAR~ ESQ, LAW OFFICES PI~-'TER -~- DANOWSKI, ~JR- 616 ROANOKE AVENUE RIVERHEAD, NY 11901 (e31) 727.4900 FAX (631) 727-74Sl E-Malk pd~nowski @ danowskilaw. Com Jlaggart @ danowskllaw.~om May 29, 2009 VIA.TELEFAX #765-6639 Jennifer Andaloro, Esq. Assistant Town Attorney Town of South01d P.O. Box I 179 Southold, NY 11.971-0959 Re: Robert G. Bombara - C,~astal Erosi0It Hazard Area Permit Dear Jelmifer: I will be. dropping offthe original ol~]ectmn to the Town Clerk. office. My client remains willing to discuss any issues or alternatives to any o:l'(hc plm~s. As explained in our earlier conversations, I have scheduled hip replacement surgery for June 2, 2009 prior to the Town's scheduling flxe public bem'hxg. I expect to be ill the hospiial 'for less thm~ a week and then locked up in my house, but I will be making phone calls in case you have any reason to need to speak to me. Very truly yottrs, PETER S. D , , - PSD:gsg cc: Robert Borbbm'a MAY 2 9 2009' , · ~ATRICIA A. FINNEGAN · ~ ' TOWN ATTORNEY · patricia.finnegan@town.southold.ny.us JENNIFER ANDALORO ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY jennifer.andaloro@town.southold.ny.us LORI M. HULSE ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY lori.hulse@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 April 28, 2009 Mr. Robert E. Herrmann Coastal Management Specialist En-Consultants, Inc. 1319 North Sea Road Southampton, NY 11968 RE: Robert Bombara/Coastal Erosion Management Permit Denial Premises: 1725 North Sea Drive, Southold, NY Dear Rob: I am enclosing a copy of the Resolution retaining your firm to perform a review and render an opin on in connection with Mr. Bombara's appeal regarding the referenced matter, pursuant to your Proposal dated April 20, 2009, a copy of which is attached hereto. We look forward to working with you on this matter. Ve_ry truly yours,~,~~ ~r,~ttorney JA/Ik Enclosures cc: Members of the Town Board (w/encls.) Ms. Elizabeth Neville, Town Clerk (w/encls.) Lori M. Hulse, Esq., Assistant Town Attorney (w/encls.) ' EN-CONSULTANTS, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING 1319 North Sea Road Southampton, New York 11968 631-283-6360 Fax: 631-283-6136 www. enconsultants.com April 20, 2009 Jennifer Andaloro, Town Attorney Town of Sonthold P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: "Ap~ of the ['...'-'~ of C _~,**1 g~--'?7 lV~----?--?-'--* Permit of IL G. l~m~mra, 172-5 North Sea Driv~ Southold' Dear Ms. Andeluro: AS you requested on behalf, of the Town Board, I am herein submitting a proposal for our services regarding Robert Bombara's petition seeking a Coastal Erosion Management Permit for new construction on the captioned property, which is currently pending review on appeal by the Town Board due to a decision by the Board of Trustees to deny the application. It is my onderstanding that the Board wishes to hear our opinion as to whether and/or to what extent such conslruction could be und~akan in a mariner consist~t with the standards for permit iss-snce set forth in Section 111-9 (or in the alternative Section 111-20) of the Town Code, namely those relating to the potential impacts of the construction on erosion ~-nds and on the site's natural protective features. Assuming that the landward limit of the natural protective feature on the site (i.e., the prominent sand ridge I believe represents the primary dtme).is indical~l on an upaato~l smnn~ as requested onder sepera~ cover, I would offer a written opinion as to whether the proposed consm~otioa is located within the natural protective fca~; whether any construction could be located outside the natural protective fcature; what impacts the proposed and/ur any consiruction might have on erosion treads and the site's natural protective feature and its functions and protective values; and whether and how (i.e., via location, scope, design, etc.) those impants might be avoided or minimized. Our fee would be calculated on an hourly basis of $250 per hour with a minimum fee of $1,500. I expect that I would spend approximately 10 hours and almost c~tainly would not exceed ] 5 hours unless the Town Board wished mo to spend considerable timo offering omi testimony in support of my written report. Should you have any questions or wish to discuss the above in more dotail, please lot me know. Re~ yours, Rober~ E. I-Iermmnn Coastal Management Specialist EN-CONSULTANTS, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING 1319 North Sea Road Southampton, New York 11968 631-283-6360 Fax: 631-283-6136 www. enconsultants,com April 20, 2O09 Sennif~r Andaloro, Town Attorney Town of Sonthold P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: "ADDeal of the Denhl of C .... E~ _:;-- ,%'----~--- ----~ ~'~It of R. G. nflmha~ 1725 North Sea Drive. Southold" As you requested on behalf Of the Town Board, I ara submitting ureter separate cover a proposal for our services regarding Robert Bombura's petition seeking a Coastal Erosion Mntmgemont Permit for new construction on the captioned property, which is · · ' ' Itismy cormntly pending review on appeal by the Town Board due to n decLsion by the Boord of Trustees to deny the appfiestion. onderstonding that the Bonrd wishes to hear our opinion ns to whether end/ur to wlmt extent such ~onstro~ion Gould be undertaken at this site in a manner consistent with the stondarde ~r permit issuance set forth in Section 1 ! 1-9 (OF in the alternative Section 111-20) of the Town Code, nnmely those feinting to the potential imlx~CtS of the construction on erosion t~ds ned on the site's natural protective f~ture(s). Before I can properly offer such ~m opinion, however, I believe that a critical deficiency in the record must be _nfl"dressed. Specifically, while both the applicant's nmi Trustees' positions regurding the viability of the application nppeur to have hinged appropriately on whether the proposed couem~tinn is luentad on a "nntural protective f~ature' ond whether such construction would adversely impact the functions ued values of that restore, the site plan does not depict the most londwurd natural protective feature on the site, which in my opinion appem~ to be the prominent, resdily observable sand ridge located npproxJmatoly 60 to 80 feet north of the roed. Specifically, §111-6 defines u "dune" ns u "ridge ur hill of lonse, windblown or ertificially pinGod enfl~ the principal component of which is sm~d" and · "pfimmy dune" ns ~ most waterwurd major dune where there ara two or more parallel dunes" or the dune "where there is only one done present." Although this sand ridge appea~ to meet both of these definitions and tharafoFe the definition of a "natural prott~ctiva feature" set forth by §111-6, neither the Bom'd of Tmstens nor the apPliesnt appesrs to hnve identified oF depicted the sand ridge ns the primury done and most landward natural protective fe~ure for the purpo~s of Cimpt~ 111. Neveflbeles~ the oppliesflt nsseru that "the natural prot~tive features of bench and sand ridges are stable ond...will not be altered by the proposed devalopment~ while the Board of Tros~es finds that the proposed Gonsm~cllon is impermissible due to its location "entiroly within tho.., p~imm~ dune, a natural protective feature." In doing so. the Board of Trustees relies on ~8ubtorY guidance from staff of the New yo~k State Depnrtment of Environmental C(ms~vafion, who nttcst that more than 20 yems a~o Noflh See Road was built upon a primary dune; nnd the applicant relies upon t~hoical analyses flora several consl81 experu, including Arum Terchoninn, who ~-lbns site observmlons of"low profile beach ridges domim~tted by ~ ve~e~ttinll,~' ~ DF. Ro~ Abrluns, who cot~lmins that the sito's "natural protcotive f~ltuma, beach nmi sand ridges, m'e stable." However, without knowing tho iccations of hoth the construetion and thc natural protective festure and therefure the spetinl rolmionship between the two, I believe it is difTicult at best to tenably render such determinations. Therefore, it is my opinion that beth the ~. dwurd geommphic toe and Inndward re~tintoly ttmlt of th~ sand rhig~primnry done (defined by §111-6 ns the point 25 feet lnndwerd of the landward toe) should be identified, staked out, ued depicled on ~he site plan. Based upon that information, I cm~ then d~ermine whether the proposed comtm~on is located within the natural pmteotive f~m2re; whether any cons~ruetion could be located outside the uemral protective femuro; what impacts the propOsed and/or any construction might have on the onmml protective f~,~uro; and w~ether and how those impacts miEht be avoided or mtnlmJ2~d. Coa~! Mnn~emont Spo~iulist ..... 'Southold Town Board - Letter Board Meeting of April 21, 2009 RESOLUTION 2009-336 ADOPTED Item # 5.30 DOC ID: 4952 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION NO. 2009-336 WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTIIOLD TOWNBOARD ON APRIl./21, 2009: RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby authorizes Supervisor Scott A. Russell to retain En-Consultants, Inc. to perform a review and render an opinion in'connection with Robert Bombara's Coastal Erosion appeal, in accordance with their Proposal dated April 20, 2009, at a rate of $250.00 per hour, with a minimum fee of $1,500.00 and an estimated 10 to 15 hours of work, subject to thc approval of thc,Town Attorney. Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Vincent Orlando, Councilman SECONDER: Albert Kru pski .Ir., Councilman .AYES: Ruland, Orlando, Krupski .Ir., Wickham, Evans, Russell Generated April 22, 2009 Page 39 JOHN P. TAGGART, ESQ, LAW OFFICES PETER S. DANOWSKI, 616 ROANOKE AVENUE RiVERHEAD, NY 11901 (631) 727-4900 FAX (631) 727-7451 E-Mail: pdanowski @ danowskilaw.com jtaggart @ danowskilaw.com RECEIV£D :: 6 2009 April 3, 2009 '~outho[~t Town Clef[ Town Board & Town Clerk Town of Soathold 53095 Route 25, Box 1179 Sonthold, New York 11971-0959 Southold To~m Attorney's Office 53095 Roate 25, Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 Attn: Jennifer N. Andaloro, Es~ Morris Duffy, Alonso &Faley, Esqs. 2 Rector Street - 22"a Floor New York, NY 10006 Attn: Kenneth Pitcoff, Esq. Re: Robert G. Bombara - Coastal Erosion Hazard Permit Dear Sir or Madam: My clients, Robert G. Bombara and Margaret M. Bombara, ask fi~l ~ decisi,m from the Town Board on their filed administrative appeal. The appeal papers were filed under cover letter dated November 12, 2008. (Enclosed is a copy of said leter., The B,oard thereafter set a public heari,ng date of January 20, 2009 after providing itseif with an opportuni~, to inspect tile premises. (See Januac,.' !2,201;9 to then Deputy Town Attorney Kieran Corcoran.) At the conclusion of the Jonuai'y '20, 2009 public hearing, the To~m Board kept the hearing open, continued same until February 3, 2009 when the hearing was concluded. Absent a decision from the Board, my client will have no alternative but to seek "Mandamus" relief in the Supreme Court, Suffolk County. As a matter of information, I have asked Dru Associates, Inc., one of our ecological consultants, to respond to comments made or wri~en material supplied at the public hearing. This report by way of the enclosed March 17, 2009 letter, clearly once Town Board, Town Clerk, etc. Page 2 April 3, 2009 again points out there is no scientific proof submitted that would support the refusal of the Board to grant the relief requested. Very truly yours, PETER S. DANOWSKI, JR. PSD:gsg Encls. cc: Robert Bombara Dru Associates, Inc. Young & Young Ecological Consultants 40 Hilching Post I.an*. Glen Cove. NY I 1:542 21 Mt. Ponds, 24 Eagle Dr, Wilmiagtno, VT 05363 March 17, 2009 Mr. Peter S. I)anowski, Esq. 616 Roanoke Ave Riverhead, NY 11901 (516)676-7107 (802)464-3341 Re: Robert IIombara, Southold, coastal zone pcmfit hearing mid printed records Dear Peter: Dru Associates, hie. has reviewed the materials submitted to the Town of 8outhokl to which you have tbcused my attention_ In my review I noticed commentary that relied upon reports produced by Michael Corey of New York Department of State and Grog Edinger of New York Natural Heritage Program, as well as a number of citizens. It would seem that objectors to Mr. gombara's proposed house rely on thc: State reports to create a sense of doubt about thc compatibility of his proposal with his lot's immediate environment. Remarkably, not one ortho comments actually provides technical data abont thc prqlect's specific lot to support their complaints. Tim only technical comment on thc site's couditions is fi'om'Heather Casack on behalf o£thc Town, and this report echoes many of the same findings that were in my report of October 17, 2007 and in thc reprot uf First Coastal on that same d:tte. Dru Associates findings in October 0£2007 remain unchanged, as neither the vegetation nor the groand beneath it has moved, shifted or changed in any perceptible manner, inchtding on our recent March 2009 visit. In 2007, we reviewed NYS I)EC's CEHA regulations (6NYCRR Part 505), showiug that a house could be bailt at the Iooation of Mr. Bombara's proposal wilhout violating the intent or substance of the ertvironmontal protection envisiol'~ed in the CEHA program. Moreover, common sense dictates the tbllowing logic. a. The homes along tire North Sea Road residential area have existed for a long lime. b. Thc neighborhood predates the designation of the area hy NYS DOS as a Significant Coastal Imh and Wikllife l-lab~tat. {4~ 29,~ H~. t/ne. :2009 I ofi*d 6IgP6§LgIG ~:1t0 600M'IO }ld~f These homes have not degraded that cnvh-onment which demonstrates that the potential negative impacts from residential development along this beachli'ont arc not likely tn occur with the construction of one mo~ home. It must be repeated that the policy of New York intended tn discourage actions witbln the designated zones of the CEHA unless it can bc shown that these actions include "... erosion protection or non-structural measures which are most likely to prevent damage from effects of erosion during the anticipated life of such proposed actions." Thc CEHA requires the placement of new cons]mc]ion at safe distaucc$ fi'om areas of active erosion, with the intent of keeping these facilities out of areas typically impacted by coastal storms. Itombara's proposal is compatible with tiffs premise, as evident from the stability that exists along this sec]kin of North Sea Road. For many decades tile homes have not been damaged, the sand and vegetative features have not been allcred, and the sensitive beach grass has bccn stable lbr as along a,$ can be delcrmincd by aerial photographs. Since the intent oflhc Act is directly related to protection of shoreline structures, its protection ofrtatural coastal leah]res is not aimed at the features theluselves, but at thc £unction such features serve in protecting coastal resources. Site Specific Conditiot~s at the Bombnra property With respect to the defined fane]kraal benefits of the CEI IA, thc trine]ions of different types of natural protective l~atures are context-specific, so that issaance o f a permit must ~nsiderthepr~t~ctivefun~t~n~that```¥~ec~ctype~qfnatura~pr~tectivefeuture`~.~r~vide~ At the Ilombara site, the specific features that providc protection for this stretch of coastlinc arc thc predomina~tt land cover which ix beach to a point some 1 O0 l~cl inland tlr mean high water, and a 'back-beach' area which is covered with 'beach ridges" and scrub-shrub habitat that has grown up over these slightly elevated sandy areas (sec report by First Co~kstal Consultants describing thc Bombara site). According to DEC, "Beaches b~'Jbr 6'horehmd,,' fi'om erosion by absorbing wave energy that otherwise would be exl~ended on the toes ofbhfff3' or dunes." While the project site beach provides for absorption of wave euergy, there are no dunes or blufl~ within reach of the shoreline at this site, and recetrt evidence indicates that tile inshore area (where the Bombers home is proposed) has not been topographically altered by storms for mtmy years. The hnmesite area is relatively level, except for the 'sand ridges', so that there are no dunes or bluffs within this CELIA zone that are subject to washout. Therefore, the lot would not be snhicct to the loss (~ D~ ,4~,~,eat~. q~. 2009 2 Z o6~d 6IgP6§LgIg £§:80 600gtIO H6V of its erosion protection fhnetton il'it is developed for residential use, prnvided the homesite is established using thc same topography thai is now present at the site. Accretion of sand along this coastal area over recent d~ades has evidently occurred, judging by the 'sand ridges', which are raised sand mounds that are well vegetated with shrubs and grasses. Within the development ama, these clumps of scrnb-stu'ub habitat are acting to stabilize the sands effected by wind, and thc persistence of these 'sand ridges' is evident ii'om the age trod density of the vegclation upon them. The surrounding homcsites arc also intorspersed with vegetation, except seme of the homes arc located directly ahmg the beach, where their own structures are stable and no evidence ofcroslon is visible. Therefore, a homesite can be developed without disturbing the natural features protecting the area from erosion impacts. The difference tbat can be made now tbr new homes, as opposed to tile existing homes that pm-date the regulations, is that seine form of mitigation can be required which will enhance both the new home and thc ne{ghbnrh~md. These measures can include supplemental plantings of baccharis and bayberry to enhance thc vegetative component of erosion protection oil the developed lot, mid seaward o£ Ibc house to further support the rear of the beaehl¥ont. Hearing and Town File Testitaony There is no dula or analysis i.n any opponellts' testimony ti'tut refi~tes expert testb~0olly on behalfofthe project. People simply repeat known l:acts about the lot and }:inploy broader generalizations thai indtlce li~ar without a substantive scientific allalysis of how nne more hnme nn this street would cause coastal erosion. The collective contmcntary by citizens, includk~g Larry Penny acting as a citizen fi'om another Township, relbrs disinge~mously to the Sight fieant Ceastal t:ish and Wildlil~ Habitat reports and mapping by NYS DOS. Such an approacb is misleading tbr two reasons: the ornaments draw 'facts' from a broader general report without validating them for tile site itself, and thc Ooldsmith Inlet Coastal 1 labitat ~nap docs not include the site itself. Remarkably, the DOS Significant Coastal llabitat refers primarily to a type of inland and coustul area that is entirely different from the Bombara let or its vicinity. The only pmfion of the DOS map that applies to Bombara is the beachli'ont, as described in both DOS and 1 leritage program materials as having a beacbt}ont protected on its inland side by beach grass and a sand ridge. AS explained in both the Drn Associates and First Coastal reports, thc sensitive portion of the Bombara lot (and most et' © ~ ,,fa~ff:e~. qa~. 2009 3 ~ ofiud 619~6gL9I§ 9§:80 600Z'IO MdY the homes along this portion of North Sea Road) is the beachfron, t which includes 100+/- feet inhmd, that includes thc bettchgrass bed and sand ridge hacking it. These features will remain in the Bombara proposal. These same ti:aturcs tire still present along thc uther hmnes on this street despite years of residential use. The NYS .DOS Signilicant Coastal l"ish and Wildlife Habitat of note lies mostly west nf the Bombara lot, and is particularly notable for its unique physiography that includes fully ibrcstcd sand mouuds, dunes and "interdnnal swales", which flood in winter and spring. There are none of these tbatures ,mr a forested habitat within hundreds of feet of the Bombara lot or ahmg the street in question_ Tbe ecological character of the inland portion of thc Sigoificm~t I bbitat area is entirely different than the inland portion of Mr. Bombaru's lot, and will be totally unaflbctcd by his new home, despite tim misrepmsentative testimuny ill the record.. lu a biased eflbrt to inlluence tbe Town Trustees, tim bearing testimony aud file on Bombara attempts to overemphasize the importance of the isolated and unconfirmed records of'piping plover breeding au or near the Bombara lot. The fact is that the area noted by Audubon for lifts species stretches miles alnng tiffs coastal zone, includiog many homes within its reach, including one home that has posted threatening Owl Models to seam away beachfront wildlife. Clearly, tile disingenuous p~rtmyaI of this area's ecological character should not be allowed to inflnence a well-inliarmed Board. ConelnsJon Accordingly, the Borabara proposal complies witb tile permit issuance standards required tbr a CEHA pernfit (6NYCRR Part 505), in that thc proposed activity: ~. is reasonable and necessary, considering reasonable alternatives to the proposed activity, and the extent which the proposed activity requires a shoreline location; The landowner has no other property in the Town at which they can abide, ~. will not be likely to cause a measurable increase in erosion at the proposed site or other locations; and The site does not contain a physiography thai is subject to erosion since there is evidence of recent accretion of sand and thc sand rldges 2009 4 ~ oB~d 619~6~L9I§ 9§:~0 600Z'[0 H~ delnoustrate stability, and the nelghbnr's homesltc on similar grnund dues not show evidence fur erosion impacls. ¢~, prevents, if possible, or minimizes adverse effects on: *natural protective features and their functions and proteclive values as described in section 505_3; The natural protective features, beach and sand ridges, are stable and their protective functions will not be altered by the proposed development. 'existing erosion protection structures; and No structures exist now. *natural resources including, but not limited to, significant fish and wildlife habitats and shellfish beds. The site docs upi support siguificant fish and wildlife, uor is it a host site fbr shoreline bird breeding or any other threatened ar endaugered species. Filmily, it is the opiuion ol' Dru Associmes that the issuance of a perrnit for development of the Bomhara lot is compatible with both CI','I IA and Tidal Wetlands protection, since the resources protected by either ol'these programs will remain umdtered by the proposed home. Please llzcl .fi'cc to contact us ii'we can provide further inlbrmation. ely, Dr. R.W. Abrams, CEP © ~9~ ~a~.a~, t/ne. 2009 5 ~ e6~d 619~6§L9I§ 9~:80 600Z'IO Md~ JOHN P. TAGGAR~ ESQ. LAW OFFICES PETER $. DANOWSKI, JR, 616 ROANOKE AVENUE RIVERHEAD, NY 11901 (631) 727-4900 FAX (631) 727-745~ E-Mail: pdanowskl @ danowsktlaw,com jtaggad @ danowskilaw.com January 12, 2009 VIA E-MAIL Kieran M. Corcoran, Deputy ToWn Attorney ToWn of Southold P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 Re: Robert Bombara Administrative Apl)cai Dear Kieran: With regard to )our comment that the Town Board would like to visit the site and ascertain the location of the proposed structares, if you would be kind enough to advise me when the visit is to take place, I will make sure to have a representative of the surveyor's office present. I have also advised Young & Young, the surveyors, to re-visit the site to make sure the earlier color coded staking is still accurately in place. We had different colored surveyor's ribbons on the stakes. Young & Young will visit the site this week and attempt to re-color the surveyor's stakes. If helpful and if we are able to do it on time, I will see if we cml match up the staking by color Code with the alternate plans that are part of the record. Ver~/luly yours, p F~E~O~I, JR. PSD:gsg cc: Young & Young - Attn: Howard Young Robert Bombara (VIA E-MAIL) ~ Ecological Consultants 40 Hitching Po~ I,ane, L;lcn C~vc, NY I 1542 21 Mt. Pondn, 24 E~I¢ Dr, Wilmington, VT 05363 March l 7, 2009 Mr, Peter S. I)anowski, Esq, 616 Roanoke Ave Riverhead, NY 1190I (516)676-7107 (802)464-3341 Re: Robert Bombara, Southold, coastal zone pcrtnit hearing and printed records Dear Peter: Dru Associates, lac. has reviewed the materials submitted to the Town of Southokl to which you have Ibcused my attention. In my review I noticed commentary that relied upon report.~ produced by Michael Corey of New York Department of State and Greg Edinger of New York Natural Heritage Program, as well as a nmnber of citizens. It would seem that objectors to Mr. Bombara's proposed house rely on thc'. State repo~q to create a sense of doubt about the compalibility of his proposal with his Lot's immediate environment. Remarkably, not one of thc comments actually provides technical data about thc prq]~ct's specific lot to support their complaints. The only technical comment on thc site's conditions is fi'om'Heather Cusack nn behalf office Town, and this report echoes many of the same findings that were in my report of October 17, 2007 and in thc reprot of First ¢',o~sta[ on that same date. Dru Assot~iates findings in October of 2007 remain unchanged, as neither thc vegetation nor the ground beneath il has moved, shifted or changed in any perceptible manner, including on our recent March 2009 visit. In 2007, we reviewed NYS DEC's CEHA regulations (6NYCRR Peri 505), showing that a hnuse could be built at the location of Mr. Bombara's proposal wiU~out violating the intent or snbst,'mce of the environmental protection envisioned in the CEHA prngram. Moreover, colnmoll sellsc dictates tile following logic. a. The homes along tile North Sea Road residential area have existed for a long time. b. Thc neighborhood predates the designation of the area by NYS DOS as a Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat. © g)~ Att0ot. o.~. q~. 2009 1 §§:80 600Z'I0 c. These homes have not degraded that environment which demonstrates that the potential negative intpacts from residential development along this beachfront arc not likely to occur with the construction of one more home. it must be repeated that the policy of New York intended to discourage actions within the desigaated zones of the CEHA unless it can be shown that these actions include "...erosion protection or non-structural measures which are most likely to prevent damage from effects of erosion during the anticipated life of such proposed actions." 'rhe CEHA requires the placement of new construction at safe diVances from al'cas of active erosion, with the intent of keeping these facilities out of areas typically impacted by coastal storms. Ilombam's proposal is compatible with this premise, as evident from the stability that exists along this section of North Sea Road. For many decades the homes have not been damaged, thc sand and vcgctative features have not been altered, and the sensitive beach grass has bccn stable fur as along as can, be dctcnnincd by aerial phutographs. Since Ibc intent ofthe Act is directly related to protection of shoreline structures, its protection of natural coasted features is not aimed at the features themselves, but at thc function such features serve in protecting coastal resources. Site Specific Conditions at the Bombara property With respect to thc defined lnnc iomtl benefits of the CI;[ IA, thc t~nctiol~s of different types of natural protective l}~atures are context-specific, so that issuance ufa 'permit must c~nsiderthepr~tectivefun~ti~nsthat``.Wec~[ictypes~fnat~ralpr~t¢cti~efeutm.espr~vide~'. At the Ilombara site, the specific features that provide protection for this stretch of coastline are the predominant land cover which is beach to a point some 100 fcct inland uf mean high water, and a 'back-beach' area which is covered with 'beach ridges" and scmb-stumb habitat that has grown up over these slightly elevated sandy areas (sec report by First Coastal Consultants describing thc Bembara site). According to DEC, "Beaches buffer shorehmds Jkom erosion by absorbing wave energy that otherwise wotdd be expended on the toes ofbh¢[~' or dunes." While the project site beach provides for absorption of wave energy, there are no dunes or blul'l~ within reach of the shoreline at this site, and receipt evidence indicates that the inshore area (where the Bumbara home is proposed) has not been topographically altered by storms for mm~y years. The hnmesite area is relatively level, except for the 'sand ridges', so that there are no dunes or bluffs within this CEllA zone tMt tire subject to washout. Therefore, the lot would not be snhicet m the loss 2009 2 619I~6§L9I§ ~§:80 600Z~IO 8a~ of its erosion protection thnction il'it is developed lbr residential use, provided the homesitc is established using the same topography that is now present at the site. Accretion of sand along this coastal area over recent d~ades has evidently occurred, judging by the 'sm~d ridges', which are raised sand mounds that are well vegetated with shrubs and grasses. Within the development area, these clumps of scrub-shrub habitat are acting to stabilize thc sands effected by wind, and thc persistence of these 'sand ridges' is evident from the age and density of tile vegetation aport them. The surrounding homcsitcs arc also interspersed with vegetation, except some of the honles arc located directly alnng the beach, where their own suuctures are stable and no evidence of erosion is visible. Therefore, a homesite can be developed without distud, ing tbe natural features protecting the area From erosion impacts. The difference that can be made now tbr new homes, as opposed to the existing homes that pre-date lhe regulations, is that some form of mitigation can be required which will et~hance both the new home and Ihe neighborhood. These measures can include sopplemental plantings of baccharis and bayberry to enhance the vcgelative component of emsioo protection on the developed lot, and seaward of thc hoasc to further support the rear of the beachti'ont. Hearing and Town File Testimony There is no data or mmlysis i.e any opponents' testimony that refutes expert testimo~y on behalf of thc project. People simply repeat known filets about the lot and ¢inploy broader generalizations thai induce l~ar without a substantive scientific analysis nf how one more home on this street would cause coastal erosion. The collective commentary by citizens, including Larry Penny acting as a citizen fi'om another Township, refers disingenuously to the Signifieant Cna~tal Fish and Wildlili: Habitat reports and mapping by NYS DOS. Such an approach is misleading for two masons: the comments draw *facts' from a broader general report without validating them for the site itself, and thc Ooldsmifl~ Inlet Coastal 1 labitat map does not include the site itself. Remarkably, the DOS $ignilicant Coastal l labitat refers primarily to a type of inland and coastal area that is entirely different from the Bombara iht or its vicinity. The only portion of the DOS map that applies to Bombara is the beachtk'ont, as described in both DOS and lleritagc program materials as having a beachfro,~t protected on its inland side by beach grass and a sand ridge. As explained in both the Dru Associates and First Coastal reports, thc sunsitive portion of the Bombara lot (and most of © ~,~ d~e. t2ffe& q~. 2009 3 ~ ~6ud 6'[91~6[L9~ 9§:80 600~]0 HdY tile homes along this porlion of North Sea Road) is the beachfront which includes 100+/- feet inhmd, that includes thc beachgrass bed and sand ridge backing it. These features will remain in the Bombara propusal. These same timtores are still present along thc other homes on this street despite years nf rcsldential use. The NYS DOS Signilicant Coa,~tal Irish and Wildlife Habitat of note lies mostly west of the Bombara Iht, and is particularly notable for its unique physiography that includes fully tbrcstcd s~d mounds, dunes and "interdunal swales", which flood in winter and spring. There arc nune of these l~attures nar a forested habitat within hundreds of feet of thc Bombara let ur along the street in question. The ecological character of the inland portion of thc Significant I labitat area is entirely different than the inland portion of Mr. Bombara's lut, and will he totally unaffected by his new home, despite the misrcpresentati ye testimony in the record.. In a biased ellbri to inlluence the Town TlllStees, thc hearing testimony mid file on Bombam attempts to overemphasize the importance nf the isolated and unconfirmed records of piping plover breeding bO or near the Bombara lot. The fact is that the area nutcd by Audubon for this species stretches miles ahmg this coastal zone, including many homes within its reach, including one home that h~ posted threatening Owl Models to scare away beachfron[ wildlife. Clearly, the disingenuous purtrayal of this area's ecological character should not be allowed to influence a well-informed Board. Conclusion Accordingly. the Bombara proposal complies with the permit issuance standards required a CEHA permit (6NYCRR Part 505), in that the proposed activity: ,,. is reasonable and necessary, considering reasonable alternatives to the proposed activity, and the extent which the proposed activity requires a shoreline location; The landowner has no nthcr property in the Town at which they can abide, I~. will not be likely to cause a measurable increase in erosion at the proposed site or othorlo~lions; and The site does not cnntain a physiography tha~ is subject to erosion since there is evidence of recent accretion of sand and the sand ridges 2009 4 9~:80 600~I0 X~ demonstrate stability, and the neighbor's homesitc on similar ground does not show evidence for ernsion impacts. e, prevents, if possible, or minimizes adverse effects on: *natural protective features and their functions and protective values as described in section 505.3; The natural protective features, beach and sand ridges, are stable and their protective fanctions will not bc altered by the proposed development. *existing erosion protection structures; and No structures exist now. *natural resources including, but not tim#ed to, significant fish and wildlife habitats and she/irish beds. Thc site does not support sigaificant fish and ~vildlifc, nor is it a Jlosl site for shoreline bird breeding or any other threatened or endangered species, Finally, it is the opinion oFDru Associates that the issuance of a permit for development of the Bombara lot is compatible with both CFJ IA m~d Tidal Wetlands protection, since the resources protected by either o['thesc programs will remain unaltered by d~e proposed home, Please l~cl Ii'ce to contact us il'we can provide l'urther inlbrmation, S~ely, Dr, R.W. Abrams, CEP ©~)~,ga~m~. q.¢.2009 S e6~d 6[9~6§L915 95:80 600~[0 ~4~ JOHN P, TAGGART, ESQ, LAW OFFICES PETER S, DANOWSKI, JR. 616 ROANOKE AVENUE RIVERHEAD, NY 11901 (631) 727-4900 FAX (631) 727-7451 E-Mail: pdal3owskl@ danowskilaw.com jtaggad @ danowskilaw.com November 12, 2008 Southold Town Board 53095 Main Road, Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Re: Robert F. Bombara Property Dear Sir or Madam: I enclose administrative appeal papers with regard to an application on behalf of Robert G. Bombara, requesting a wetland permit and coastal erosion permit to construct a single family dwelling, detached garage, pool and associated water supply and sewage disposal system to be located at 1725 North Sea Drive, Southold, NY, Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000 - 54 - 4 - 19. My client was initially denied a permit without prejudice. Th;'requisite Notice of Appeal was duly filed and my client re-submitted three alternate plans for consideration by the Southold Town Board of Trustees. This latest application was verbally denied without findings on October 15, 2008. Thereafter, written documentation was received by mail on November 3, 2008. Enclosed is a standard one page form supplied by the Town of Southold with regard to the appeal. This letter supplements this form and should be made part of the appeal. I have asked that two complete copies of the entire record be provided as is noted in the enclosed letter. One copy should be delivered to the Town Clerk pursuant to Town regulations. I had previously made the san~e request on filing the initial administrative appeal from the first decision rendered by the Board of Trustees. Made part of the record are the entire files related to other applications filed along North Sea Drive. These files verify that the Board of Trustees has previously granted coastal zone management permits which allow for the construction of improvements on properties similarly situated to that of Bombara. In at least one instance a residential home and improvements were constructed after a total demolition of any existing structures. Comment will be made on some of these applications. The applicant herein has no objection to those previous applications having been granted and, in fact, supports the Southold Town Board Page 2 November 12, 2008 granting of those applications, which have resulted in the construction of larger and more beautiful homes, which are an asset to the community. Those filed applications and permits granted recognize that there has been no erosion to the beach front area and, in fact, proof has been submitted to the Board of Trustees on earlier applications and on the instant application to prove that the beach area has actually accreted, rather than eroded over a more than 40 year period. This factual determination is important as the avowed purpose of the coastal zone erosion statute is not to prevent the construction of homes and improvements, but rather to protect these improvements in areas where coastal erosion has scientifically been proven. The mere placement of a line on a map by the State of New York does not confirm the existence of erosion to this segment of beach front area. No less than four experts have submitted proof with regard to this issue and other environmental concerns. Their reports have been made a part of the record. Their "curriculum vitae" has also been provided. Supplied with this letter are highlighted responses from these individuals. This testimony should have come as no surprise to the Board of Trustees, in that similar proof has been supplied to the Trustees in the past, which proof has been made part of the record. I make specific reference to the verified affidavit of John Ehlers, licensed land surveyor and written comments contained in the "Betsch" file as submitted by Mr. Betsch's counsel, Tracy Karsch Palumbo, Esq. of the firm of Twomey, Latham, Shea & Kelley, LLP. I would also note that the alternate plans, including specifically alternate plan No. 3, downsized the building, moved the garage into the residential structure, placed the house on pilings, placed the residential home a distance of as much as 157 feet from the tidal wetland, the Long Island Sound. Placement of the house this distance is beyond the 100 foot distance referenced in tidal wetlands permits and coastal zone erosion management p~rmits issued to other home owners along this same stretch of roadway. I highlight some of the applications and decisions rendered in that regard and refer the Board to the enfire record of these applicants that have been made part of the record upon stipulation by the Town. As has been pointed out in the past, the Town's own regulations by definition limit the beach area to a 100 foot distance from a marked physiographic change. Since the applicant has moved all improvements beyond the 100 foot beach area with regard to each of the now total of four (4) alternate plans, a permit should have been either not required or granted. During thee pendency of the Bombara application, the adjacent neighbor to the West was granted a permit for an addition to his residential structure. The granting of this permit is fully supported by the Bombaras. See application of Steven Tenedios, which application was carried on the agenda on various dates when the Bombara Southold Town. Board Page 3 November 12, 2008 application was pending. There has been no opposition from Mr. Tenedios to the Bombara application. It should also be noted that the local waterfront revitalization program reports have almost unanimously rejected the recommendation of approval for wetland and shoreline applications. Despite these form recommendations, the Board of Trustees in the past has correctly voted approval of applications, despite these LWRP reports. In fact, it has been commented on, that few, if any, applications will ever qualify for recommendations of approval. As is stated in the Dm Associates, Inc. document made part of the record and included with this letter appeal/variance, the permit issuance standard set forth in 6NYCRR Part 505 and the Town Code provisions have been met. Reiterating what was stated at the conclusion of Dr. Abrams' report. The activity is reasonable and necessary considering reasonable alternatives to the proposed activity and the extent to which the proposed activity requires a shoreline location. The land owner has no other property in the Town to construct a waterfront home. The activity will not be likely to cause a measurable increase in erosion at the proposed site or other locations. The site does not contain a physiography that is subject to erosion since there is evidence of recent accretion of sand and the sand ridges demonstrate stability, and the neighbor's home site on similar ground does not show evidence for erosion impacts. The activity_p_~vents if possible or minimizes adverse affects on natural protective features and their functions and protect values as described in Section 505.3. The natural protective features of beach and sand ridges are stable and their protective functions will not be altered by the proposed development. The site does not support significant fish and wildlife, nor is it a host site for shoreline bird breeding; or any other threatened or endangered species. In conclusion, the issuance of a permit for development of the Bombara lot is compatible with both CEHA and Tidal Wetlands protection, since the resources protected by either of these programs will remain unaltered by the proposed home and accessory uses. Also, it is the applicant's position there should not have been the necessity of filing an application for a coastal erosion management permit, in that the project activity is all located beyond,100 feet from the Town defined "beach" area. However, inasmuch as a building permit would not issue, the Town's required application forms were submitted for issuance of a tidal wetlands permit and a coastal erosion management permit. The proof in support for the issuance of a permit had been provided to the Board of Trustees and this appeal asks that the Town Board determine that a permit should have issued. Southold Town Board Page 4 November 12, 2008 Alternatively, if the Board finds that there was jurisdiction to consider an application for a permit but that the Board of Trustees did not have the power to issue a permit then the applicant would request a variance or waiver from the Town Code provisions. Certainly, if strict application of Town Code requirements prevent the issuance of any permit, this determination by itself causes practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship and the Town Board is empowered to vary or modify any such restriction or requirement. Pursuant to New York State enabling legislation the following criteria are met: 1. No reasonable prudent alternative site is available. The applicant owns no other property in the Township. 2. All reasonable means and measures to mitigate adverse impacts on natural systems and the functions and protective values described in the State enabling legislation and the Town Code provisions have been incorporated into the project's design and will be implemented at the developer's expense. The developer, as indicated in alternative plans submitted that he will build the residential structure on adequately anchored pilings such that at least three feet of open space exists between the lowest horizontal structural members, e.g. floor joists, and the surface of the land. The space below the lowest horizontal structural members could be left open and free of obstruc~!ons. Additionally, the land owner has agreed to move all construction activity more than 100 feet from the mean high water mark of the Long Island Sound and agreed to re-vegetate or supplement any areas outside the construction activity envelope. 3. The development will be reasonably safe from flood and erosion damage. As evidenced at the~ public hearings with submission of documentary proof no long term erosion has occurred for over 40 years. In fact, there has been accretion at the site. There has been no damage noticed on any neighboring properties which have residential improvements thereon and in fact the Board of Trustees have granted relief and the Town Board has at least on one occasion granted necessary relief for the construction of a replacement home in a larger building envelope than previously existed. 4. The variance requested is the minimarn necessary to overcome the practical difficulty or hardship which was the basis for requesting it. The home has been moved as to location. It can be built on pilings with supplemental landscaping. The size of the home has been reduced. The garage has been incorporated into the residential building envelope. The swimming pool location has been moved and the swimming pool has been reduced in size. Southold Town Board Page 5 November 12, 2008 5. No public funds are being utilized. Very truly yours, PSD:gsg Encls. HAND DELIVERED cc: Robert Bombara PETER S. DANOWSKI, JR. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD PUBLIC HEARING Continuation of Robert & Margaret Bombara Coastal Erosion Appeal February3,2009 9:00 AM Present: Supervisor Scott Russell Justice Louisa Evans Councilman Thomas Wickham Councilman Albert Kmpski, Jr. Councilman William Ruland Councilman Vincent Orlando Assistant Town Attorney Kieran Corcoran Town Clerk Elizabeth Neville This hearing was opened at 9:04 AM SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Okay, at this opportunity we are going to reconvene on the heating of the Bombara appeal to the Southold Town Board. Would anybody like to address the Town Board? Mr. Danowski. PETER DANOWSKI: Just a bit of information, I did read the Suffolk Times article, some quotes of Board members and maybe a misunderstanding at least when I read the paper as to what the Board may feel and I know you have very adequate counsel here to explain the law to you but clearly I think, even though I might have disagreed with the Trustees position for when they made their due determinations on this matter, they felt they were without power to give the permit because this is a vacant lot. They did not say that had they had the power they wouldn't grant a permit. I think it was their opinion that the permit had to come from this Board, the Town Board. So there was not a prohibition on the Town Board granting the permit and the way the Town adopted their code which I presume was following suggestions by the state after their enabling legislation, they called the process an appeal and they said you have to appeal on a one page form that the Town will supply you with. Whether you call it an appeal, whether you call it an application for a variance or whether you call it an application for a waiver before you is the consideration of allowing for the construction of a home. The law permits you to grant that permit. And I think the reasonableness of what you say and what you condition the permit on is certainly something to be discussed by you and I just wantedto make that clear because in reading the article, it seemed to infer that this Board was without power, was prohibited and that the law said that you couldn't grant a permit. And that is just not true. I certainly know Mr. Krupski's experience from his former position that he certainly considered the Betsch application. I hate to keep bringing up one man's name because I watched that process and I have nothing but support for what happened there. I look at it because I look at the size of the home and what was granted, Bombara Coastal Erosion Appeal Public Hearing February 3, 2009 the nice job that was done, what was there before. I looked at the neighboring property owner, the adjacent property owner, where a recent variance or permit was granted by the Trustees and again, I look at the size of the building, what was granted and that person supports us. They are our adjacent property owner. We support him. So we have no problems with our neighbors. There was another application, I looked through the Rozicki file, again, I looked at the size of the home, the addition, I have nothing but support for the application. I just say when you go down that stretch of the road, you saw a process where permits were granted with some very beautiful homes have been redone and so I support that. And I say the same process happens here, because it is a vacant lot, you have to make the decision and then you put reasonable conditions on the application. So I just wanted to make that point clear and Mr. Bombara is here, Doug Adams fi.om Young and Young and we are looking for some reasonableness in regard to the application. And I would say that the building envelope is merely that, it is a square box. We haven't designed the house and it is put there to conform to zoning, it is a building envelope. You know, the size of the house may be smaller, it certainly Probably will be smaller and so I say that for the sake of the public record. Thank you. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Would anybody else like to come up and address the Town Board on this hearing? Mr. Booth? ED BOOTH: Ed Booth, Southold. I want to dispel the idea that actually all the neighbors are hot for this thing. Next door to your, the proposed building lot is certainly my friends and we are all against it. I was here, whenever it was, a week or two ago to tell you some of the reasons why I sort of hated to see it go, this last little bit of virgin territory. My brother and I and father and etc. etc., we used to hunt there when there was no houses. We made a big mistake in the Town, we didn't know what the score was. I was completely okay with the fact that people were building, it seemed an odd place to build but things change and now as I look at that last little bit of dunes along that strip there it seems a pity just to build on it and as I said last time, if the Bombara's can't build, then we can't build and it will stay open. And I hope you will see that that happens. Thank you. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Thank you. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Ed, how long has that been in the family? MR. BOOTH: Well, in 1945 Albert Latson, who was a summer person here, talked the rest of the families into, I think it was eight families got together and split the cost. It was pennies at the time and they used it for swimming mainly and parties. We probably go there three or four times a year and have a picnic. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Mmmhmm. Thanks. ANNE MURRAY: Hi, I am Anne Murray from East Marion and I just want to remind the Board about some of the facts in this case, which you know. The fact is this lot was unbuildable when Mr. Bombara purchased it and he should have known that, he has admitted that. That is the reason we are here today because he made a mistake in buying this property. Thought maybe with the real estate agent, the original owner of the Bombara Coastal Erosion Appeal Public Hearing February 3, 2009 property, they probably knew it was unbuildable, he got further taken. I have some sympathy for him but really this is unbuildable lot, you should not consider allowing him to build here. The Trustees turned it down because of the coastal erosion law, you should do the same. Thank you. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Mr. Wills? FRANK WILLS: Good morning, my name is Frank Wills, Mattituck. Over time, we get to know more and more. Back in the '40's or early, well, let's go back. '58 was the first time we put zoning in. Why? Because we realized what was going on up island, Levittown and so forth. The place was being covered with houses. So as we leam more, we apply certain restrictions which being human, we probably don't like. We like to do whatever we want but at least science teaches us that certain things should not be done and in this case, it is exactly an application. There is a law on the books, coastal erosion zone. Thou shalt not build on it. Now if you grant a variance, that is only one case but then the next people will come and say well, you let this one build, why not let us build? And there it spreads. You have got to draw the line someplace and this is the line. Thank you. DOUG HARDY: I am Doug Hardy, Southold. As you are well aware, the coastal erosion hazard law was passed in late 1991 and Mr. Bombara purchased it some years lhter. The law, the coastal hazard law is well written. The geological and environmental dynamics are well stated, the code for the issuance of a permit are clearly stated and the Trustees, the LWRP and I believe the DEC all found it wanting. The rumor is that there is a threat that the Board will be accused of a takings clause where the applicant is, could address the Board for payment that he will, there will be a loss of use of the property which is unfair and he shouldn't be compensated. Yet the applicant knew what the code was or should have known since he is a skillful lawyer. The, I am having a senior moment, I guess. The takings clause will make a paper tiger out of this law. It will then become an inside joke for further development, it sets a precedent. My chief concern in this is that disregarding the environmental aspects of this case, is there is a very serious threat to the safety of the community which the Board has somewhat shown an indifference particularly in the area of a rising sea level. This past month, the New York State Department of State has assembled a task force for a rising sea level and they held a series, during the month of January, throughout southeastern New York, including Long Island I think the last one of which was at Brookhaven National Lab this Thursday and the purpose of it was to inform and to get cooperation of local government and it assembled a staff and it would be give and take and they are supposed to submit a final report at the end of this year. I did happen to attend it because I was interested in the problem. Of the communities, Southold was absent. It showed no interest. Neither the Trustees nor the Planning Board nor the present Board here attended. But East Hampton, Brookhaven, Islip, the County of Suffolk had representatives there. Tthe problem here is by, in the 2020's the sea level will have risen a minimum of 7 inches. And if you contemplate what 7 inches will mean, that will mean a higher platform for which storm surges will be initiated and that the flooding then will, coastal flooding of which this applicant is in a flood plain, will become more and more serious and if you think that the Bombara Coastal Erosion Appeal Public Hearing February 3, 2009 Town of Southold will no longer have the resources, if you think what will happen to say causeways such as to Orient, to Nassau Point, if you think of Greenport Village which is frequently flooded just in present storms, this will be intensified and if you allow building in these coastal hazard zones, the problem of maintaining safety for the citizens will be insurmountable. Thank you. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Just to, we did have the discussion about, before that forum on sea level rise and I think the Board, we had as the Board and we had it with the Planning Staff, I think we assumed, I know that I assumed that someone would be there to represent the Town. MR. HARDY: There was no one there that I recognized. LILLIAN BALL: Lillian Ball, Southold Town. As many of you know since I have spoken with you on the phone, this is an issue that I feel is extremely important for the maritime freshwater inter-dunal swale that exists between Goldsmith inlet and Horton Point. The Bombara property is definitely an unbuildable lot, my research goes back to 1988, due to coastal erosion hazard zone law and in my conversations with people from the Department of State which incidentally includes this area and their significant habitats, I can show you the map, it is unbuildable and it has been unbuildable for sometime. Way before Mr. Bombara bought it or even the previous owner bought it. So while I sympathize with Mr. Bombara's situation and find it deplorable that he did not do his due diligence, I can't in all fairness say that he deserves to destroy the environment for that reason alone. The DEC points out in its letter about the situation that during the initial mapping phase, which occurred over 20 years ago and was concluded by public hearings, a decision Was made to place the CEHA line, that is the coastal erosion hazard zone line across the north edge of North Sea Drive instead of continuing further landward to a point 25 feet from the landward toe, which is really where it should have been. Which was north of North Sea, I mean south of North Sea Drive. So you know, it is a primary dune according to the DEC, according to the Trustees, according to the Department of State it is a primary dune which is protected under New York State law and I hope that the Town Board will work in whatever way it sees fit to make sure that it stays a primary dune and includes this very, very fragile habitat which as Larry Penny said when way back when Al, this question was in front of the Board of Trustees for the Mazzanobile property, Larry Penny came up from the Town of East Hampton, incidentally Larry Penny was at this sea level rise meeting the other day and that he said that in the interest of other property owners, Mr. Betsch and any of us on Kenney's beach that further building in an inter-dunal swale actually weakens the structure of the land and in the case of East Hampton building on the shoreline of the inter-dunal swale area resulted in three houses going into the water. So that is a very possible situation in this circumstance and is just one other reason why we need to consider this extremely carefully and be very, very careful in making a decision. I would like reach out to Mr. Bombara and his counsel to discuss ways that we could negotiate further any kind of compromise that could be reached, it certainly would be reasonable. I know the community would make an effort to raise money to try to contribute to his losses, should he decide not to build. I think that there are many other options we could explore before Bombara Coastal Erosion Appeal Public Hearing February 3, 2009 deciding to allow building of even a small house in that area. I agree with previous comments that two fights don't make a wrong. Just because there are other houses there, doesn't mean it is good to work from that premise and build more. We have seen in the past, since I have owned property in the Kenney's beach area, there have been four coastal erosion decisions. Two were on houses that previously existed and in my point of view, I think those houses have a fight to be renovated or improved etc. One of them, the most recent one is directly in my line of vision, I might say and I hate it with a passion but I did not appear before you to ask for any mitigation because I believe it is within the property owner's rights to do that. However, in the case of virgin dunes, in the case of primary beach, I do not think it is within an owner's property rights to destroy the virgin beach. And I also, through my conversations with members of the DOS, I think the state would support us in this fact and you know, stand behind the laws that they created long ago to prevent this kind of development fi.om happening further on beaches which have already been compromised to their ultimate point. Thank you. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Thank you. I just want to clarify one thing that was said about not having representation. First of all, I know that we don't ring the same alarm bells that you do but we do have a concern here with sea level rising and I would suggest that we actually had a representative at the meeting in the fact that you went and you are a member of the Conservation Advisory Council of Southold Town. Lillian Ball attended, who is a member of the Land Preservation Commission. Good productive members of those committees who bring information back for us to digest. So I can see at least two representatives fi.om Southold Town that attended that meeting. Would anybody else like to address the Town Board on this particular issue? MR. DANOWSKI: Just in closing remarks. Certainly not here to debate members of the public, never does me any good to do that. I don't consider the lot not buildable. Never was not buildable and I would rely on our experts reports, including Dr. Mark Bums who did an in depth study and as I mentioned before, was actually part of a process the Town of Southold was involved with a number of years ago. There is no erosion here. I do know the speaker did mention, the last speaker, about 20 years ago the State did a map. As you may know, the Town is required to update that map every 10 years. I would raise an inquiry as to what the map's date is today and whether they did in fact, remap the area as they are required to do. But it is not a non-buildable lot. If the situation were other than the facts as elicited from Mr. Bombara, he would still have a fight to make this application. As was explained by Ron Abrams in his report, this law was passed to protect the homeowner, unlike such a statute such as freshwater wetlands where you are seeking to protect the wetland. This was to protect the homeowner, as to where he should locate his house. That as a property fight, he had a fight to locate the house, it is a question of where and reasonable conditions that could be set forth on it. So it is not a non-buitdable parcel. Thank you very much. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Thank you. Would anybody else like to address the Town Board on this particular issue? Any questions from the Town Board? COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: I am sure we all do. Why don't we just go fight down the row, so we can just ask some questions. Do you have some questions? Bombara Coastal Erosion Appeal Public Hearing 6 February 3, 2009 COUNCILMAN RULAND: Not at this time, no. COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Then I will shoot. Couple of quick questions. Mr. Danowski, I am sure you said this last week but when did you close on this particular property? Or when did Mr. Bombara close on it? MR. BOMBARA: Closed exactly Labor Day Friday 2006. COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: 2006. Mr. Danowski, were you the closing attorney? MR. DANOWSKI: No, I was not. COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: And was there a single and separate search done on this property? MR. DANOWSKI: I think there was no question that this was a single and separate lot and no one has raised that issue, nor is there a question but certainly I don't believe there was a single and separate. COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Search has not been done. 'MR. DANOWSKI: But a tire company certainly represented the interest of Mr. Bombara and there is no issue with regard to the legitimacy of the lot. I would be more than happy to prove that to you in any way you want. COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: The other question, you have said, just want to confirm that, you are saying you gave us several options of designs and all those options conform to zoning codes? You don't need a... MR. DANOWSKI: That is correct. Young and Young was asked at the beginning of this process, even before my involvement, to plot a building envelope that met zoning. And they did that. And the first of the plans was more seaward than the subsequent three alternate plans. To which we have said with any one of the plans, we would follow the conditions that basically have been suggested. For instance, building on pilings, locating as far to the road as possible, still being able to put septic systems in to meet Health Department regulations. So the alternates were there to give different varying choices and I also recognize the original decision from the Trustees described this as a beach area and by beach definition, your code provides a distance of 100 feet from a change of physiographic form. So we made sure we kept in all the applications, all the designs were outside that 100 foot distance and the beach is what was quoted in the original decision. COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Okay. And my last question. Did you go through the Heritage program or contact the Heritage program of New York State yet? Bombara Coastal Erosion Appeal Public Hearing February 3, 2009 MR. DANOWSKI: We actually had Dr. Ron Abrams do his report which searched the idea of flora and fauna in addition to coastal erosion and certainly found no evidence there was any endangered species or anything necessary for protection. And it is sort of interesting the adjacent parcel gets permitted and certainly the areas are all the same. COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: So you did your own study? You didn't go through the Heritage? Because the Heritage usually gives you an idea in certain areas of what potential endangered species there are in that area. MR. DANOWSKI: If you would read and I would make additional copies if they are not available, Dr. Abrams report, he is certainly a skilled person in the field. He certainly has the credentials. He used to work for New York State. So his report has provided that information. COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Thank you. MS. BALL: I believe his report was purchased? Was his report freely given? We have a report from Cn'eg Edinger who works for the Natural Heritage Department upstate in Albany that was freely given. A letter that says that this whole area not being a specifical, you know a specific flora and fauna endangered but the whole area is globally rare. The whole area of the mar/time freshwater and interdunal swale which has already been compromised passed its ability to function as it originally did. And that particular area, especially with the adjacent parcel that is owned by Mr. Booth and the Baiz families and a variety of different families, that adjacent parcel makes it a substantial acreage. Ed? How much acreage do you .... MR. BOOTH: I don't know acreage but it is 300 feet along... MS. BALL: Yeah. So together it is at least two acres and that substantial area is part of the interdunal swale, it is part of the primary dune. And we have letters from Greg Edinger from the Natural Heritage Department supporting that fact. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Is that submitted? MS. BALL: I can copy this and submit it. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: For our review. MS. BALL: It is submitted for Mazzanobile, it is submitted for a lot of different areas. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Is that in the Trustee record? SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Is that in the Trustee records? MS. BALL: It is in the Mazzanobile Trustee record. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: No, is it in the Bombara Trustee record? Bombara Coastal Erosion Appeal Public Hearing 8 February 3, 2009 MS. BALL: No, it isn't. But I will be happy to submit it. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Well, we will see if can .... MS. BALL: And I will be happy to submit it and I am sure he will be happy to write another letter more specifically targeting this particular area. So while there may not be endangered species there, the entire, you know, geo-hydroponic, hydro situation as many of you may know, I am not at my best at this hour of the morning but I am trying. The whole hydrological situation there with the, it may look like dunes but in fact, there is very, very low water table and it really is part of the wetlands that are stretching back across the other side of North Sea Drive. So it is a globally rare circumstance. The only one on the north fork. We have two in Fire Island and we have two in East Hampton. But there are no other inter-dunal swales on the north fork of Long Island and it is in the coastal significant habitat map zone that is delineated by the Department of State and both those pieces of paper will be in the Bombara file this afternoon. COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: So Lillian, the Heritage report didn't specify specific animals or vegetation? MS. BALL: Well, in the case of the Mazzanobile property, yes. There were .... COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Specific... MS. BALL: There were cranberries yeah, and there was the Irish Frismonica (sp?) and... COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: So they identified specific .... MS. BALL: They identified specific species for that particular lot but he also identified that whole area as being very important and globally rare. But that is the geological, you know, the manifestation of the dunes. And the inter-dunal swale. So, I will be happy to provide that. COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Thank you. No other questions. Albert? COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Yeah, I think the Board has a lot to consider here. I helped to administer the coastal erosion hazard area since 1991 as a Town Trustee and it was always sort of a difficult law to administer because there are so many variables on Long Island Sound and it wraps around to Peconic Bay somewhat up to the Breakwater in Greenport and every different reach and every different region there is different so I think what this Board has to focus on, it is not so much about Mr. Bombara, there might be some sort of, I don't know, some kind of legal procedure or legal implications based on his actions and the law at the time but really this is more about interpreting the intent of the coastal erosion hazard area. It is about interpreting the variance procedure that is part of the law and how the Town has to administer the variance procedure and finally, those things will lead us to the natural resources of the Town including the natural protective Bombara Coastal Erosion Appeal Public Hearing 9 February 3, 2009 features, the beach and the dune that the Town has a responsibility to protect through the coastal erosion hazard law. So I think we have, I wouldn't advise the Town Board to make a decision on this today, I think we should really consider those things first. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: I would just add that when this law was put in place in the early 90's the Town had a choice of administering it or leaving it to the DEC to administer. That was a choice that was given to the Town. And the Town ultimately decided we would administer it, rather than leave it to the DEC. We thought maybe we could do a better job than the DEC. when we made that decision and I guess that goes back almost, well, a long time in the early 90's, we knew that this could be difficult and that it would be, it would present the Town with difficult decisions and with issues on both sides and somewhat difficult to weigh and I think that if the Town has undertaken to administer it, we need to follow carefully the guidelines that are laid out in the law and do the best we can to make an appropriate judgment weighing the balance on all sides. That is all I really have to say. ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: I will say something very brief and don't take this as any opinion I have on what you should do because you really need to do what Tom and A1 just said, is really consider the variance criteria. What, I will tell you what you may not do, though. There has been some talk today about this lot is unbuildable period, it is unbuildable from the Trustees point of view. That is my opinion. The Trustees were not permitted to grant a permit. Okay? It is a vacant lot, they were not allowed to permit under this law construction from scratch which is why it comes to you, you are the variance board, okay? You are not compelled to but you are permitted to grant a variance if the applicant meets these criteria in section 111-20, it means you have to considei' them very carefully. In my view, B, C and D are the most important from your point of view. And B, to reiterate, is that all responsible means and measures to mitigate adverse impacts on natural systems and their functions have been incorporated into the activities design at the property owner's expense. C, the development will be reasonably safe from flood and erosion damage and D, any variance granted or the variance requested is the minimum necessary to overcome the practical difficulty or hardship which is the basis for the requested variance and so you really need to spend some time thinking about what is the hardship, if any, that is inflicted upon this applicant. It goes to a lot of things that have been presented to you and then, if you determine that there is unnecessary hardship inflicted on this applicant, do they meet those specific criteria? But what you should not do is say, you know, the Trustees were right, we are going to agree with them. Because that is not what this is, this is both an appeal and a variance. I think the Trustees got it right but you are the next step. So it is a somewhat of a fact intensive inquiry. That is all I would say. MS. BALL: May I ask a question, Kieran? ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: Yes. MS. BALL: What is the state law? Bombara Coastal Erosion Appeal Public Hearing 10 February 3, 2009 ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: This is, this is the law that was given to us by the state. MS. BALL: The state law is that it is unbuildable unless the variance is granted? ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: The law is our local law which was given to us by the state. MS. BALL: Mmmhmm. ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: Okay? So it is our law. It was handed to the Town of Southold by New York State. And that is, that the lower body cannot grant a permit in a primary dune area for new construction. Okay? And a permit is not allowed unleSs and until a variance is granted. And the variance board, which is this Board, is instructed to consider the following criteria, some of which I just mentioned. MS. BALL: Mmmhmm. Meaning the buck stops here. ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: This is the Board that makes the decision. MS. BALL: The line is drawn in the sand... ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: This Board is a discretionary Board on this matter. It is not black and white this is an unbuildable lot. My point of view that was the only decision the Trustees could have made. I think Mr. Danowski might disagree with that. My point of view, they did the right thing. But this Board has to make a discretionary finding. MS. BALL: Right. And also the local waterfront revitalization program also said found it inconsistent, so there are those two things that have been already presented to the Board and already presented in this case where they both came down on the side of not building, correct? ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: Well, this Board will have to consider the recommendation of the LWRP coordinator. This Board will have to make its own, as a reviewing Board, its own LWRP determination. MS. BALL: Mmmhmm. Working with Mhrk Terry? ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: Considering his recommendations. If they were to disagree with those recommendations, they would have to say why. MS. BALL: Mmmhmm. Bombara Coastal Erosion Appeal Public Hearing 11 February 3, 2009 ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: Okay? And what they have done to mitigate and divergence from his recommendations. 'What you have to understand though, is sometimes, I am sure that this recommendation has several basis' for r~lief, sometimes one of the basis' is that a permit is not, that this is not allowed. Okay? Under the coastal erosion hazard law. So we get into the conflict and we have this with a lot of Trustee's opinions where LWRP coordinator says that this is not allowed because it doesn't have a Trustees permit, okay? Well, we are in the position where this is not allowed because it doesn't have a variance from the coastal erosion hazard Board of Review, which is this Board. MS. BALL: May I ask another question about the legality of Mark Terry's position? If there was a natural resources division, which I am sorry to hear that there isn't yet since I already thought that it was already a done deal that there was going to be a division if not a department; if there was a department, would his opinion have more weight? ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: No. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: No. I have to say with candor that the intent of that is to be advisory and helpful to all the Boards of discretionary decision making in town government. It is not meant to be this free standing authority that gets to decide these issues, at the end of the day, it is still Trustees, it is still Town Board members, Zoning Board of Appeals members, Planning Board members were given that authority. It is meant to be a resource, not a final bar to decision making. MS. BALL: But you are planning on working on the division designation? SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Yeah, absolutely. It is on the agenda for today. Would anybody else like to address the Town Board? ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: I don't, by any means, I don't want the Board to think that it is compelled to grant the variance because you are not. You know, if you find, you just need to determine whether you find the applicants met these criteria and have some solid basis for the decision on each of them. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Move we close the hearing? COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: With the inclusion of the report that Lillian mentioned. We would like to include that report. This hearing was closed at 9:39 AM Southold Town Clerk 2009 February 19, 2009 Elizabeth A. Neville, Town Clerk Southold Town Hall 53095 Route 25 POB 1179 Southold, New York 11971 "7-,,5 ltl9 Dear Ms. Neville: Please distribute the enclosed letter to members of the Town Board and to Town Counsel. Thank you, Emory Breiner 6 Community Drive POB 999 Shelter Island NY 11964-0999 631 749 0910 February 19, 2009 Southold Town Board Southold Town Hall 53095 Route 25 POB 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re: Bombara Appeal - Coastal Erosion Hazard Zone Dear Members: The front page article in the Suffolk Times Jan 29, 2009 by Brian Harmon caught my attention which has facilitated my response to the situation as described. I do not know the applicant, Mr. Bombara, Esq. The argument against this application appears to be "Mr. Bombara should have known better." He is criticized for his failure to properly investigate if he could build on this property before paying 1.1 million dollars for it. Suppose the previous owner, who may have owned the property for ten (10) or twenty (20) years was the applicant. This person owned the property before the codified coastal erosion hazard zone was created. In that case, the arguments used against Mr. Bombara would not stand. You could not reprimand that owner since this ex post facto regulation came into effect after his purchase. Moreover, the bundle of property rights a purchaser obtains by deed, does not change according to whoever owns the property. As with FEMA regulations, you can regulate construction methods to protect against storms, but denying any real use resembles confiscation by regulation. If this parcel was so important, perhaps the Town should have considered purchasing it with Community Preservation Funds. Should you choose to deny this application, the Town could find itself unsuccessful should an equal protection challenge arise, given that houses are constructed on either side of this property. Clearly, this application calls for careful attention. 6 Community Drive POB 999 Shelter Island NY 11964-0999 631 749 0910 Page 1 of 2 Neville, Elizabeth From: g.greenheron@verizon.net Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 9:22 PM To: Russell, Scott Cc: bdeluca@eastendenvironment.org; bharmon@timesreview.com; dmildner@dos.state.ny.us; Neville, Elizabeth; Fred.Anders@dos.state.ny.us; NFEC@optonline.net; pascully@gw.dec.state.ny.us Subject: Bombara CEHA appeal February2,2009 Southold Town Board Southold Town Hall Southold, New York Re: Bombara Appeal of Trustees' denial, Coastal Erosion Hazard Area Permit Dear Supervisor Russell and members of the Town Board: I understand that the Town Board hears Mr. Bombara's appeal tomorrow, Tuesday. I would like to place a few comments on the record while encouraging the board to deny the appeal. I read in the local newspaper that you, Supervisor Russell, noted that Mr. Bombara "knows there's a process you follow when you're buying land...An attorney practicing in the State of New York ought to know better." I agree completely. I agree with Councilman Wickham's reported statements, also, especially "To approve a new home...would essentially say we are trashing the original (NYS Coastal Erosion Hazard Area) law." I commend the Town Trustees for rejecting Mr. Bombara's Wetland and CEHA applications. My comments for the denial of this appeal are as follows: 1 .New York State's Coastal Erosion Hazard Area policy has been in effect for over twenty years. Any vacant lots in the zone should have been considered unbuildable, or at least extremely restricted. A real estate agent not informing the potential buyer of these potential restrictions must be considered delinquent, and a buyer not informing himself of these well-established regulations, remiss. To pay full market value for this property at the height of an inflated market indicates ignorance, arrogance, or both. The Town Board would be ill-advised to sympathize with Mr. Bombara's self-created hardship. To do so would trade the town's resources, and our credibility as an enlightened citizenry, for Mr. Bombara's (or his wife's) mis-guided, reckless dream. 2.The Bombara property lies in a New York State Department of State Significant Habitat, Goldsmiths Inlet and Beach, designated in October, 2005. Every town, state, and federal agency is constrained in its actions, in this area, by New York State Consistency Review and Coastal Policy 7 of the New York State Department of State's Coastal Management Program: 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.) 2/3/2009 Page 2 of 2 3.Mr. Bombara and his counsel have made only two "arguments" in his defense: a.) He says he looked to the left, he looked to the right. He saw a house next door, and several hundred feet away, other houses. He didn't see the virgin primary dune on his property, or for several hundred feet, adjacent, to the east? He did not see the dunes, swales, and interdunal areas across the road, undeveloped? Are we to believe that Mr. Bombara, an attorney, accepted this "evidence" as overwhelmingly in his favor? b) His second argument is that he went to the building department, and accepted the word, over the counter from a nameless clerk, that it was all right to build. Mr. Bombara is either shameless, or desperate, to think anyone would either believe or give credence to this "assurance." I, for one, knowing the professionalism and caution practiced at the Building Department, do not believe it. If it happened as Mr. Bombara described it, how wise was it to pay over a million dollars for a vacant lot based on this unofficial information? This property is one of the most severely constrained properties in town. It is a virgin primary dune. It is within New York State's Coastal Erosion Hazard Area, and requires an approval. It requires a wetland permit from the trustees. It requires a DEC permit. It requires consistency review as a NYDOS Significant Habitat. The proposed house has been found inconsistent with the town's LWRP, and is front and center in one of the town's most important LWRP "Reaches." The Town Board must see its way to deny this appeal, and preserve this virgin ecosystem and coastal feature for the public good and safety. Otherwise, what property in town will ever deserve this level of protection? If the Town Board wanted to offer some consolation to Mr. Bombara, and further the town's policy of acquiring open space, it could offer him the market value of the property in 1988, which was the year, I believe, the CEHA was established. This would be fair to the citizens of Southold, and more than generous to Mr. Bombara, whose lack of due diligence merits no special consideration whatsoever. Another way for Mr. Bombara to re-coup his poor investment would be to sell the development rights to the town at a discount, and claim the balance of his purchase price as a charitable donation. Whatever the case may be, I urge the Town Board to deny the appeal, with as little hair-splitting and heart-rending as humanly possible. This decision should be as straight-forward as they come. Respectfully, Thomas Rozakis c. Board of Directors, North Fork Environmental Council Bob Deluca, Group for the East End Peter Scully, Region One Director, NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation Dennis Mildner, NYS DOS, LWRP Fred Anders, NYDOS, Consistency Review Brian Harmon, Executive Editor, Suffolk Times 2/3/2009 New York Natural Heritage Program A Partnership between The Nature Conservancy and the NYS Deportment of Environmental Conservalion 625 Broadway, 5a Floor Albany, NY 12233-4757 (518) 402-8947 Fax (518) 402-8925 www.nynhp.org NY Natural Heritage Program Review Of Natural Communities Reported at Great Pood Wetlands & Dunes Prepered by Greg Edinger, Program Ecologist, NY Natural Heritage Program October 8, 2004 The NY Natural Heritage Program wes c~atected by the Kenney Bench Civic Association end esked to review the Preliminary Environmental Assessment of the "Great Pond Wetlends & Dunes," Southold Township, Suffolk County, New York (Lamont 2004). In order to accurately clessify end rank the quality of the natural communities at this site, ideally the following data m,e needed: · vegetation cover data at known location points, · en aeomtte 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., enthropogenic disturbances, presence of invasive exotic species, etc.), · end information on the size end condition of the surrounding lendscape. The Lament (2004) report presents sufficient information to confirm the presence two natural communities dsseribed NY Natural Heritage in Ecological Communities ofNYS (Edinger et al. 2002) at the site. These two communities are maritime dunes end maritime freshwater interthmal swales. Although a first ~ of the nattffal comm,mities wes included with the report (Lament 2004), en acenmte map showing the full boumiaries of each community i~ needed. A review of in-home digital orthoimagery end reports of the site (Lament 2004, per& comnt Michael Corey, DOS) suggests that beth communities extend beyond the boundary of the "Great Pond Wetlends & Dunes" site. The maritime dunes appear to extend about 1.5 miles from Great Pond southwest to Goldsmith Inlet. Additional patches of maritime freshwater interdonal swales appear to occur within this area of dunes, but perhaps not as large and numerous es observed on the "Great Pond Wetlends & Dunes" site. Using aerial photo interpretation end 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 Wetlends & Dunes" site. There are about 22 acres of maritime freshwater interdunal swales adjacent 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 end reports (Lament 2004, pers. comm. Michael Corey, DOS) suggest that both of these COmmUltlly occurrences are good quality. However, there are repons of reed grass (Phragmites australis) end purple loosesWife (Lythrum salicaria) at this site (La~ont 2004), end there appear to be sand roads end driveways through sections of maritime dune. The lendsenpe surrounding the maritime dunes is in relatively good condition, except fur the portion within the "Great Pond Wetlands & Dunes" site where the dunes me 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 appenr to be more intact to the northwest of Great Pond where the dunes and swales have greater connectivity with Long Islend Sound. Conclusions The maritime dunes end maritime freshwater interdunal swales at the "Great Pond Wotlends & Dunes" site are part of larger occurrences of these communities that extend southwest to Goldsmith Inlet. The occunenea of maritime dunes from Great Pond to Goldsmith Inlet are t~tatively ranked "B' using NY Natund Heritage Rang Specifications (Appendix A) for size, condition, end landscape context. A B-rank indicates a good quality occurrance 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 signifieant natural community occurrence from a statewide perspective. The occurrence of maritime freshwater tnterdunal 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 wilh Eric Lamont's (2004) statement that dune-swale complexes are extremely rare on the north shore of Long Island. Recommendations Review of tho readily available information suggests that the~e are two natural comm~mity occurrences of statewide significance at tiffs 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 natttral comm~mity OCcllrrenc~s is recommended from Great Pond to Goldsmilh Inlet in order to accurately map and confirm tentative occurrence ranks. · Further survey is needed to conf~m the report (Lament 2004) of maritime pitch pine dune woodland at fliis site. · Element Occurrence Records for all sj~ifieant natural community occum~ces should be entered into the NY Natural Heritage database. · Protection efforts should focus on the viability of ~he 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 Ishnd Sound would also be beneficial. Protection and proper management of the maritime dunes that serve ~s 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 oflbe oecurrenee, and threaten ils long term viability. Note: It is important to reiterate that this assessment, and tentative community occunence ranking, is based on the full extent of the two n~tural communities at this site f~om Oreat Pond to Gold~mith Inlet, arid t~ot limited to th~ "Great Pond Wetlands & Dunes'* site depicted in the report (Lamont 2004). Edinger, O.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 zxp~nded edition of Ca~ol Reschke's Ecological Communities of New York Sta~e. (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 "Gr~at Pond Wetlands & Dunes,' Southold Township, Suffolk County, New York. Botanical report prepared for Kenny Beach Civic Association, Prepared by Eric Lament, Ph.D., Botanical Consultant, Riverhead, NY. Botanical Re ort Preliminary Environmental Assessment of the "Great Pond Wetlands & Dunes", Southold Township, Suffolk County, New York PREPARED FOR: PREPARED BY: KENNY BEACH CIVIC ASSOCL~TION ' SOUTIIOLD TOWNSWIP SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK 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 S~ate-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 ffone community is altered or d/sturbed, the other community will be negatively impacted. 3. The Iow, gently undulating dunes north of Lake Drive are classic examples ora "maritime dune" community, listed as rare by New York Natural Heritage Program CNYlqHP). 4. In low areas of the mar/time 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 native cranberries and camivorous plants called sundews. 5. The extensive "maritime freshwater interdunal 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 (Irisprismatica). 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 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-site preliminary environmental assessment (on 8 August 2004) of an approximately lO-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 community types are listed as rare in New York by the New York Natural Heritage Prognan (NYNI~), 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 oftbe previous paragraph must be emphasized. First, NYNHP is the New York State government agency responsSble for documenting and tracking rare plants, animals, and ecological communities across New York. The Heritage staff is comprised of higlxly trained 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. Th/s 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 (nun-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 occurring at the Great Pond wetlands and dunes comprise a unique aspect of the natural history of Southold 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 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 between GoldsmithYs 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 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 ecologieal communities. Another noteworthy feature of this 10-acre site is its connect/on to Great Pond and the interdnnal wetland system at nearby Peconic Dunes County Park. This connection is most evident at low-ly/ng 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 Iow areas interspersed throughout the dunes are small "cranberry bogs" that support a diversSty 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 cormected together and if one community is altered or disturbed, the other community will be negatively impacted. Maritime Dunes. This ecological community 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 raze 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 l/mit (per/phery) on Long Island and Cape Cod, Massachusetts, and they are quite rare along the north shore of Long Island. The "S3" Heritage turk indicates that maritime dunes are considered rare in New York with only "limited acreage". The Iow, undulating dunes north of Lake Drive are classic examples of the maritime dune community found at Napeague Dunes in East Hampton Townsh/p 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 dunes include beachgrass (Arnmophila breviligulata), beach heather (Hudsonia tomentosa), seaside goldenrod (Solidago sernpervirer~), seaside spurge (Euphorbia polygonifolia), beach plum (Prttrn~* maritima), bayberry ( Myrica pemylvanica), jointweed (Polygonella articulata), sedge ( Cyperus grayii), Panic grass (Panicum amarurn), and hairgrass (Descharnpsiaflexuo.~a). Tucked away among the dunes are small pockets stunted pitch pines (?inus rigida), post oaks (Quercu~ stellata), and black oaks (Quercus velutina), with a shrub layer dominated by black hucklel~ny (Gaylm'sacia baccata) and highbush blueberry (Vacciniurn corg*nbosum). The pitch pines exh~it 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 commun/ty ranked "G2G3 Sl" by lqYNHP. 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 mar/time dune community where the land surface intersects the water table, small "c~anbeny bogs" occur as small, green islands among the white sand. These circular islands offer suitable habitat for cranberries (Vaccinium rnacrocarpon) and carnivorous plants called sundews (Drosera intermedia). 4 l~laritime Freshwater Interdunal Swales. This ecological community is listed "G3G4, S2" by NYNI-IP, which makes it more rare than the max/time dune commun/ty. The "G3" rank indicates that maritime freshwater intexdunal 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 ofrahty in New York State ("SI" = extreme rarity, = 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 int~dunal 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, circular "cranberry bogs" 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 (Irisprisrnatica), ranked G4G5 S2 by NYNHP (Young & Weldy, 2004). Characteristic species include twig-rush (Cladium mariscoides), beakrush (Rhynchospora capitellata), marsh rush (guncus canadem'is), woolgrass (Scirpus cyperin~,.), chairmaker's rush ($cirpu~'pungens), tussock sedge (Care~x stricta), cranberry ( Vaccinium macrocarpon), spatulate-leaved sundew (Drosera intermedia), lance-leaved violet (Viola lanceolata), cross-leaved milkwort (?olygala cruciata), meadow beauty (Rhexia virginica), mamh mallow (Hibiscus rnoscheutos), marsh fern (Thelypterispalus'tris), royal fern (Osmunda regalis var. ,spectabilis), marsh St. John's wort (Triadenum virginicurn), and swamp ' candies (Lys#nachia terrestris). Shrubs and trees bordering the wetlands include red maple (~icer rubrum), tupelo (Nyssa sylvatica), red chokeberry (Aronia arbutifolia), buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentally), and h/ghbush blueberry (Vacciniurn corybosurn). Unfortunately, phragrnites reed (Phragmites am'trails) has invaded the wetlands, as well as scattered individuals of purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria). Conclusion The maritime dunes and freshwater interdunal swales located north of Lake Drive in the Town of Southold are ram 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 ixeserve 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. DEPARTMENT OF STATE Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats Purpose of the Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats Program Many habitats vital to the survival of New York's coastal fish and wildlife resources exist along our state's 3,200 nfiles of shore. However, as development press,ures motmt, these habitats are being degraded or lost. In response to public concern about accelerating habitat destmction~ policy f'6r protecting our most important coastal habitats is found in the New York State Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act of 1981. The New York State Department of State administers this law and is committed to protection of significant habitats to preserve the recreational, commercial and ecological benefits derived from our coastal fish and wildlife resources. Criteria Used to Identify Significant Coastal Habitats A habitat is significant if it serves one or more of the following functions: (a) is essential to the survival of a large portion of a particular fish or wildlife population; (b) supports populations of species which am endangered, threatened or of special concern; (c) supports populations having significant commemial, recreational, or educational value; and (d) exemplifies a habitat type which is not commonly found in the state or in a coastal region. Also, the significance of certain habitats increases to the extent they could not be replaced if destroyed. Identification of Significant Habitats Using the criteria listed above, biologists in the Department of Environmental Conservation developed a quantitative system for evaluating each candidate habitat. This tool lessens subjectivityin the evaluation process. Habitats which receive a score above a specific threshold value are recommended by the Department of Environmental Conservation for designation by the Secretary of State as significant coastal fish and wildlife habitats. Each habitat is mapped and described in a habitat narrative. Local Participation Public review of recoinmended sites begins when the Department of State distributes information packets for each habitat to local officials and concerned citizens at regional infom~ation meetings. Packets include a map of the proposed habitat boundary and a descriptive habitat narrative, the conmaunity of fish and wildlife that use the habitat, and the kinds of activities that could destroy the habitat. We receive valuable local information during the public review process; this infom~ation is used to verify and add specificity to the information compiled for each habitat. Formal Public Review and Designation The Secretary of State sends copies of reviewed habitat narratives and maps to appropriate municipal clerk offices, and posts legal notification announcing the schedule of public hearings. Hearings are held to receive final comment on whether these habitat areas merit designation. After reviewing the hearing record, the Secretary of State decides, in consultation with the Department of Environmental Conservation, whether to designate candidate habitats. Once designated, the significant habitats are drawn on the Coastal Area Map and filed with respective county and municipal clerk offices. Protection'of Designated Habitats The federal Coastal Zone Management Act and the State Waterfront Revitalization afld Coastal Resources Act authorize the Department of State, as the Coastal Management Agency, to concur with or object to federal and State actions affecting the coast. The Department uses the information provided for each designated habitat in this consistency review process and will disapprove proposed actions that would significantly alter or destroy a designated habitat. Communities that prepare Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs as part of the State Coastal Management Program, help to protect designated significant habitats and are encouraged to use local land use controls for habitat protection. Finally, State agencies regulating activities that require an environmental impact statement ensure that significant habitats will be protected from harm from such activities. Development and Significant Coastal Habitats Although the fundamental purpose of the Significant Coastal Habitats Program is to preserve the viability of designated'habitats, there is no prior assumption that development will harm a habitat and should therefore be prohibited. Proposed development actions are reviewed on a case by case basis with respect to the critical parameters of each potentially affected habitat. If an action will not significantly harm the habitat then it may be approvable. When habitat impairment seems likely, Department of State staff recommend measures that mitigate likely impacts. Only those actions with unavoidable, adverse'habitat impacts are not approved. Benefits of the Significant Coastal Habitats Program One of the principal benefits of the Significant Coastal Habitats Program is knowing the location of these habitats. Applicants can refer to the Coastal Area Map to determine whether their proposed action is located in or near a significant habitat. Costly delays created when habitats are discovered later in the project development process can be avoided. The habitats map and narrative serve regulators by providing site specific information useful for impact assessment. The Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats Program al~.o serves the public good by enabling us to use and develop our coastal land and water resources without destroying our most vulnerable and valuable habitats. For More Information Contact: New York State Department of State Division of Coastal Resources 4 t State Street, Albany, New York 12231-0001 USA Telephone: 518474-6000; TeleFax: 518473-2464 Intemet: http://www.nyswater fronts.com/waterfront_natural_narratives-asp STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT Of STATE 4 I STATE STREET ALBANY, NY 1223 1-000 J GEORGe E. PATAKI November 4, 2004 RANDY A, DANIELS 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 Kenney'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 proposed designation. Michael Corey Coastal Resources Specialist Division of Coastal Resources ~2/24/2~06 ~9:12 5184732464 COASTAL REU-,UU~U~ ~ ~zz~ COASTAL FISH & WILDLIFE HABITAT ASSESSMElXYI' FORM Name of Azea: County: Town(s): 7W Quadrangle(s): Desi,~nated: Goldsmith Inlet and Beach Suffolk Southold Southold,NY October 15, 2005 Assessment Criteria Ecosyslem Rarity (ER)-the uniqueness of the plant and animal community in the area and the physical, structural, and chemical features supporting this community. ER assessment: Maritime dune and maritime freshwater int~dunal swale communities, rare in New York State. Species VulnerabRity (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 survival (E = Endangered, T = Threatened, SC = Special concern) SV assessment: Piping plover 0~, T-fed), least tern (T), and osprey (SC) nesting. Additive Division: 36 + 25~2 + 16/4 = 52.5 Human Use (HU)-- the conduct of significant, 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 thc area. ]Population Level (PL)-the concentration of a species in the area during its normal, recurring period o f occurrence, regardless of the length of that period of occurrence. PL assessment: 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 1.2 Habitat Index = [ER + SV + HU + PL] -- 116.5 Significance = HI x R = 139.8 Page I of 6 · 02/24/208G 09:12 51847324G4 COASTAL ~ESOURCES PAGE 83/88 NEW YORK STATE SIGNIFICANT COASTAL FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT NARtL~TIVE Goldsmith Inlet and Beach LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF HABITAT: Goldsmith Inlet and Beach is located on the north shore of Long Island, between Mafliluck Inlet to the west and Hortun Neck to the east, in the Town of Southold, Suffolk- County (7.5' QuadranOe: 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 wesL 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 Horton Lane Beach; Goldsmith Inlet and Pond and its contiguous tidal wetlands, which lie at the western end of the habitat; and a mosaic of maritime dunes, maritime freshwater interdunal swales, wetiands, andwoodeduplands extending from Goldsmith Inlet Cotmty Park northeast to Great Pond. The habitat is boxx/ered.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 beach, maritime dunes, and maritime freshwater interdunal swales. These latler two communities extend from approximately 1.5 miles west of Great Pond southwest to Goldsmith Pond, and are considered r~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 o£maritime freshwater interdunal swales located adjacent to the dunes. Small wetlands containing poor fen species such as cranberries (Vaccinium macrocarpon), sundew (Drosera intermedia), twig-rush. (Cladium mariscoide~), and marsh St. J0hn's-wert (Triadenum virginicum) are also located within the habitat. Slender blue flag (Irisprismatica), arare plant species with less than 20 remaining s~tes or individuals in New York State, has been documented within the wetlands of this habitat. FISH AND WII.I')LEFE VALU'ES: The Goldsmith Inlet and Beach habitat consists of several associated significant natural ecological communities. This highly diverse area provides important nesting and feeding habitat for a variety ofmigratorybirds. Least tern (T) and piping plover (E, T-Fed) nest along the habitat's beaches. An estimated armuai average of 4 breeding pairs 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 IT) have nested at this site since 1997, with an estimated annual average of 8 nesting pairs from 1997 to 2002, with a peak of 22 pairs in 2000. One pair of common tern (T) was documented nesting on the beach in 2000, but none have boen 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) historically nested at Goldsmxth s Pon . More recently, osprey (SC) have nested at Peconic Dunes County Park, with an average of 1 nesting pair frofia 1998 to 2003. Page 2 of 6 02/24/2866 89:12 518~732~6~ COASTAL RESOURCES PAGE Recreational uses of Goldsmith Inlet and Beach are concentrated in the area around Goldsmith Inlet and Goldsmith Pond, where blue crab and American eel are harvested reereatiofially. The Town of $outhold maintains a public beach at Goldsmith Inlet, and Goldsmith Inlet County Park includes 34 acres of park land which is home to a diversity of wildlife. Peconic Dunes County Park, on the west shore of Great Pond, south of Kenny Road Beach, provides access across the beach to Long Island Sound for surf fishing. IMPACT ASSESSMENT: Any activity that wouid substantially degrade water quality md/or terrestrial natural resources at Goldsmith Inlet arid 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 wazte disposal. Efforts should be made to improve water quality in the bay, including reduction or elimination of discharges from Yessels and upland sources. V0getated upland buffer zones should be protected or established to reduce non-point source pollution and sedimentation from upland sources. Alteration of tidal pattern* in Golckqmith Inlet Pond, by modification oftnlel configurations or othm' 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 channelx 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 dm/rig 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 certain species of wildlife. Existing andproposed dredging operatiousin this areashould Incorporate the use of best management practices to avoid and reduce adverse effects. Construction of shorelIne structures, such as docks, piers, bulkheads, or revetment% in areag not previously disturbed by development (e.g., natural salt marsh, tidal fiats, or shallows), would result in the loss of productive areas which supporl the fish and wildlife resouroes of the Goldsmith Inlet and Beach habitat. Alternative ~trategies for the protection of shoreline propen'y should be examined, including innovative, vegetation-based approaches. Con~ol ofinvasive nuisance plant species, throu~ a variety of means, may improve fish and wildlife species use of the area and enhance overall natural resource values. Unres~cted 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 conu:olled (e.g., no wake zones, speed zones, zones of exclusion) in and ~djacent 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 significal}.t impact on juvenile (and, in some cases, adult) fish concentrations, through impingement or entrmnment. Page 3 of 6 02/24/21}F]F~ 09; 12 5184732454 COASTAL RESOURCES PAGE 05/08 Nesting shorebirds inhabiting Goldmmith Inlet and Beach are highly vulnerable to disturbance by humans, especially during the nesting and fledgling period (M~rch 15 thi:ough August 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 p~iod. Recreational activities (e.g., boat and personal watercraft landing, off-road vehicle use, picaicking) in the vicirdty of bird nesting areas should be minimized during this period. Predation of chicks and destm0tion 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 unde~ 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, 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 as the loss offish or wildlife use thrOugh direct Physical alteration, disturbance, or pollution ora designated area or through the indirect effects of these actions on a designated area. Habitat destruction 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 the tolerance range of an organism. Indicators ofa significantlyimpaired habitat focus on ecological alterations and may include but are not limited to reduced carrying capacity, changes in community slzucmre (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 has the potential to support a restored population, where practical. Either the Page 4 of 6 02/24/2005 89:12 51@47324~4 COAGTAL RESOURCES PAGE loss of individuals through an increase in emigration or a~ increase in death rate indi~cates 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 considered in applying the habitat impairment test include but axe not limited to the following: physical parameters such as living space, circulation, flushing rates, tidal amplitude, turbidity, water temperature, depth (including loss of littoral zone), morphology, substrate 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 solid~, nutrients, organics, salinity, and pollutant~ (heavy metals, toxics and hazardous materials). Although not comprehensive, examples of generic activities and impacts which could destroy or significantly impair the habitat axe listed in the impact assessment section to assist in applying the habitat impairment test to a proposed activity. Peg* 5 of 6 '02/24/2006 89:12 5184732464 COASTAL RESOURCES KNOWL~EDGEABLE 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 Univ¢~:sity of New York, Build/ng 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 Plarm/ng 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'a 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 Page 6 of 6 ,82/24/288G 89:12 5184732454 COASTAL RESOURCES PAGE 8,9/88.- , · .GOLDSMITH Fish and Wildlife Habitats' Goldsmith Inlet and Beach 02/02/~005 1~:01 3G1324147G PLANNING [~/~TIv~ PAGE 01/04 Larry Penny 3662 Noyac Rd. Sag Harbor, N.Y.11965 iiC E g FE6 - '~ February 2, 2005 Southold Town Trustees Southo!d, Manzzanobile Wetlands Permit Application And Modification Dear Trustees Here is a short sum~ary of my oral presentation given to you on January 19, 2005 regards the proposal to build on the north side of Lake Drive north of Great Pond and south of Leeton Drive and the Long Island Sound in the Town of Southold. Attach. 02/02~2~05 3613241476 PLANNING DEPAR T~_NT P~GE~. ~2/04 To~n, Long XeXmz~cl, New Yoz:~ New York State's Department of State has characterized the area in which the Manz~anobile residence would be located as a "globally rare interdunal swale", fi=e of which have been documented on Long Island, four of them in East Hampton Town where I have worked as the Environmental Protection Director for 20 years. I am very farailiar with these lnterdunal swales and their unusual and rare plant comgaunities as part of my duties in East Hampton have to do with protecting th~m. In the last four years East Hampton has purchased about 75 acres of interd~nal swale land associated with the Walking Dunes and Napeague Dunes interdunal swale complexes with Community Fund Preservation money. Interestingly, the East Ha~ton Trustees own more than 50 acres of the Promised Land interdunal swale which they have held for hundreds of years. As enunciated in the Eric Lamont, NYS DOs and State Natural Heritage reports these interdunal swales contain rare plant native species such as the state listed Iris prismatica, slender blue flag, found by Eric Lamont in the Great Pond interdunal swale in Southold. Interdunal swales are often associated with water table ponds because they are water table systems, themselves, located near large bodies of marine waters where the water table resides at the surface or very near to it. The groundwater column rises and falls depending upon the amount of precipitation available in any given year, but 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 tod 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, as well as the five documented Long Island ones, to increase in size over the next fifty years. Consequently, standard setbacks that provide protective buffers from wetlands in more inland areas where the line between "wetland" and "upland" is generally quite sharD, don'% offer as much protection in interdunal swale areas adjacent to seas. They can be con,Promised by eto2~a% driven flood waters, high winds which reshape their co~onent 82/02/2005 15:81 3613241476 PLANNING DEPARTVENT PAGE 03/04 '' dunes~ salting by aerosols from the sea as we experienced during Hurricane Gloria in 1985, and developmental events such as those that are now being experienced in the subject interdunal swale area. Developmental events produce short- term and long-term chronic disturbances such as changes in wlnd flow patterns, infiltration of septic and surface chenticals, exotic vegetation introductions snd the like. The nature of the natural area before development 18 subtly or dramatically changed, and the change is progressive and deleterious to the natural system. As we speakt the Promised Land interdunal swale area in the ha/hist of Amagansett in East Hampton is being subjected to such pressures. Rs the photomap given to the Trustees during my presentation clearly shows, the sea (Napaague Bay) is encroaching onto the land at more than a foot a year, houses built before there were town wetland laws (passed in 1984) are creating zones of disturbance that include the spread o£ phragmltes and the progressive sanding of wetland bogs around them. Fortunately, the Con, unity Preservation Fond was established Just tn time to provide moneys to buy parcels in and around such ecologically significant habitats threatened by develol~lent. Likewiset the Town of East Hampton and Suffolk County have combined efforts to save ecologically rare lands in a very provident and timely manner. The permitting of the one house and adjunts under consideration, notwithstanding that the usual standards and setbacks will be applied to the parcel under question, will make it difficult to preserve other crltical parcels having similarly high ecological values nearby that are in the same predicament. Therefore, my recommendation to the Trustees is to deny :he permit modification and to do everything in their power to acquire said parcel. I would expect that the Southold Town Board, Suffolk County, local homeowners, end la~d preservation organizations (e.g., Peconic Land Trust, Nature Conservancy) would contribute in this effort to save the one globally rare interdunal swale community tn the Town of Southold and one of only six ed for Lon~ Island. Fsbruary 2, 2005 Page 1 of 2 No¥ille, £1izabeth From: g.groenheron@verizon.net Sent: Monday, February 02,200g @:22 PM To: Russell, Scott Cc: bdeluca@eastendenvironment, org; bharmon@timesreview.com; drnildner@dos.state, ny.us; Neville, Elizabeth; Fred.Anders@dos.state.ny.us; NFEC@optonline.net; pascully@gw.dec.state.ny, us Subject: Bombara CEHA appeal February 2, 2009 Southold Town Board Southold Town Hall Southold, New York Re: Bombara Appeal of Trustees' denial, Coastal Erosion Hazard Area Permit Dear Supervisor Russell and members of the Town Board: I understand that the Town Board hears Mr. Bombara's appeal tomorrow, Tuesday. I would like to place a few comments on the record while encouraging the board to deny the appeal. I read in the local newspaper that you, Supervisor Russell, noted that Mr. Bombara "knows there's a process you follow when you're buying land...An attorney practicing in the State of New York ought to know better." I agree completely. I agree with Councilman Wickham's reported statements, also, especially "To approve a new home...would essentially say we are trashing the original (NYS Coastal Erosion Hazard Area) law." I commend the Town Trustees for rejecting Mr. Bombara's Wetland and CEHA applications. My comments for the denial of this appeal are as follows: 1 .New York State's Coastal Erosion Hazard Area policy has been in effect for over twenty years. Any vacant lots in the zone should have been considered unbuildable, or at least extremely restricted. A real estate agent not informing the potential buyer of these potential restrictions must be considered delinquent, and a buyer not informing himself of these well-established regulations, remiss. To pay full market value for this property at the height of an inflated market indicates ignorance, arrogance, or both. The Town Board would be ill-advised to sympathize with Mr. Bombara's self-created hardship. To do so would trade the town's resources, and our credibility as an enlightened citizenry, for Mr. Bombara's (or his wife's) mis-guided, reckless dream. 2.The Bombara property lies in a New York State Department of State Significant Habitat, Goldsmiths Inlet and Beach, designated in October, 2005. Every town, state, and federal agency is constrained in its actions, in this area, by New York State Consistency Review and Coastal Policy 7 of the New York State Department of State's Coastal Management Program: 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.) 2/3/2009 Page 2 of 2 3.Mr. Bombara and his counsel have made only two "arguments" in his defense: a.) He says he looked to the left, he looked to the right. He saw a house next door, and several hundred feet away, other houses. He didn't see the virgin primary dune on his property, or for several hundred feet, adjacent, to the east? He did not see the dunes, swales, and interdunal areas across the road, undeveloped? Are we to believe that Mr. Bombara, an attorney, accepted this "evidence" as overwhelmingly in his favor? b) His second argument is that he went to the building department, and accepted the word, over the counter from a nameless clerk, that it was all right to build. Mr. Bombara is either shameless, or desperate, to think anyone would either believe or give credence to this "assurance." I, for one, knowing the professionalism and caution practiced at the Building Department, do not believe it. If it happened as Mr. Bombara described it, how wise was it to pay over a million dollars for a vacant lot based on this unofficial information? This property is one of the most severely constrained properties in tom. It is a virgin primary dune. It is within New York State's Coastal Erosion Hazard Area, and requires an approval. It requires a wetland permit from the trustees. It requires a DEC permit. It requires consistency review as a NYDOS Significant Habitat. The proposed house has been found inconsistent with the town's LWRP, and is front and center in one of the town's most important LWRP "Reaches." The Town Board must see its way to deny this appeal, and preserve this virgin ecosystem and coastal feature for the public good and safety. Otherwise, what property in town will ever deserve this level of protection? If the Town Board wanted to offer some consolation to Mr. Bombara, and further the town's policy of acquiring open space, it could offer him the market value of the property in 1988, which was the year, I believe, the CEHA was established. This would be fair to the citizens of Southold, and more than generous to Mr. Bombara, whose lack of due diligence merits no special consideration whatsoever. Another way for Mr. Bombara to re-coup his poor investment would be to sell the development rights to the town at a discount, and claim the balance of his purchase price as a charitable donation. Whatever the case may be, I urge the Town Board to deny the appeal, with as little hair-splitting and heart-rending as humanly possible. This decision should be as straight-forward as they come. Respectfully, Thomas Rozakis c. Board of Directors, North Fork Environmental Council Bob Deluca, Group for the East End Peter Scully, Region One Director, NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation Dennis Mildner, NYS DOS, LWRP Fred Anders, NYDOS, Consistency Review Brian Harmon, Executive Editor, Suffolk Times 2/3/2009 SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD PUBLIC HEARING January 20, 2009 9:00 AM Present: Justice Louisa Evans Councilman Thomas Wickham Councilman Albert Krupski, Jr. Councilman William Ruland Councilman Vincent Orlando Assistant Town Attorney Kieran Comoran Town Clerk Elizabeth Neville Absent: Supervisor Scott Russell This heating was opened at 9:05 AM COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to our 9:00 public hearing. The Supervisor couldn't be here today, he is home with the flu. He asked me to fill in for him. So before we start with the public hearing, let's open up with the Pledge. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: This morning we have a hearing, it is an appeal, a coastal erosion permit for the town Trustees. I have got all the paperwork here, it was noticed in the Suffolk Times newspaper, the legal notice properly recognized. I am looking for comments here in the file. There is a letter to the DEC, fees were paid. Okay, thank you. IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold set~s January, 20~ 2009 at 9:00 a.m. in the Town Meeting Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York 11971, as the time and place for a public hearing on the Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review Appeal of Robert G. Bombara~ relating to a proposed new single-family dwelling, garage and swimming pool proposed to be located at 1725 North Sea Drive~ Southold~ SCTM #1000-54-4-19. This is, and all the other paperwork is in order as far as the appeal goes. There is letter in the file dated November 12 from Peter Danowski, this is the application, filed November 12th for the appeal in the file and we are provided with pictures, we are provided with a Trustee, if I could find it in here, I am sure it is in here. The record of the Trustees, who are represented here today. The criteria for variance, under coastal erosion, 111-20 in the code, variances and appeals. And it is variances from standards and restrictions. 'Strict application of the standards and the restrictions of this chapter may cause practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship. When this can be shown, such standards and restrictions may be varied and modified, provided that the following criteria are met: (and there is A through E) A. No reasonable, prudent alternative site is available. B. All Bombara Coastal Erosion Appeal Public Hearing January 20, 2009 2 responsible means and measures to mitigate adverse impacts on natural systems and their functions and values have been incorporated into the activities design at the property owners expense. C. The development will be reasonably safe from flood and erosion damage. D. The variance that is requested is the minimum necessary to overcome the practical difficulty or hardship, which is the basis for the requested variance. E. Where public funds are utilized, the public benefits must clearly outweigh the long-term adverse effects.' And this is the letter from the Board of Trustees, dated October 15th. 'Dear Mr. Danowski, The Board of Trustees took the following action during its regular meeting held on Wednesday, October 15, 2008 regarding the above matter: Whereas Peter S. Danowski, Esquire on behalf of Robert G. Bombara, applied to the Southold Town Trustees for a permit under the provisions of Chapter 111, Coastal Erosion Hazard Area under the town code of the Town of Southold, the application is dated July 6, 2007, and whereas said application was referred to the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council and the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program coordinator for their findings and recommendations and whereas the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council provided a written comment to the Southold Town Board of Trustees which stated: 'due to the location of the coastal erosion hazard line being landward of all proposed activities, a full review of the application cannot be conducted at this time.' Whereas the LWRP coordinator recommended that the proposed applications be found inconsistent with the LWRP and specifically inconsistent with the following coastal policies: policy 4 1, minimize loss of human life and structures from flooding and erosion hazards. Policy 4 2, protect and restore natural, protective features. Policy 6, protect and restore the quality and function of the Town of Southold eco-system. Policy 6.3, protect and restore tidal and fresh water wetlands. And whereas a site visit to the property was conducted on October 17, 2007 and in attendance at the site visit among others, a representative of the Southold Town Board of Trustees, LWRP coordinator Mark Terry and New York State Department of Conservation Environment specialist Robert McDonna; which confirms that the proposed actions were entirely located seaward of the coastal erosion hazard line, within a primary dune and a primary dune is a natural protective feature as defined in Chapter 111-6 and governed by section 111-13 and whereas public hearings were held by Town Trustees with respect to said applications on August 22, 2007 and October 15, 2008 at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard and whereas the Board of Trustees of the Town have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question and the surrounding area regarding the location of the proposed development and whereas the Board has considered all of the testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application and whereas the proposed structures, as applied for, are located on the natural protective feature of the primary dune as per the definitions of Chapter 111 Coastal Erosion Hazard Area of the town code and governed by section 111-13, which prohibits all activities in such an area unless specifically provided for in chapter 111, and whereas the Board has determined that the structures as applied for, will have a detrimental affect upon the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the Town, now therefore be it resolved for the foregoing reasons and because of the proposed actions, are entirely located within the coastal erosion hazard area and the primary dune, a natural protective feature, and because the proposed actions are not permitted in such areas pursuant to Chapter 111 of the Town Code, that the Board of Trustees deem the proposed project to be impermissible under Chapter 111 and Bombara Coastal Erosion Appeal Public Heating January 20, 2009 3 inconsistent with the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program pursuant to Chapter 268-5 of the Southold Town Code, based on the scope and location of the proposed structures, an overall impact of the proposed project of the tidal wetlands and the furtherance of the policies sited by the LWRP coordinator, be it further resolved that the foregoing reasons, the Board of Trustees denies the coastal erosion permit application of Robert Bombara to construct a single family dwelling, detached garage, pool, associated water supply and sewage disposal facilities and as depicted on the surveys prepared by Howard Young dated February 9, 2007 labeled alternative 1, alternate 2 and alternate 3, this determination should not be considered a determination for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. Yours truly, Jill Doherty, Board of Trustees.' And so if there is any other, okay, so at this point we can open the heating. This is something that I urge the, I urge the Town Board members to take a look at the site. I have walked the site a couple of times, I am fairly familiar with it, so if anyone would like to make comments, please start. PETE DANOWSKI: Good morning, my name is Pete Danowski. I am the attorney for Bob Bombara. I always to put a face on an application. Bob sits in the second row hem. He has traveled out. I have some comments, some of which are strictly legal. I think I have to make them, this Board and individual members might not be aware of the detail of the application process that has been heard to date. Certainly the Board of Trustees is very aware of the detail since we have been there several times. But I do have to say some things that I think are important and I think they are important for anyone who owns a piece of property in this Township or any other. Because what has happened to date is we have been denied the tight to build on our property. Now, having said that, I should take you back through a history here and suggest to you that in fairness a building permit should be issued and a coastal zone erosion should have and should issue and this Board can take a step towards the issuance of a building permit by granting the appeal here. The appeal is not just from the denial. We have appeals for interpretations, we have appeals for waivers and we have appeals for variances. Each of those words mean something and they are important here. I make mention of it and I will make mention of it in more detail in a few moments. To begin with, Bob Bombara, I kiddingly asked him, you know he is an attorney, he bought this property and I found out as I began representing him that he was absolutely unaware of the coastal erosion zone statute. He said to me, look, I am not a wealthy man but after 8 years of litigation on a particular case, I made enough money on that one case to go around the east end of Long Island and say to my wife, where would you like to build your dream house? And they came to the Town of Southold where they have been many times during the summers and as do many people, looked forward to retirement and building their dream home. Now, I said to Bob, is that all you did? You just came out and spent money and bought a lot? He said, no, not quite that simple about. I actually went out here and looked at the location and I looked to my left and I looked to my right on the public street and I saw beautiful homes being built and they were being built tight on lots similar to mine and in fact, they were being reconstructed. There were houses there, permits had issued from the Trustees and in at least an occasion, an appeal was taken and was granted. But by looking physically at the site, he was encouraged by what he saw, there were beautiful homes going up, they have been completed, they are there today. They are similar in size to what he has Bombara Coastal Erosion Appeal Public Hearing January 20, 2009 4 proposed, so it is not out of character to the neighborhood, to suggest that he should be granted something similar. But he didn't just only look at the property and say let's go buy it, he also said to me, he walked into the Building Department and showed them what he intended to do and the person there said you have no problem. And so, he then closed on the property. He paid $1.1 million for the piece of property. That proof was provided to the Board of Trustees. I say he is not a wealthy guy and here is $1.1 million, that is not chicken feed, but he said basically it was the result of this one case. His wife teaches school, they are looking to retire and be here. He hired Young and Young to obtain a title survey before he closed and that provided the proof he needed as to the amount of land he had. He then became involved in the process of applying for a coastal zone erosion permit. As this Board .... COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: I am sorry, what year was... MR. DANOWSKI: 2006. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: That is when he purchased? MR. DANOWSKI: That is correct. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Thank you. MR. DANOWKSI: It was on July 21, 2006 that he purchased the property. And I took some notes because I ran through the file last night and the box is there. October 26th, we filed an application. The initial application and I say initial because we have three alternate plans after the initial application, the initial application, as did the others, distanced any construction more than 100 feet from the salt water wetland, the Long Island Sound. That is important because in the first application that was filed with the Board of Trustees, I suggested that the area and the descriptive term that we were talking about under that unique ordinance was a beach area. The Board of Trustees agreed. The Board of Trustees ultimately denied the application. I believe, incorrectly they feel that in fact they were without power to grant the application or any application because they feel that the coastal zone erosion hazard line as set by the state limits what they can do and that they must deny and we would come back before this Board. I know Mr. Krupski shakes his head, I knew where he was prior to sitting on this Board and certainly I am aware of prior applications. What I did do, however, in preparing myself for that initial hearing was I asked the Trustees and obtained from staff, copies of earlier applications along that same public highway. And applications were filed for permits and applications were granted. On almost all of those occasions, the distance was no greater than 100 feet for any construction. In certain instances, it was less than 75 feet. On occasions, tidal wetland permits issued, on other occasions it was found it wasn't necessary to go to the DEC because it was outside their jurisdiction. Each set of circumstances was a little bit different. But it was very important to build the record and supply information to the Trustees and ultimately to this Board to clearly establish that permits had been granted without variance, without waivers, without interpretation both for tidal wetlands permits and for the coastal erosion permits. Now, we all understand and the same information Bombara Coastal Erosion Appeal Public Hearing January 20, 2009 was brought to the Trustees attention, that when the state first created this statute, it was there to protect the owners of the land. It was initially called a shore owners protection act. It was formed in 1981 and the theory was that where there was proof absolutely established that there was erosion on average that was significant over a 40 year period, that somehow the state would consider this to be an important area for protection for the homeowner. It did not mean that you could not build there, it did not mean that you had a ability in the Town to deny you a permit, it had all to do about where to locate the home on your property. What I proved in the Trustee's hearings and which you have now before you as a record and I don't have to detail it all again, through independent experts there has been no erosion that meets the statutory definition that the state has. I didn't just go to one expert, I didn't just go to two. I had a total of four experts, one of whom interestingly enough Mark Byme, produced a report for the Town of Southold. He actually produced a report that took the beach front area from the west all the way to Horton's point. And clearly he has established in the record, his report relying in part on his physical inspection of the property but also on that earlier report and subsequent reports, there has not been erosion in this area. There actually has been accretion. That is important and it is not a novel idea and I know Mr. Krupski is aware of this, because when I say applications were granted by the Trustees over a period of time, I will just mention the names and I made them part of the record and some applications were small, some were large but they were granted. Okay, Rosicki, Litner, Vonzuben, Paskoff, Sonnenborn, Pearlstein and Betsch. Probably the Betsch file is the best example of a presentation of legal arguments and in consideration by the Trustees at the time. If you look at the record there, which again has been made part of the appeal process here, the attomey representing Mr. Betsch clearly established there has been accretion on the property, not erosion, and that a permit should issue and in fact, the Town Board ultimately granted relief. I read some of Mr. McDonogh's correspondence back and forth. I think at one time he suggested that the residential building had a footprint of 3,000 square feet when if fact, on retort the Town said it was 1,800 square foot on the footprint and 600 square feet on the garage. But I say it because the character of the neighborhood, the application process, the history of the Trustee's reviewing permits and granting them has to be made a part of this record and the character of the neighborhood is important. As far as the technicalities here that I have to get into, the initial decision by the Board denied us with leave to reapply. Without prejudice were the words that were used. So we had an initial denial on a first plan that although the distance is 100 feet back and was described as a beach area, we did appeal that decision. That appeal was held in abeyance pending the consideration of the three alternate plans. That appeal, the record there, should be made a part of this appeal as far as the record is concerned. So you can see the full history here of initial application, a denial and ultimately an appeal file, held in abeyance as we went back to the Trustees with three alternate plans. What we did with the alternate plans was try to listen to any comments that were made concerning the location of the proposed house. We had to recognize what the Suffolk County Health Department would require us with regard to the location of sanitary systems. We had to worry about the Town's zoning setback requirements, but clearly we moved the house location three alternate ways as far back as we could move them. We shrunk the size of the house, we distanced our location. In the furthest location from the salt water wetland, the Long Island Sound, the distance is 157 feet. Not 75, not 100 but Bombara Coastal Erosion Appeal Public Hearing January 20, 2009 157. What is also interesting, though, is when we got that denied the first time, the Trustee's in their decision, understood that the proof that was there by looking at the property was that this was a beach area. A beach area, when you look at the definition that the Trustee's must apply states that beach area by definition ends 100 feet from a change of physiographic form. That location is placed on our initial survey and the initial application stood to be, the building would be constructed outside that area. So the Town's own code limited the beach application to 100 feet and that is what we did. We never intended to build 100 feet from the Sound seaward. We were always behind that line. So in my own mind, a tidal wetlands permit should have issued and a coastal zone erosion permit should have issued. I don't agree with the Trustee's position that they are without power on the facts of this case and that this appeal had to be heard. I believe, based upon the facts, they could have issued the permit. But I understand why they say it. I understand clearly why they say it. They feel that because magically the State has drawn a line, that they can't grant any relief. Mr. Bombara wasn't happy that it took 13 months to deny the relief the second time around but that issue is over for now, we have filed our appeal with regard to the second application. I have asked Doug Adams of Young and Young, to try and take the plans, all four of them, the original plan and the three alternates and put them on a board, I also heard that Board members might have wanted to visit the site, so I made myself and Young and Young available, but in addition I had dropped off at the Supervisor's office for distribution to the Board members, colored representations of each of the three alternate plans and so that you could go out and see them in the field, I had the flags marked to correspond to those plans; so you could distinguish the three. Because it is confusing to go out and see different stakings for different locations of homes on the site. So, we did in fact do that. ! would like to have you recognize the reports that were submitted that clearly describe the area as a beach area and the drifting of little beach ridges as evidence and proof there hasn't been any erosion on the site. I don't know because you have it already in your record whether you need this handed as part of this hearing but I would like to think that you don't but I have additional copies if anyone needs to see it. Clearly Mr. Byrnes credentials, (inaudible) credentials, Dr. Ron Abrams credentials are outstanding. They have an experience that goes beyond the average expert and I would ask you to give them full credence in what they have done. In the simplest of terms, what do we have here? We have a man wanting to build a house. It has taken him a couple of years to get to this point, he would like to build it. He will take anyone of the locations he has depicted. He will listen to reasonableness. He took and removed the garage from the separate location, located it within the house envelope. He took and agreed to build the house on poles. I have looked at the details of other permits they have issued through their architects and on occasion certainly there was discussions on those matters about break away panels, which we are more than happy to deal with. We can comply with FEMA, we can comply with the state DEC roles. So we have to figure out where the location of the house must go and that is the purpose for this appeal. To grant a waiver of variance. If no variance were to be granted, I would expect this to be a formal condemnation. How we go from here is up to you. When you vote and how you vote is important to me for one further reason. This is an administrative appeal from which the denial would obviously lead to litigation but more importantly, this sort of unique situation, I ask that at the Board of Trustees level that they hold in abeyance the tidal wetlands permit decision. Certainly if Bombara Coastal Erosion Appeal Public Heating January 20, 2009 they granted the permit, I would have no issues with granting the permit. There is not an administrative appeal that I know of and I have discussed this with counsel from the denial of the wetlands permit. That means I will have to litigate the tidal wetlands issue and I will, unless we can resolve this promptly. If we can do this really fast and even when everyone wants to agree, many times it is impossible. I will have to file that lawsuit. I want you to understand that, so that when you hear that hey, Danowski has filed a lawsuit for Bombara, I only did that to protect my client's rights. I am still amenable to any discussions to try to work through this process. With that said, I would just reserve the time to respond to any other comments made by the public or by any of you. ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: I have a couple of questions. MR. DANOWSKI: Sure. ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: Quick questions. You spent a lot of time talking about the beach area and I know that was the original determination of the Trustee's, that this was located within the beach area. But I just wanted to be clear that the appeal you are taking is from the Trustee's determination that it is in a primary dune area, correct? MR. DANOWSKI: I think that what I am saying is I have appealed both decisions. So I agree with the, let me rephrase it and see if you agree, that I am appealing from the decision which among other things is the second decision, which on that decision describes it as a dune area. ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: Okay, so let's even further clear up if we can. MR. DANOWSKI: Sure. ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: Which is tricky to do, obviously. Here. MR. DANOWSKI: I understand. ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: The latest decision of the Trustee's, from October, with the consultation with DEC and I know you may disagree and your experts may disagree, determined that the area in which you proposed to build is a primary dune area. Right? Are we in agreement on that? MR. DANOWSKI: I think that is true. ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: Okay. Now, the way that this statute works, first you look at where the coastal erosion line is, okay and like it or not, that line Bombara Coastal Erosion Appeal Public Hearing 8 January 20, 2009 is I think in the street or somewhere in the street making your clients property entirely seaward of that line, right? MR. DANOWSKI: That is correct. ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: In this instance. And that is true of many properties along this road and that is what creates a very sticky situation in this neighborhood in terms of developing this neighborhood, okay? Once we know that, the way the statute works is you look at what is the natural protective feature, okay, and I know that there may be disagreement over this but the Trustee's have most recently determined that's a primary dune area. Okay? And so then you look at the primary dune section of this law and it says what can one do in a primary dune area and the, one of the reasons we are here is something that is not allowed in a primary dune area is a construction from scratch of a new home on a vacant lot. It does allow for what is termed a non-major addition, which I think is a 25 percent increase in footprint to an existing home some other minor development. I am interested in some of the other appeals you have made reference to and I want to know whether any of those other appeals had to do with the construction of the home from scratch as opposed to addition to an existing home? MR. DANOWSKI: I think that we have probably discussed this before and the answer to that is not that I know of. And I think the issue we take is there is not a prohibition on a permit issuing regardless of how you describe what you might want to term a natural protected feature. That is why we are here today. We might dispute whether the Trustee's themselves had the power to grant you the relief or whether you had to take the appeal in order to grant the relief. But this Board is not prohibited from .... ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: I don't dispute that. I think my reading of the statute is if we take what the Trustee's have done most recently as correct and obviously you reserve your right to dispute that, we have gotten here, at least on that branch of the appeal or variance is because they have said it is a primary dune area, completely behind the coastal erosion line, so we are not allowed to permit, under that statute, putting chapter 275 aside, the construction of a new home from scratch. Now, there is a variance and appeal available to you which is why you are here and this Board has to evaluate the factors that Councilman Krupski read at the beginning of this hearing, to determine whether they can grant such relief. This Board is empowered to grant such relief if you can show the factors that you need to show. MR. DANOWSKI: I think those factors have already been put in the record. I really don't want to delay things, I know you have other things to do and I know there are members of the public that may want to speak. But I don't think you necessarily want me to repeat everything .... ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: No, no, no, no. Bombara Coastal Erosion Appeal Public Hearing 9 January 20, 2009 MR. DANOWSKI: But those factors, when I filed the appeal and the experts reports, justify the granting of the relief. That is all I am saying. ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: I am not trying to advocate either way here, just this is a law that is a little arcane and it is not one that we deal with everyday. So I just wanted to set forth what I thought some of the key factors were. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: That is exactly what my comments were going to be. That the history of the appeal on coastal erosion is not a tremendous, long one. There is not a great record for appeal for this law which was adopted by the Town in 1991. The history of the permits granted in this area is really no different than the history of the permits granted in all the coastal erosion area. There was a, it was a difficult law to administer because of the way it was written and that is why it is a sort ora difficult appeals process, too, so... COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Was there ever a house on this property? MR. DANOWSKI: No. You would have to go back to before my memory to know whether the lots might have not been subdivided and there might have been a house that belonged to many of the lots but certainly not on this specific location. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Thank you. TOWN CLERK NEVILLE: Excuse me, Mr. Danowski. Were there any documents that you wish to make part of the record? MR. DANOWSKI: As long as Kieran and I agree that the record that has been produced before the Board of Trustees is available and part of the record for this hearing, I am not going to bring them all out and throw them around again. If someone, however, on the Board wants to see any one of those documents and they are not available, I would be more than happy to hand them out. COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Thank you, Mr. Danowski. Would anyone else like to speak on this hearing? For or against, to speak at this hearing? DOUG HARDY: Well, I will start it off I guess. I am Doug Hardy, Southold. For the last 300 or 400 years that and the 100 years or so that the Trustee's have managed the shoreline, the rate of sea level rise has been about 1 to 2 millimeters per year. And that comes out to be about 3 inches per 50 years. Barely pemeptible to the life span of a human and so that the management of the shoreline has been treated during this time as a static or there was no rise or fall at sea level. In the early 1990's, scientists began to notice a change. And the rate of sea level rise was accelerating. The best estimate as of late 2008, the forecast is that by 2050, the sea level here in New York will be between somewhat of 15 to 19 inches higher than today. That means then from a rate of sea level rise of 3 inches per 50 years, it will now be something like over a foot in 50 years. About a five times increase in sea level rise. Yet the management of our shoreline isn't taking Bombara Coastal Erosion Appeal Public Hearing January 20, 2009 10 this into accord. What this will mean will be that particularly during storms, the platform of the sea will be higher each year and so that storm surges during nor'easters or hurricane class III will extend the flooding area further inland. It will also move the primary dune further in, as the wind creates a new profile on each event. This is an acceleration rate that management hasn't experienced before and this was only since the last decade that this has been noticed. And so, unless you prefer to disbelieve the best scientific forecast, this coastal hazard zone is going to be rapidly extended inland. The importance of this is shown by this (inaudible) is the state of New York is currently holding a series of public meetings for state, local and federal officials and there will be a meeting sponsored by the state on sea level rise task force, I think at Brookhaven National lab on January 29th. And I really think that the Town should send a representative to that meeting to gauge the seriousness of this. The entire coast line of the United States has never experienced this accelerated sea level rise. It is going to cause enormous problems with the safety, the environment and it is going to challenge the resources of Southold Town in the next few decades. Thank you. COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak for or against on this heating? Mr. Wills? FRANK WILLS: Good morning. My name is Frank Wills. I live in Mattituck. I represent myself and also the North Fork Environmental Council. Over time, I believe, I sincerely believe that we have gotten to know more about what goes on in nature. I went through this myself. I bought a property on the bluff, about a quarter of a mile to the west of the Mattituck inlet in 1962. I had lived in Center Moriches before and in the 50's experienced the hurricane that came through, Edna. So the first question I asked or found out was what is the erosion rate up here? And I was told that the previous 70 years, the history was one to two foot a year. So I said, I will take the worse case, take two foot a year, the survey had shown the beach was 191 foot across, divided by two, 95, so I said, well, I am not going to worry. So I put my house 35 foot from the edge of the bluff. People would say, how could you do this? Well, there were no rules and regulations. We just didn't know at that time what the problems would cost. Now it is 100 foot back from the bluff, 100 foot back the (inaudible). I also do not believe that a survey that has gone maybe one week or two weeks or a month will show what the average erosion rate is on any beach. The other experience I had was and I found out too late about littoral drift. On the north shore it goes from west to east. In the late 60's a company called Levon built a jetty in Northville in order to build an industrial harbor, for which they got an approval in Riverhead. A few years after that was built, walking on the beach, all of a sudden we found a rock sticking out. We said, where did that come from? Well, we found out. We were told the erosion through the littoral drift was removing 40 foot of beach a year from our area, to the point were in 1977 there was 30 foot left. At which point the storm, I don't know if you remember Long Island Sound almost froze over, took the last three foot. Not wishing to wake up one morning with a wet behind, my neighbor and myself and some other people had their houses moved back 200 feet. The littoral drift and erosion, if you put anything in its way on the upstream side it will build up, drop all the sand it is carrying and then for some strange reason, gets hungry and picks it up on the other side. When I came here in '62, the difference in Mattituck Inlet Bombara Coastal Erosion Appeal Public Heating January 20, 2009 11 jetty was 700 foot. It is now over 1,000 foot. So unless to the west, to the east of Bombara property, there was a jetty or groin sticking out, I will say it bluntly, I don't believe the erosion rates that their so-called experts, pronounced. So we have learned more about what nature is doing and the consequences and the fact that in the 40's and the 50's houses were allowed to be built on the beach, doesn't mean that we should allow this anymore. The fact that Mr. Danowski mentioned some houses were there and enlarged but they were there and they were built before the facts were known and that is what I think should apply now. Thank you. COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Thank you, Mr. Wills. Would anyone else like to speak now? ANNE MURRAY: Good moming, I am Anne Murray, East Marion. I echo Frank's sentiments on this. Just because homes are there does not mean we should repeat the mistake in the future, now that we know more and I would like to bring up one other point as well. In a previous hearing before the Trustee's, Mr. Danowski mentioned that not only was his client unaware of the coastal zone erosion statute but he did not, and I repeat, did not do the due diligence that should have been done on this property before the purchase. And I believe that is in the Trustee's records that anyone can look up and I think that we in this town should not grant a variance because, I mean, I share some sympathy with the applicant having spent so much money on this property but I don't think the Town should have to pay for it and I think you should take that into consideration. Thank you. COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Thank you. RAY HUNTINGTON: Ray Huntington, Cutchogue. This is a large area ofbeachfront, I would call it original but beachfront is never original, I guess. It is just the way it is. It keeps changing. The visual observation shows it to be unstable. There are no upland full flora present. It is a beachfront. There are some principals at stake here. First of all, that not all parcels that have Suffolk County tax maps are buildable. That is why we have a building permit process. There is a judgment that is built into our town code, our social agreement in the Town of Southold about how we go about things. So it is not axiomatic that if you own a lot, you can build a house on it. The government should not, our government particularly should not be precluded from learning. From better understanding the cimumstances and applying scientific information as we grow in that knowledge. Going simply by precedence is not the right thing to do. We should use our intellect as a government as well. In this case, hardship, not self-inflicted, has not been shown. The due diligence was not performed. Then on a personal basis, I object to having to pay insurance premiums for people who build houses in the wrong places. Westhampton is a classic example, but we all live on shoreline here. We are only a few miles, no one in the Town is but a few miles from the shore. So we know how the shore affects our lives. So it is not a good idea here to rely on precedent and the fact that Mr. Jones, next door, was given a permit years ago when we didn't know better. I urge you to not change the recommendations of the administrating agencies. Bombara Coastal Erosion Appeal Public Hearing 12 January 20, 2009 COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Thank you, Ray. Is there anyone else? Yes. JENNIFER SKILBRED: Hello, my name is Jennifer Skilbred and I am an environmental advocate with Group for the East End and for anyone that doesn't know, Group for the East End is a non-profit environmental advocacy and educational organization and we have been working to protect natural resources for over 35 years. So I just wanted to reiterate some of the comments that were made today. First of all, a primary dune is a dynamic system and as the town code states, it is a natural protective feature. It protects inland areas and community members from possible impacts from storms. There is a reason we have the coastal erosion hazard area, and as you all know it is to protect these natural protective features from inappropriate development such as this. We agree with the Trustee's prior decision. They made the right call in denying this application. It is just an inappropriate place for this sort of development. It is a fragile and important area that should be protected. It is also important to remember that even though at times a single or residential project may not seem like that big a deal, the impact of the, the incremental negative impacts of so many smaller projects can really add up to a major negative impact on the community. So, thank you for listening to our comments today. COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Thank you. Is there anyone else? PATRICIA POPPE: Patricia Poppe, I live in the Kenney's, McCabe's beach area. And I do speak for a number of the residents that are there. I would like to reiterate that yes, indeed, we know more than we did in the past. A perfect example would be the Hudson River. We dumped everything into it and then we realized we can't do that anymore. And I think that is what we have here. On the properties that were altered in some way along North Sea Drive, I know for instance, that at least one of them, the Sonnenbom residence, was done specifically to avoid a problem with erosion and a fear that they would have a problem with the reduction of the beachfront. We have had some alterations of existing properties from Leeton Drive along North Sea Drive, that whole area. The group that I am representing today, which is an informal group, some of us do belong to an association but informally there is a group that is very much opposed to unnecessary development of any more of the land in that area because of the importance of that particular environmental piece. Whether it is the Great Pond area which we have been speaking against development of that area as well as any of the parcels along the beachfront, I feel very badly for the owner of the piece of property that once again, more research wasn't done but on the behalf of this informal group of residents, it is workday and they are not all here but we would like to very much oppose the granting of any variance to do any new construction in that area along that beachfront. We have to remember that they are not making any more land. Thank you. COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak on this? Yes, sir. ED BOOTH: My name is Ed Booth, I live in Southold. We, eight of us, own the adjacent properties, this is the Bombara case, right? Bombara Coastal Erosion Appeal Public Hearing 13 January 20, 2009 COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Yes. MR. BOOTH: I thought so. Anyway, I would just like to point out that if the Bombara's go ahead and build, this is in a way good news and bad news, the good news is for them, they will have a nice spot. The bad news is for the Town because you are going to lose that 300 feet. Three 100 foot lots. Now the funny thing about it is, that although we have opposed, my friends and I have opposed this construction before, we do it at our own detriment. Why is that? Because you see, if the Bombara's succeed in putting up their home, well, we are a bunch of old people, I don't think the average age is much below 65 or 70 and the kids are coming along and they will want to sell our 200 feet. The Bombara's own 100 feet. So if you go ahead prevent the construction of that home, our property will be valueless. Good news for the Town, I think, because we will never sell it then. Why would anybody sell a piece of valueless property? I just wanted to call that to your attention. Thank you. COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak up? MR. DANOWSKI: Kind of just waiting for the last comment from the public. And Aram Terchtmian just walked in and he is one of the experts that prepared the report, I don't necessarily want him to be long winded, I haven't even spoken to him. Looking down at him now and saying if he has anything further as far as highlighting the comment, I would like him to do that but not in a long fashion. And as he does that, when he is finished, we will hand up his report that is already part of the record. COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Thank you. ARAM TERCHUNIAN: Thank you, my name is Aram Terchunian, I am a coastal geologist with First Coastal Corporation in Westhampton Beach New York. I have reviewed the Bombara site and listened to the comments here today and I can rise in front of this Board and recommend approval of this project. There is a couple of comments that I heard and I would just like to highlight, first of all, as your attorney pointed out, this action is probably in front of you because you are the only Board that has the variance authority in the township to grant this type of approval. So any previous action by any Board, in this case the Trustees, in fact did not have the authority to approve this project and so they had no choice but to deny it and come here. A gentleman spoke to you earlier about sea level rise, I can recall back when I had dark hair in graduate school, we were studying sea level rise as well and the number of papers written about predicting sea level rise over the next 50 years, well, this was about 25 years ago, and all of those predictions have proved false. In fact, sea level rise is consistent over the last 100 years as based on tide gauges from New York City harbor and throughout this region and it is approximately 1 foot per century. I don't want the Board to walk away with the misconception that there is documented evidence of sea level rise in this area. It does not exist scientifically and that should not weigh on your decision. The standards that are outlined in your coastal erosion code, the four standards are really quite straightforward and direct, and I believe that this site meets those standards and therefore is worthy of a Bombara Coastal Erosion Appeal Public Heating 14 January 20, 2009 permit. I would like to also go to the aspect of dunes themselves and the best way to preserve and enhance dunes. And we have been in the dune building business for many, many years and this site is remarkably different from many other sites in the township and that in fact goes to your decision as well. This is not a bluff area. As we know, Southold is dominated by bluffs but it has a lot of areas that are in between bluffs and that is what this is. This is in between areas, actually a deposition area. Geologically this area is receiving sand from the eroding bluffs. So another gentleman that spoke to you earlier this morning about rapid bluff retreat. Well, that is not the case here, it is a completely different type of system. It is not an erosional system, it is actually a deposition system. This area is dominated by what we call beach ridges and as you drive along the road, you can see a whole series of them. These have been deposited over decades and centuries actually. So this is a, as a result of its geologic character, is a highly stable area, as opposed to bluffs which are inherently unstable. In addition to that, in your code itself in the description of dune areas under section 37-16, it talks about the keys to, to dunes providing protection is the volume of sand that is in the dune. And this is very, very important. To the extent that this Board and any decision it makes, conserves that volume of sand and in fact enhances the volume of sand that is in the dune, then you are in fact, protecting that dune and preserving the protective values that the code obligates you to do. And what does that mean? There is a volume of sand in that area, on this parcel and to the extent that that volume of sand remains stable or to the extent that that volume of sand is increased, it provides that protective level, that flood and erosion protection which is absolutely vital to everyone, as you have heard everyone talk about. So there is a very clear standard in the conservation of the volume of sand that provides ongoing and enhanced protection. Not just for this parcel but for the parcels around it and for the land behind it. Just in conclusion, I would just like to say that my analysis, I have been to this site I would say I in the last 20 years, I must have been here 50 times, done a lot of work along the shoreline and in my opinion, my professional judgment, the granting of this variance will not destabilize this dune system, will not have an adverse impact either on the dune or on the general environment. Thank you. COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Thank you. Is there anyone else? Any attorney that wants to talk? Anymore experts that want to talk? MR. DANOWSKI: I am ending this and I will just hand up Mr. Terchunian's report in case someone today didn't have the report available. COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Thank you. JOHN BETSCH: My name is John Betsch. I just wanted to take exception to something that was said, just for the record. Mr. Danowski said that there were, read offa series of permits and applications that were passed, that were approved and passed in the past, Rosicki, Vonzuben, Pearlstein, Sonnenhorn, Pearlstein and myself. I just want to note that every single one of those applications were either alterations or reconstructions of existing pieces, structures. Some of which were built over 50 years ago. My house was 50 years old plus when we applied for, and there is a difference and I just want to make sure that that is not used as a rationale to prove this. That is all. Bombara Coastal Erosion Appeal Public Hearing 15 January 20, 2009 COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Thank you, John. MR. DANOWSKI: I promise, last time. I will hand up the other experts reports just for information purposes. I would also indicate that during the pendency of this application, when the Trustees were considering this matter for the second time, the adjacent property owner was granted a permit, we supported that application and that particular person supports us, so I just want to know that the exact adjacent parcel was granted a permit albeit an addition for an existing structure. COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: question on this application? for...? Thank you. Does anyone else have a comment or (No response) Do any Board members have a question COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: I have a question for the attorney. Where in the legislation do we differentiate between an entirely new structure versus this 25 percent? ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: The portion of the legislation that details what is permitted in a primary dune area, it is a short list. A very short list and one of the things that is permitted is a, this is a summary, a non-major addition to an existing structure. That is expressly permitted, okay? And then at the end of that short list it says all, anything that is not listed herein is not permitted. So, the inference is you can do an addition, you can do a 25% addition without coming to this Board for a variance because people have sought greater than 25% and gotten variances from that... COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: And that is in a dune situation? ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: In a primary dune area, correct. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: That is not related to the coastal erosion... ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: Yes, it is. You start out by saying, this law doesn't apply unless you are behind the coastal erosion line. Okay? COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Behind means .... ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: Seaward. Once you... COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Or within any natural protective feature. A beach, a dune, a bluffis a series .... ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: Once you are (inaudible) you have to determine whether you are in a particular natural protective feature or not. If you are not, then you are just in the normal permitting process under this part of the code, if you are, then they are more severely restricted, like in a primary dune area. I would suggest that at this point, if not all the members have been out to visit the site, that we adjourn the Bombara Coastal Erosion Appeal Public Hearing 16 January 20, 2009 heating so that everybody can take the maps, go out and look at them, then we should come back, set another date and in case you have further questions of the applicant or want to take anymore testimony or respond to anything you see in any of the erosion reports, you can do that. I am not suggesting it go on ad infinitum but I think that is appropriate. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: I would suggest that we, as a Board, we could, the site is very close, we could visit the site today after the work session and armed with article 4, variances and appeals and also armed with the colored surveys provided by the applicant, to do a site inspection together. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Move we adjourn the hearing? COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Second. With setting a date on a future time? COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Is two weeks reasonable, Kieran? COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Yes. ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: Absolutely. Certainly to reconvene and ask further questions. COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: What date is that then, Betty? COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: February 3. COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: We will adjourn this meeting to February 3. This meeting was adjourned at 10:07 PM Southold Town Clerk JOHN R TAGGART, ESQ. LAW OFFICES PETER S. DANOWSKI, sis ROANOKE AVENUE RIVEflHEAO, NY 11901 (631) 721-4900 FAX (631) 727o7451 E-Mail: pdanowski 4) danowskilaw.eom jtagga~t O clanowikiiaw.com January 12, 2009 VIA E-MAIL Kieran M. Corcoran, Deputy Town Attorney Town of Southold P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 Re: Rober~ Bombat'R Administrative Al~oeal Dear Kieran: With regard to your comment that the Town Board would like to visit the site and ascertain the location of the proposed structures, if you would be kind enough to advise me when the visit is to take place, I will make sure to have a representative of the surveyor's office present. I have also advised Young & Young, the surveyors, to re-visit the site to make sure the earlier color coded staking is still aceuralely in place. We had different colored surveyor's ribbons on the stakes. Young & Young will visit the site this week and attempt to re-color the surveyor's stakes, l£helpful and if we are able to do itoh time, I will see if we can match up the staking by color code with Ibc alternate plans that are part of the record. Ve~/~uly yours, PSD:gsg cc: Young & Young - Attn: Iloward Young Robert Bombara {VIA E-MAIL) Wednesday, October 17, 2007 Peter S. Danowski PO Box 779 Riverhead, NY 11901 RE: Robert Bombara 1725 North Sea Drive Southold NY SCTM # 54-4-19 Dear Mr. Danowski: I conducted a site inspection at the above property on September 20, 2007. In addition, I conducted a literature review of existing coastal studies of this area of the Southold Long Island Sound shoreline. Based on these reviews, the area in question appears to be a beach and the proposed development consistent with the size and location of existing development. Geologic Setting The area between Horton Point and Duck Pond Point is a deposition area for sand. Brought into this sweeping embayment by tides, currents and waves. Sediments have been accumulating in this embayment for thousands of years, since the retreat of the last glaciers. The most prominent geomorphic features north of the bluffs are beach ridges that are most apparent from an aerial perspective. These Iow relief features mark locations of past shorelines and the intervening lower areas denotes sand that has accreted seaward of the old shoreline. There are at least two sets of beach ridges in this area. One runs just soundward of the pond system and the other runs just soundward of the road area (although its does appear to cross the road in several places). Beach ridges are relict features and typically vegated with mature shrubs and trees such as eastern red cedar, large bayberry and beach plum, as well as Iow growing heather and heath. They are typically very stable features. First Coastal Corporation, Post Office Box 1212 Westhampton Beach, NY 11978 Phone: 631-288-2271, Fax: 631-288-8949 www.firstcoastal.net Environmental Consulting and Construction. Permits to Construction. Preserving the coast since 1975 Figure 2 View to the north as one enters the property. Note mature vegetation. Figure 3 View to the north after entering the property. Note mature vegetation. First Coastal Corporation, Post Office Box 1212 Westhampton Beach, NY 11978 Phone: 631-288-2271, Fax: 63%288~8949 www.firstcoastal.net Environmental Consulting and Construction. Permits to Construction, Preserving the coast since 1975 FIRSJ Figure 4 Sandy beach with margin of beach grass. Figure 5 Mature shrubs to the south and beach grass to the north. First Coastal Corporation, Post Office Box 1212 Westhampton Beach, NY 11978 Phone: 631-288~2271, Fax: 631-288-8949 w'~wv,firstcoastaLnet Environmental Consulting and Construction. Permits to Construction. Preserving the coast since 1975 Figure 1 Location of Bombara property Site Inspection My site inspection of 9/20/07 reinforced many of the observations made from the aerial photographic analysis. The project site and the entire area is made up of Iow profile beach ridges dominated by mature vegetation. Moreover, a large portion of the site is sandy beach that is void of any vegetation. Between these two areas is a margin of beach grass. Several photographs taken on that day confirm these observations. The site staking shows the proposed location of a house that is consistent with the north/south location of other houses in the vicinity. A diagram depicting this condition in enclosed. First Coastal Corporation, Post Office Box 1212 Westhampton Beach, NY 11978 Phone: 631~288-2271, Fax: 63%288-8949 www,firstcoastaLnet Environmental Consulting and Construction, Permits to Construction. Preserving the coast since 1975 Figure 6 Seaward trend of existing development Literature Review I also conducted a literature review of the project area. I attach a portion of the report by Davies, Axelrod and O'Conner from 1973 that discusses this section of shoreline in particular as part of a comprehensive evaluation of the entire North Shore of Long Island.. Davies, et al conducted investigations and developed a Beach Utility Index (BUI) that was used to describe different segments of shoreline. The entire north shore of Long Island was divided into 158 segments. The project area is between segments 137 and 138. In Table 3-5 of the Davies report, both segments aro found to have "No bluff or dune". This is derived by looking at the "Natural Protection Barriers" columns of Table 3-5 where a value of "6" is given for segments 137 and 138. Referring to Table 3-4 that defines each value, a "6" is defined as "No bluff or dune". Note also that in Table 3-4 there is a notation that if a dune exists seaward a bluff that a "d' is added to the number value. Thero is no "d" in the Natural Protection Barrier designation for either segment 137 or 138. First Coastal Corporation, Post Office Box 1212 Westhampton Beach, NY 11978 Phone: 631-288-2271, Fax: 631-288-8949 www.firstcoastal.net Environmental Consulting and Construction. Permits to Construction. Preserving the coast since 1975 FIRSJ' In conclusion, my review of aerial photographs, site conditions, and the literature show this section of shoreline to be dominated by Iow profile beach ridges that are vegetated by mature shrubs and tree fronted by a sandy beach and argin of beach grass. The comprehensive report by Davies et al in 1973 identified this shoreline as having "No bluff or dune" I have attached my Curriculum Vitae for your information. Please advise if there is additional information that you require. Sincerel~13~ __ Aram V. Terchun'l'En, M.Sc. ~ President First Coastal Corporation, Post Office Box 1212 Westhampton Beach, NY 11978 Phone: 631-288-2271, Fax: 631-288-8949 www.firstcoastal.net Environmental Consulting and Construction. Permits to Construction. Preserving the coast since 1975 ARAM V. TERCHUNIAN, M. Sc. Curriculum Vitae Areas of Expertise * Geomorphology, coastal processes, coastal hazard and erosion analysis * Wetlands delineation, permitting and erosion control construction * Environmental science and resource management * Endangered species monitoring and management * Zoning analysis and interpretation Experience * 1990 to Present, First Coastal Corporation - President Responsible for all aspects of the firms consulting and construction services for coastal property owners, municipalities, and associations. * 1999 to Present - Commissioner of Wildlife Protection - Village of West Hampton Dunes Appointed by the Village of West Hampton Dunes to perform duties ordered by U.S. Federal Court in Consent Judgment Rapf Et. Al. vs. Suffolk County, including piping plover monitoring and protection, as well as coordination with Endangered Species Agencies. * 1988 to 1990 Coastal Stabilization, Inc. - Regional Manager of Development Market development and technical sales for the development of a proprietary beach stabilization product. Prepared and executed marketing strategy, prepared and presented technical results at national and international conferences, and presented proposals and RFP responses to local, State, and Federal agencies. * 1984 to 1988, New York State, Department of State, Division of Coastal Resources Coastal Hazards Supervisor responsible for review and recommendations for improvement of existing coastal hazard area management programs in New York State, including coastal erosion hazard areas, flood protection, and disaster relief. Represented the Secretary of State in post coastal disaster survey, assessment, and evaluation teams. Reviewed erosion control and coastal area development actions within coastal hazards areas in New York's coastal zone. * 1982 to 1983, University of Delaware and Ecuadorian Remote Sensing Agency Technical Advisor Instructed Ecuadorian nationals in the use of remote sensing techniques for natural resources mapping including mangroves, coastal erosion, sea surface temperatures, and Amazon land use changes. Prepared grant application for Space Shuttle Imaging Radar mission. First Coastal Corporation, Post Office Box 1212 Westhampton Beach, NY 11978 'F~ Phone: 631-288-2271, Fax: 631-288-8949 www.firstcoastal.net Environmental Consulting and Construction. Permits to Construction. Preserving the coast since 1975 Education * M. Sc. Marine Studies (Coastal Geology), University of Delaware, 1984. M. Sc. Thesis: Hen and Chickens Shoal, Delaware: Evolution of a Modern Tidal Shoal * B. S. Environmental Science and Resource Management (Geology), Lehigh University, 1980 * Endangered Species Training - see attached * Peace Officer, Division of Criminal Justice, State of New York 2000, Completed all required Training and Examination of the Municipal Police Training Council Publications *Daley, W., C. Jones, T.G. Mootoo, A.V. Terchunian, and G. Vegliante, 2000, A Blueprint for Coastal Management: The West Hampton Dunes Story, Shore and Beach, January 2000, V68, N1, pp 25-29. *Terchunian, A.V. and J.A. Smith, 1998, An Economic Snapshot of Long Island's Barrier Island System, Shore and Beach, October 1998, V66, No. 4, pp9-11. * Spencer, R., and A.V. Terchunian, 1997, The Sand Thieves of Long Island's South Shore, Shore and Beach, July 1997, V65, No. 3, pp 4-12. * Terchunian, A.V., and C.L. Merkert, 1995, Little Pikes Inlet, Westhampton, New York, Journal of Coastal Research, V 11, n 3, pp 697-703. * Psuty, N.P., P.A. Gares, M. Kearney, and A. Terchunian, 1992, Coastal Environments: A Field Symposium of the Mid-Atlantic Bight Coastal Zone. Guidebook, Center for Coastal and Environmental Studies, Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, 79 pp. * Terchunian, A. V., 1990, Performance of Beachface Dewatering: The STABEACH System at Sailfish Point (Stuart), Florida, In Proceedings of the 1990 Conference on Beach Preservation Technology, St. Petersburg, FL. * Ball, Sally, F., P. R. Lanza, and A. V. Terchunian, 1989, Coastal Hazard Area Management in New York State, in Proceedings of Coastal Zone '89, Charleston, South Carolina, pp. 4749 - 4760. First Coastal Corporation, Post Office Box 1212 Westhampton Beach, NY 11978 Phone: 631-288-2271, Fax: 631-288-8949 www.firstcoastal.net Environmental Consulting and Construction. Permits to Construction. Preserving the coast since 1975 FIRS.T * Terchunian, A. V., 1988, Can Seawalls and Beaches Coexist?, in Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue 4, Autumn, 1988 Kraus, N. and O. H. Pilkey (eds.) * Terchunian, A. V., and C. H. Fletcher, III, 1984, Current and Shoreline Effects of Shore Perpendicular Structures, in Proceedings of the 10th Annual Coastal Society Conference, Atlantic City, NJ * Terchunian, A. V., V. Klemas, A. Alverez, B, Vasconez, and L. Guerrero, 1984, The Effect of Shrimp Pond Development on Mangroves, In Environmental Management, vl0 n3. Professional Affiliations Association of Field Ornithologists, Member American Littoral Society, Member American Shore and Beach Preservation Association, Member Association of State Floodplain Managers, Member Coastal Education Reseamh Foundation, Member Florida Shore and Beach Preservation Association, Member Group for the South Fork, Member Lehigh University Earth & Environmental Sciences Alumni Advisory Board, Member Long Island Coastal Alliance, Member Long Island Shore and Beach Preservation Association, President Northeast Shore and Beach Preservation Association, Board of Directors Peconic Land Trust, Member Southampton Business Alliance, Vice President Surfrider Foundation, Member The Coastal Society, Member Westhampton Beach School Board, Vice President First Coastal Corporation, Post Office Sox 1212 Westhampton Beach, NY 11978 Phone: 631-288-2271, Fax: 631-288-8949 www.firstcoastaLnet Environmental Consulting and Construction. Permits to Construction. Preserving the coast since 1975 FIRS, T Technical Report No. 18 EROSION OF THE NORTH SNO]~E OF LONG ISLAND D. S. Davies E. W. Axelro~ J. S. O'Connor June 1973 Prepared with support from the Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board and New York State Sea Grant Program Marina Sciences Research Center State Un~v~reity of New York Stony Brook, New York 11790 Coastal Assessment Report Historical Shoreline Position Change at and Adjacent to the Bombara Property: 1725 North Sea Drive, Southold, New York October 2008 TI~T HOt~ Prepared by: Applied Coastal Research and Engineering 766 Falmouth Road, Mashpee, MA Prepared for: Law Offices of Peter S. Danowski 6~.6 Roanoke Avenue, Riverhead, NY Historical Shoreline Position Change at and Adjacent to the Bombara Property: 1725 North Sea Drive, Southold, New York The Bombara Property at ~725 North Sea Drive, Southold, NY, is located approximately 3,500 feet south-southwest of Horton Point, or about 700 feet southwest of Horton Lane Beach (Figure 1). The property abuts a single-family dwelling to the south and undeveloped land to the north. According to the Town of Southold Tax Maps, the seaward edge of the propeOzy is located at the base of what appears to be the primary dune line illustrated on the 2007 imagery. Mr. Bombara has requested a permit to construct a single-family dwelling on the landwardmost loo feet of the tot, an area consistent with the general location of all other single-family dwellings constructed and/or recently renovated along Nm~th Sea Drive. Figure 1. Map illustrating location of Bombara Property relative to Horton Point and Horton Lane Beach on the 2007 orthoimagery. Historical evolution of the beach at and adjacent to the Bombara Property is dependent upon the interaction between coastal geomorphology (beach, dune, and upland environments) and coastal processes responsible for transporting sand to and from beaches (wind, waves, and tides). The most common means of evaluating long-term beach response to coastal processes is historical shoreline change analysis. The following discussion summarizes historical shoreline position change between 1884 and 2007 for the beach at and adjacent to the Bombara Property. As reference, each figure illustrating shoreline change contains property bounds from the Southold Tax Maps for Mr. Bombara and adjacent property owners. Mr. Bombara's property is highlighted in blue on each shoreline change map, and the seaward extent of proposed construction on Mr. Bombara's property is shown with a dashed black line. Figure 2 encompasses the first 8o years of historical shoreline position change for the beach fronting the Bombara Property. The original mapped shoreline existed about 15o feet seaward of the 1964 shoreline and about 20o feet seaward of the 1933 shoreline. Historical storm records indicate that a nor'easter passed this area in January 1933, resulting in the landwardmost position of the high-water shoreline (April 1933) for the period of record. The 1933 shoreline was located about 75 feet seaward of the dashed line marking the extent of proposed construction on the Bombara Property. This represents the only time mapped historical shorelines encroached upon the Bombara Property for the mo-year period of record - all other mapped shorelines resided seaward of the property extent. Figure 3 documents shoreline position changes mapped between 1964 and 198o. Seaward of the Bombara Property, net change was dose to zero. However, mapped shorelines during this 16- year period fluctuated about 30 feet. The 198o shoreline existed about 35 feet seaward of the Bombara Property. Figure 4 illustrates changes recorded between 198o and 2oo4. Net shoreline recession is indicated, however, the 2007 imagery indicates position of the modern high-water shoreline to be near the location of the 198o shoreline. Although relatively little net change was recorded between 198o and 2oo7, variability in shoreline position for this 24-year period was again about 30 feet. As such, overall net shoreline change between 1964 and 2oo7 was about zero, indicating net stability for this 43-year period. Figure 5 documents shoreline position change between 198o and 2004 relative to the 2004 orthoimagery. The purpose of this figure is to illustrate major changes that occurred to the single family dwelling that occupied the lot just south of the Horton Lane Beach parking area. The house just south of this lot also illustrates changes permitted by the Town and completed between 2oo4 and 2007. The structure footprint requested by Mr. Bombara is far smaller than the structure completed just south of the parking lot, and it does not extend as far seaward. Overall, net change in shoreline position since 1955 has been approximately zero. This does not mean the shoreline did not moved during this time. However, it does suggest that regardless of variation in shoreline movement during this 52-year period, net shoreline location is generally unchanged. Furthermore, the variability in shoreline position recorded for this period does not encroach upon the footprint of the Bombara property, indicating that the Bombara Property is outside the 5o-year wave impact zone. Figure 2. Historical shoreline locations at and adjacent to the Bombara Property, 1884 to ~964, overlaying 2007 orthoimagel"y. The seaward extent of proposed construction is approximately 75 feet landward of the 1933 shoreline. Figure 3- Historical shoreline locations at and adjacent to the Bombara Property, 1964 to 198o, overlaying 2007 orthoimagery. The seaward extent of proposed construction is approximately 135 feet landward of the 198o shoreline, indicating net beach accretion between 1933 and 198o. 4 Figure 4- Historical shoreline locations at and adjacent to the Bombara Property, 198o to 2004, overlaying 2007 orthoimagery. The seaward extent of proposed construction is approximately xoo feet landward of the landwardmost shoreline (1998), indicating variable beach change for this 24-year period. 5 Figure 5. Historical shoreline locations at and adjacent to the Bombara Property, 198o to 2004, overlaying 2oo4 orthoimage~3'. Substantial changes in the structure footprint at the northernmost property are evident when comparing Figures 4 and 5. The proposed Bombara structure is landward of this point and of much smaller extent. 6 Ecolo.qical Consultants 40 Hitching Post Lane, Glen Cove, NY 11542 21 Mt. Ponds, Box 311, Wilmington, VT 05363 October 17, 2007 (516) 676-7107 (802) 464-3341 Mr. Peter S. Danowski, Esq. 616 Roanoke Ave Riverhead, NY 11901 Re: Robert Bombara, Southold, coastal zone permits Dear Peter: Dm Associates, Inc. has reviewed the proposed development by Bombara, visited the site and consulted with other experts in developing our opinion concerning environmental protection at this site. Our findings follow, in which we reflect DEC's CEHA regulations (6NYCRR Part 505) in italics, in order to explain the potential impacts on the environment from this proposal (our response to each item in normal type face): Background New York State developed the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area program to identify and protect from erosion all areas of the State's coastline that are subject to such impacts. "Activities, development or other action in erosion hazard areas should be undertaken to minimize damage to property, and prevent the exacerbation of erosion hazards. Some actions may be restricted or prohibited if necessary to protect natural protective features or to prevent or reduce erosion impacts. ' Moreover, the policy of the State is to discourage actions within the designated zones unless it can be shown that these actions include "... erosion protection or non-structural measures which are most likely to prevent damage from effects of erosion during the anticipated life of such proposed actions." The CEHA (Article 34 of the Environmental Conservation Law) is intended to prevent and reduce erosion by preserving natural protective features through regulation of actions within or adjacent to the nearshore zone that could remove or reduce the effectiveness of these features. The Act requires the placement of new construction at safe distances from areas of active erosion, with the intent of keeping these facilities out of areas typically impacted by coastal storms. The Act establishes procedures for local program implementation and encourages administration of coastal erosion management programs by affected municipalities, such as Southold Township. However, since the intent of the Act is directly related to protection of shoreline structures, its protection of natural coastal features is not aimed at the features themselves, but at the function such features serve in protecting coastal resources. Hence, in establishing standards for the issuance of coastal erosion management permits, the law provides for continued use of the State's Coastal zone, and outright prohibition of development was never the intent. In other State regulations, such as for tidal wetlands, the intent of the law was to protect the wetland resources for their own intrinsic ecological function (which functions are specifically listed in those Acts). In the CEHA program, the functional values of the natural features are expressly aimed at protecting structures against erosion, and where development can occur without threat of erosion or expansion of the impacts, development can occur. Accordingly, permit issuance standards (6NYCRR Part 505) require that a proposed activity: a. is reasonable and necessary, considering reasonable alternatives to the proposed activity, and the extent which the proposed activity requires a shoreline location; /~. will not be likely to cause a measurable increase in erosion at the proposed site or other locations; and c. prevents, if possible, or minimizes adverse effects on: *natural protective features and their functions and protective values as described in section 505. 3; *existing erosion protection structures; and *natural resources including, but not limited to, significant fish and wildlife habitats and shellfish beds. Site Specific Conditions at the Bombara property With respect to the defined functional benefits of the CEHA, the regulations list a wide array of natural features that offer varying amounts of protection to the shoreline from wind and water erosion (i.e., beaches, bluffs, dunes and nearshore areas including vegetated habitats). The regulations were designed to prevent activities that may "diminish or eliminate entirely" the protective function of the natural features. 2 The functions of different types of natural protective features are context-specific, so that issuance of a permit must consider the protective functions that "specific types of natural protective features provide ", and the relationship between each site's specific, natural features and the local coastal processes. At the Bombara site, the specific features that provide protection for this stretch of coastline are herein evaluated to show how the conservation of their functions relate to the proposed residence: At the Bombara site, the predominant land cover is beach to a point some 130 feet inland of mean high water, and a 'back-beach' area which is covered with 'beach ridges" and scrub-shrub habitat that has grown up over these slightly elevated sandy areas (see report by First Coastal Consultants describing the Bombara site). According to DEC, "Beaches buffer shorelandsfrorn erosion by absorbing wave energy that otherwise would be expended on the toes of bluffs or dunes." While the project site beach provides for absorption of wave energy, there are no dunes or bluffs within reach of the shoreline at this site, and recent evidence indicates that the inshore area (where the Bombara home is proposed) has not been topographically altered by storms for many years. The homesite area is relatively level, except for the 'sand ridges', so that there are no dunes or bluffs within this CEHA zone that are subject to washout. Therefore, the lot would not be subject to the loss of its erosion protection function if it is developed for residential use, provided the homesite is established using the same topography that is now present at the site. DEC also notes that "Beaches also act as a reservoir of sand or other unconsolidated material for longshore littoral transport and offshore sandbar and shoal formation." At the Bombara site, the topography of the main beachfront is sufficiently separated and slightly elevated from the proposed development area by a rise in elevations to a slope facing the water, so it is not often that littoral transport delivers material inland on this site. Nevertheless, accretion of sand along this coastal area over recent decades has evidently occurred, judging by the 'sand ridges', which are raised sand mounds that are well vegetated with shrubs and grasses. Within the development area, these clumps of scrub-shrub habitat are acting to stabilize the sands effected by wind, and the persistence of these 'sand ridges' is evident from the age and density of the vegetation upon them., A homesite can be developed without disturbing most of the vegetation (i.e., the natural features protecting the area from erosion impacts), and supplemental plantings of baccharis and bayberry can be added to enhance the vegetative component of erosion protection on the developed lot, and seaward of the house to further support the rear of the beachfront. Permit Issuance Standards The CEHA provides regulatory standards aimed at protecting shoreline structures from storm-related damage. Some specific guidance is provided for the type of habitat in which the Bombara property is located: For a project such as the Bombara proposal, located inland ora beach area, the following requirements apply to regulated activities on and near beaches: (1) Excavating, grading or mining which diminishes the erosion protection afforded by beaches is prohibited. The development of this residence will be done in such a manner as to avoid significant re-grading of any of the areas currently buffeting the homesite from erosion impacts. (2) Ail development is prohibited on beaches un/ess specifically allowed by this subdivision. This project therefore requires a permit under thc CEHA program. (3) The normal maintenance of structures may be undertaken without a coastal erosion management permit. Currently, there is a homesite adjacent to the Bombara site which is routinely maintained in similar habitat, and at which there are no signs of loss of erosion protection attributable to the presence of the homesite. (4) The restoration of existing structures that are damaged or destroyed by events not related to coastal flooding and erosion may be undertaken without a coastal erosion management permit. Not applicable. (5) Nonmajor additions to existing structures that are damaged or destroyed by events not related to coastal flooding and erosion may be undertaken without a coastal erosion management permit. Not applicable. (6) The fo/lowing restrictions apply to the use of motor vehicles on beaches: Not applicable. (7) A coastal erosion management permit for deposition of material on beaches will be issued only for expansion or stabilization of beaches; clean sand, or grave/of an equivalent or slightly larger grain size, must be used. The preparation of the Bombara homesite will be conducted using only clean sand and gravel that permits ready percolation of stormwater. 4 (8) Beach grooming or clean-up operations do not require a coastal erosion management permit. Not applicable. (9) A coastal erosion management permit is required for new construction, modification or restoration of docks, piers, wharves, boardwalks, groins, jetties, seawalls, bulkheads, breakwaters, revetments, and artificial beach nourishment. A permit has bccn requested £or Bomb~a. (10) Active bird nesting and breeding areas must not be disturbed unless such disturbance is pursuant to a specific wildlife management activity approved in writing by the department. The site in question is not considered a bird breeding habitat. Conclusion Accordingly, the Bombara proposal complies with the permit issuance standards required for a CEHA permit (6NYCRR Part 505), in that the proposed activity: d. is reasonable and necessary, considering reasonable alternatives to the proposed activity, and the extent which the proposed activity requires a shoreline location; The landowner has no other property in the Town at which they can abide. e. will not be likely to cause a measurable increase in erosion at the proposed site or other locations; and The site does not contain a physiography that is subject to erosion since there is evidence of recent accretion of sand and the sand ridges demonstrate stability, and the neighbor's homesite on similar ground does show evidence for erosion impacts. £ prevents, if possible, or minimizes adverse effects on: *natural protective features and their functions and protective values as described in section 505.3; The natural protective features, beach and sand ridges, are stable and their protective functions will not be altered by the proposed development. *existing erosion protection structures; and No structures exist now. *natural resources including, but not limited to, significant fish and wildlife habitats and shellfish beds. The site does not support significant fish and wildlife, nor is it a host site fro shoreline bird breeding or any other threatened or endangered species. 5 Finally, it is the opinion of Dm Associates that the issuance of a permit for development of the Bombara lot is compatible with both CEHA and Tidal Wetlands protection, since the resoumes protected by either of these programs will remain unaltered by the proposed home. Please feel free to contact us if we can provide further information. Sincerely, Dr. R.W. Abr,~a~s, CEP [2' CEP'" ~.. u.,u-~ ..~ § I 11-19 COASTAL EROSION HAZARD AREAS § 111-23 A. Removal of any structure that was constructed or placed without a coastal erosion management permit; and B. The return to former conditions of any natural protective feature that was excavated, mined or otherwise disturbed without a coastal erosion management permit. ARTICLE 1V Variances and Appeals § 111-20. Variances from standards and restrictions. Strict application of the standards and restrictions of this chapter may cause practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship. When this can be shown, such standards and restrictions may be varied or modified, provided that the following criteria are met: A. No reasonable, prudent, alternative site is available. All responsible means and measures to mitigate adverse impacts on natural systems and their functions and values have been incorporated into the activity's design at the property owner's expense. C. The development will be reasonably safe from flood and erosion damage. D. The variance requested is the minimum necessary to overcome the practical difficulty or hardship which was the basis for the requested variance. E. Where public funds are utilized, the public benefits must clearly outweigh the long-term adverse effects. § 111-21. Format and procedure. Any request for a variance must be in writing and specify the standard, restriction or requirement to be varied and how the requested variance meets the criteria of § 111-20 of this chapter. The burden of demonstrating that the requested variance meets those criteria rests entirely with the applicant. § 111-22. Fees. Each variance request must be accompanied by the required fee of $250, unless said fees are modified by the Town Board under separate resolution. § 111-23. Expiration. Any construction activity allowed by a variance granted by the Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review must be completed within one year from the date of approval or approval with modifications or condition. Variances expire at the end of this one-year period without further hearing or action by the Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review. 111:13 05-ol -2oo6 § 111-24 SOUTHOLD CODE § 111-27 § 111-24. Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review. The Southold Town Board is hereby designated as the Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review and has the authority to: A. Hear, approve, approve with modification or deny request for variances or other forms of relief from the requirements of this chapter. B.. Hear and decide appeals where it is alleged there is error in any order, requirement, decision or determination made by the Administrator in the enforcement of this chapter, including any order requiring an alleged violator to stop, cease and desist. § 111-25. Appeal to Board of Review. The Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review may, in conformity with the provisions of this chapter, reverse or affirm, wholly or partly, or may modify the order, requirement, decision or determination of the Administrator, including stop or cease-and~desist orders. Notice of such decision will forthwith be given to all parties in interest. The roles and procedures for filing appeals are as follows: A. Appeals must be filed with the Town Clerk within 30 days of the date of the adverse decision. All appeals made to the Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review must be in writing on standard forms prescribed by the Board. The Board will transmit a copy to the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation for his information. All appeals must refer to the specific provisions of this chapter involved, specify the alleged errors, the interpretation thereof that is claimed to be correct and the relief which the appellant claims. § 111-26. Appeal to Supreme Court. Any person or persons jointly or severally aggrieved by a decision by the Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review or any officer, department, board or bureau of the Town may apply to the Supreme Court for review by a proceeding under Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules. ARTICLE V Administration and Enforcement § 111-27. Coastal erosion management permit. A coastal erosion management permit will be issued for regulated activities which comply with the general standards (§ 111-9), restrictions and requirements of the applicable sections of this chapter, provided that the following are adhered to: 111:14 os-ol-zOO~ · ~.Oplied Coastal Research and Engineering, Inc. COASTAL ENGINEERING DESIGN COASTAL CHANGE A~. E_SSM~EN_T_ HYDRODYNAMIC 8t WA'IlaR QU&L~ITY MODELING Mark R. Byrnes, Ph.D. Senior Coastal Sdenfist and P/incipal Publ!c_ations A EA OE E_XPE_RT!_S_ r: · Coastal and nearshore sediment transpo~ · Processes affecting land loss in coastal a · Offshore sand resource evaluations · Impact of coastal structures on shoreline · Numerical modeling of wave transformat · Gi$/rnapping applications for coastal en~ · Geologic framework of coastal deposits · Coastal change anayses WAVE at SEDIMENT TRANSPORT~IODELING ONLINE INFORMATION MANAGEMENT Education 1988 Ph.D., Oceanography, Old Dominion University 1978 B.A., Earth Science, Millersville University COASTAL MEASUREMENTS I~ NVI~RO~N__M E~NTAL ~M~PA~CT Dr. Byrnes is a Senior Coastal Scientist and Principal at Applied Coastal Research and E 17 years, he has been a Principal [nvestigator/Program Manager on more than 55 coas Scientist at the U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Coastal and Hy Engineering Research Center); Coastal Geology Section Chief for the Louisiana Geologi, Studies Institute, Louisiana State University; and Senior Coastal Scientist at Aubrey Cot for most studies was on regional coastal erosion and geomorphic change analyses (shc transformation and sediment transport, offshore sand resource assessments, sediment strategies, wetland loss delineation and classification, and geologic framework. He has areas of interest. Over the past 10 years, Dr. Byrnes has been responsible for managing and conducting sedimentation processes and regional response of beaches, inlets, and estuaries to inci include Inlet Sediment Transport Patterns at Grays Harbor, WA and Development of an Bypassing at Structured Entrances and Geomorphic Change f4odeling; Rockefeller Refu and Processes Analyses; Environmental Survey of Identified Sand Resource Sites Offsh the East Coast of Florida; Assessment of Beach Response to a Segmented Breakwater: Budget Evaluation Using Historical Shoreline and Beach Profile Data: Western Town Lit Barder Shoreline Restoration in Coastal Louisiana-Coastal Geology, Geomorpholngy, an Evaluation of the Cumulative Physical Effects of Offshore Sand Dredging for Beach Nou Pipeline Construction and Operation for the Mardi Gras Pipeline, Barataria Basin, LouisL Beach to Fort Pierce Inlet, Florida; Regional Analysis of Sediment Transport and Dredg~ Mouth, Washington/Oregon, and Adjacent Shores; Inlets Online: A Tutorial of Interpret Sediment Transport Patterns and Geomorphic Change at Entrances; Geographic Inforn Sediment Transport Patterns at Inlets and Adjacent Environments: Data Capture, Anal) Environmental Impacts of Offshore Sand Mining in Massachusetts Bay; and Coastal Chi GIS/mapplng tools and numerical modeling are integral components of the strategy us~ knowledge compilation and analysis techniques form the basis for providing innovative environmental issues. Coastal Change Assessment Since 1990, Dr. Byrnes has contracted with Federal agencies such as the Feder~ Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to develop state http://www.appliedcoastal.com/mark.htm 5/17/2008 . ,Applied Coastal Research and Engineering, Inc. ~ a~ ,- u~ -, historical hydrographic and shoreline surveys for quantifying change in the coastal zorn compiling historical map data, where conversion from various cartographic parameters projection, ellipsoid, and datum are criUcal for accurately assessing change and associ These data represent the most basic and useful information for evaluating local and re! influence on coastal evoluUon. FEMA uses these data for determining setback criteria I data for calibrating numerical shoreline change models and for developing coastal stru( used to quantify channel shoaling rates and supply hathymetric data for developing rec. numerical modeling grids. The USGS and MMS use hydrographic and shoreline survey., sediment transport dynamics In the coastal zone. Dr. Byrnes also has applied these te~ the impact pipelines have on wetland loss, including scour associated with pipeline lane has applied these procedures for developing coastal change data sets in support of litic~ witness. _Cha~e_!an_d ~S_h_oal D~,n_amics at Inlets For the past decade, Dr. Byrnes has compiled and analyzed site-specific and regi evolution of channels and shoals at engineered entrances relative to navigation safety funded under the USACE Inlets Research Program to address shoal migration and sedi~ environmental considerations associated with maintenance dredging activities. Becau~ were determined by comparing sequential bathymetric and shoreline surveys, detailed analyzing data sets and associated potential measurement uncertainties. Net sedimenl inlet sediment budgets for predicting long-term system response to engineering activiti _O_ffs_hore Sa_nd _Re_sgy_rce Eva_ly_at!on_s Over the past 11 years, Dr. Byrnes has conducted offshore sand resource evalua characteristics of deposits and the associated potential environmental issues concernin! geographic extent of these studies ranges from coastal Louisiana to offshore Massachu physical environmental effects of dredging activities in altering fluid and sediment tram along shorelines landward of resource areas. Analyses rely on comparison of NOAA hi.~ numerical modeling of wave transformation over variable bathymetry. Analysis results potential dredging effects and for development of impact reports required under the N~ potential lease agreements. I~!p~c_t of Coastal Str_u.c_tures_ q!l_Shoreli~_e.._Chang~ Since 1984, Dr. Byrnes has evaluated the impact of coastal structures on sedim~ throughout the U.S. He has been principal investigator on several studies assessing th, structures on beach response, including an evaluation of beach change to construction southwestern Louisiana and an assessment of dowedri~t beach evolution in response t( GA/FL; Grays Harbor and Columbia River, WA; Port Canaveral and Sebastian Inlet, FL; NY. All projects relied on the application of GIS/mapping tools for accurate compilatio~ evaluating the physical environmental impacts of offshore sand dredging and beach rel nearshore sediment transport patterns for the U.S. Mineral Management Service. Geo_l_o. gic Fr a _m_ewor k_ _Evalua_tio_n_ In a number of regional projects, Dr. Byrnes has conducted studies on the geol( deposits represent the framework upon which modern coastal change is occurring. As understanding the geotechnical factors influencing pipeline, cable, and structure placer deposits. Sediment dynamics at the leading edge of land have substantial influence on trends. Dr. Byrnes has conducted most of these studies with the U.S. Geological Surve Professional Societies Coastal Education and Research Foundation (CERF) · American Geophysical Union (AGU) http://www.appliedcoastal.com/mark.htm 5/17/2008 ,.Applied Coastal Research and Engineering, InC. ~'age .~ pt J · Society for Sedimentary Geology (SEPM) · Geological Society of America (GSA) · Sigma Xi - The Scientific Research Society · Phi Kappa Phi Professional Committees · Editorial Board, Geo-Marine Letters, 1993-present ·Editodal Board, Marine Models Online, 1996-1999 · Associate Editor, Gulf of Mexico Science, 1996-1999 · Gulf Coast Section SEPM Editor for Gulf Coast Association Geological Societies ¢ · Technical Study Advisor for Coastal Wetland Planning, Protection, and Restor, Study, Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, October 1994 to March 199 · Public Policy Committee, Southeast GSA, 1991-1994 · Workshop on the Future Needs of Users for Nautical Information, Working Marine GIS, National Research Council, 1993 If you have questions regarding this site, please contact the Webmast http://www.appliedcoastal.com/mark.htm 5/17/2008 Mark R. Byrnes, Ph.D. Principal Coastal Scientist, Applied Coastal Research and Enginee/ing, Inc. Areas of Expertise · Coastalchange assessment · Coastaland nearshore sediment transport · Processes affecting land loss in coastal and estuarine environments · Offshore sand resoumeevaluations · Physical environmental impact assessments for coastal environments · Impact of coastal structures on shoreline response · GIS/mapping for coastal environments · Numerical modeling of wave transformation and shoreline change Education 1988 Ph.D., Oceanography, Old Dominion University 1978 B.A., Earth Science, Millersville University Experience Dr. Byrnes is a Principal Coastal Scientist at Applied Coastal Research and Engineering, Inc. (Applied Coastal). For the past 20 years, he has been a Principal Investigator/Program Manager on more than 60 coastal and nearshore process studies as a Research Scientist at the U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory (formerly the Coastal Engineering Research Center); Coastal Geology Section Chief for the Louisiana Geological Survey; Research Professor at the Coastal Studies Institute, Louisiana State University; Senior Coastal Scientist at Aubrey Consulting, Inc.; and Principal Coastal Scientist at Applied Coastal. The emphasis for most studies has been on regional coastal change and geomorphic evolution of nearshore sedimentary deposits (shoreline and bathymetric change), physical environmental impact assessments for coastal and estuarine environments, wave transformation and sediment transport, offshore sand resource assessments, sediment budget evaluations, shoreline restoration strategies, wetland loss delineation and classification, and geologic framework of coastal deposits. He has authored more than 90 publications in these research areas. Over the past 20 years, Dr. Byrnes has been responsible for managing and conducting numerous projects focused on coastal sedimentation processes and regional response of beaches, inlets, and estuaries to incident wave and current processes. Projects include Channel Dredging Impacts on Shoreline Response at and Adjacent to Main Pass, Mobile Bay Entrance, Alabama; Quantifying Regional Sediment Dynamics in Nearshore Environments: Historical Sediment Pathways, Lateral Inlet and Island Migration, and Detailed Sediment Budgets; Environmental Survey of Identified Sand Resource Sites Offshore Alabama, Central East Florida, North Carolina, New Jersey, and New York; Study of the Environmental Impacts of Offshore Sand Mining in Massachusetts Bay; Physical Environmental Impacts of Pipeline Construction and Operation for the Mardi Gras Pipeline, Barataria Basin, Louisiana; Rockefeller Refuge Gulf Shoreline Stabilization: Coastal Geology and Processes Analyses; Assessment of Beach Response to a Segmented Breakwater System: Southwest Louisiana Coast; Sediment Budget Evaluation Using Historical Shoreline and Beach Profile Data: Western Town Line to Horton Point, Southold, NY; Feasibility of Barrier Shoreline Restoration in Coastal Louisiana-Coastal Geology, Geomorphology, and Physical Processes; Coastal Change Assessment for Bravard County, FL; Numerical Modeling Evaluation of the Cumulative Physical Effects of Offshore Sand Dredging for Beach Nourishment; Shoreline Change Assessment: Satellite Beach to Fort Pierce Inlet, Florida; Sediment Bypassing at 11/1712006 Mark R. Byrnes 1 of 19 Structured Entrances and Geomorphic Change Modeling; Inlet Sediment Transport Patterns at Grays Harbor, WA and Development of an Entrance Sediment Budget; Regional Analysis of Sediment Transpmt and Dredged Matedal Disposal Patterns, Columbia River Mouth, Washington/Oregon, and Adjacent Shores; Inlets Online: A Tutorial of Interpreting Aerial Photography for the Analysis of Sediment Transport Patterns and Geomorphic Change at Entrances; and Geographic Information System Development for Evaluating Sediment Transport Patterns at Inlets and Adjacent Environments: Data Capture, Analysis, and Management. GIS/mapping tools and numerical modeling are integral components of the strategy used to address project objectives. State-of-knowledge compilation and analysis techniques form the basis for providing innovative strategies for addressing complex coastal environmental issues. Coastal Chanqe Assessment Since 1990, Dr. Byrnes has contracted with Federal agencies such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to develop state-of-science methods for compiling and analyzing historical hydrographic and shoreline surveys for quantifying change in the coastal zone. Detailed procedures were developed for compiling historical map data, where conversion from vadous cartographic parameters to a common coordinate system, map projection, ellipsoid, and datum are critical for accurately assessing change and associated potential measurement uncertainties, These data represent the most basic and useful information for evaluating local and regional sediment transport dynamics and their influence on coastal evolution. The USGS and MMS use hydrographic and shoreline surveys for basic and applied scientific research on sediment transport dynamics in the coastal zone. USACE uses shoreline data for calibrating numerical shoreline change models and for developing coastal structure design criteria. FEMA uses these data for determining setback cdteda for coastal construction. Hydrographic surveys are used to quantify channel shoaling rates and supply bathymetric data for developing regional circulation and sediment transport numerical modeling gdds. Dr. Byrnes also has applied these techniques in wetland environments for evaluating the impact pipelines have on wetland loss, including scour associated with pipeline landfall from offshore sites. Recently, Dr. Byrnes has applied these procedures for developing coastal change data sets in support of litigation, for which he has served as an expert witness. Offshore Sand Resource Evaluations Over the past 16 years, Dr. Byrnes has conducted offshore sand resource evaluations for determining the sedimentary characteristics of deposits and the associated potential environmental issues concerning sand mining on the Continental Shelf. The geographic extent of these studies ranges from coastal Louisiana to offshore Massachusetts. Dr. Byrnes' primary interest is with the geological development of offshore shoals and the physical environmental effects of dredging activities in altering fluid and sediment transport patterns at potential borrow sites and along shorelines landward of resource areas. Analyses rely on comparison of NOAA historical bathymetry and shoreline data sets and numerical modeling of wave transformation over variable bathymetry. Analysis results supply information for policy decisions regarding potential dredging effects and for development of impact reports required under the National Environmental Policy Act in support of potential lease agreements. Channel and Shoal Dynamics at Inlets Since 1992, Dr. Byrnes has compiled and analyzed site-specific and regional bathymetric surveys to document the evolution of channels and shoals at entrances relative to navigation safety and environmental concerns. Many studies were funded under the USACE Inlets Research Program to address shoal migration and sedimentation processes in navigation channels and environmental considerations associated with maintenance dredging activities. Because 11117/2006 Mark R. Byrnes 2 of 19 sedimentation patterns and rates of change were determined by comparing sequential bathymetric and shoreline surveys, detailed procedures were developed for compiling and analyzing data sets and associated potential measurement uncertainties. Net sediment volume changes were quantified to develop inlet sediment budgets for predicting long-term system response to engineering activities. Impact of Coastal Structures on Shoreline Chanqe Since 1984, Dr. Byrnes has evaluated the impact of coastal structures on sediment transport dynamics and coastal evolution throughout the U.S. He has been principal investigator on several studies assessing the influence of navigation and shore protection structures on beach response, including an evaluation of beach change to construction of 85 segmented breakwaters offshore southwestern Louisiana and an assessment of downdrift beach evolution in response to jetty construction at St. Marys Entrance, GA/FL; Grays Harbor and Columbia River, WA; Port Canaveral and Sebastian Inlet, FL; and Mattituck and Goldsmith Inlets, Southold, NY. All projects relied on the application of G IS/mapping tools for accurate compilation and analysis of data sets. Presently, he is evaluating the physical environmental impacts of offshore sand dredging and beach replenishment (soft structure) on coastal and nearshore sediment transport patterns for the U.S. Mineral Management Service. Geoloaic Framework Evaluation In a number of regional projects, Dr. Byrnes has conducted studies on the geologic evolution of coastal environments. These deposits represent the framework upon which modem coastal change is occurring. As such, he has devoted substantial time understanding the geological factors contributing to lhe evolution of nearshore, barrier beach, and estuarine deposits. Sediment dynamics at the land-sea boundary exerts substantial influence on the placement of structures relative to erosion trends. Dr. Byrnes has conducted most of these studies with the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Professional Societies · Coastal Education and Research Foundation (CERF) · American Geophysical Union (AGU) · Society for Sedimentary Geology (SEPM) · Geological Society of America (GSA) · Sigma Xi - The Scientific Research Society · PhiKappa Phi Professional Committees · Editorial Board, Gao-Marine Letters, 1993-2004 · Editorial Board, Marine Models Online, 1996-1999 · Associate Editor, Gulf of Mexico Science, 1996-1999 · Gulf Coast Section SEPM Editor for Gulf Coast Association Geological Societies Conference, 1995 · Technical Study Advisor for Coastal Wetland Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act (CWPPRA): Louisiana Barrier Shoreline Study, Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, October 1994 to March 1995 · Public Policy Committee, Southeast GSA, 1991-1994 · Workshop on the Future Needs of Users for Nautical Information, Working Group 3: Database Issues/Nautical Charts and Marine GIS, National Research Council, 1993 11/17/2006 Mark R. Byrnes 3 of 19 Refereed Publications Byrnes, M.R., R.M. Hammer, and T.D. Thibaut, 2004. Physical and biological effects of sand mining offshore Alabama. Journal of Coastal Reseamh, 20(1): 6-24. Byrnes, M.R., R.M. Hammer, and T.D. Thibaut, 2004. Effects of sand mining on physical processes and biological communities offshore New Jersey. Journal of Coastal Research, 20(1): 25-43. Kelley, S.W., J.S. Ramsey, and M.R. Byrnes, 2004. Evaluating the physical effects of offshore sand dredging for beach nourishment. Journal of Coastal Research, 20(1): 89-100. Drucker, B.S., W. Waskes, and M.R. Byrnes, 2004. The U.S. Minerals Management Service Outer Continental Shelf Sand and Gravel Program: environmental studies to assess the potential effects of offshore dredging operations in Federal waters. Journal of Coastal Research, 20(1): 1-5. Byrnes, M,R., M. Crowell, and C. Fowler, 2003. Preface. In: Byrnes, M.R., M. Crowell, and C. Fowler (editors), Shoreline Mapping and Change Analysis: Technical Considerations and Management Implications. Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue 38, pp. 1-4. Taylor, M.J., R,A. McBride, L.C. Anderson, and M.R. Byrnes, 2002. Building on the research of our founders: 65 years ofchenier plain studies at Louisiana State University. In: M.K. Steinberg and P.F. Hudson (editors), Cultural and Physical Expositions: Geographic Studies in the Southern United States and Latin America. Geoscience and Man Series, Volume 36, Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge, LA, pp. 261-276. Byrnes, M.R. and N.C. Kraus, 1999. Regional sediment transport patterns adjacent to Canaveral Harbor, Florida. In: N.C. Kraus and W.G. McDougal (editors), Coastal Sediments '99, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY, pp. 750-760. Underwood, S.G., R. Chen, G.W. Stone, X. Zhang, M.R. Byrnes, and R.A. McBride, 1999. Beach response to a segmented breakwater system, southwest Louisiana, U.S.A. In: N.C, Kraus and W.G. McDougal (editors), Coastal Sediments '99, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY, pp. 2042-2056. Anderson, L.C., R.A. McBride, M.J. Taylor, and M.R. Byrnes, 1998. Late Holocene record of community replacement preserved in time-averaged Molluscan assemblages, Louisiana Chenier Plain. Palaios, 13: 488-499. McBride, R.A. and M.R. Byrnes, 1997. Regional variations in shore response along barrier island systems of the Mississippi River delta: historical change and future prediction. Journal of Coastal Research, 13(3): 628-655. Anderson, L.C., B.K. Sen Gupta, R.A. McBride, and M.R. Byrnes, 1997. Reduced seasonality of Holocene climate and pervasive mixing of Holocene marine section: northeastern Gulf of Mexico shelf. Geology, 25(2): 12%130. Byrnes, M.R. and M.W. Hiland, 1995. Large-scale sediment transport patlerns on the continental shelf and influence on shoreline response: St. Andrew Sound, Georgia to Nassau Sound, Florida, U.S.A. In: J.H. List and J.H.J. Terwindt (editors), Large-Scale Coastal Behavior. Marine Geology, 126: 19-43. McBride, R.A., M.R. Byrnes, and M.W. Hiland, 1995. Geomorphic response-type model for barrier coastlines: a regional perspective. In: J.H. List and J.H.J. Terwindt (editors), Large-Scale Coastal Behavior. Marine Geology, 126: 143-159. Byrnes, M.R., R.A. McBride, Q.Tao, and L.Duvic, 1995~ Historical shoreline dynamics along the Chenier Plain of southwestern Louisiana. Gulf Coast Association Geological Societies Transactions, 45:113-122. 11/171'2006 Mark R. Byrnes 4 of 19 Anderson, L.C., M.R. Byrnes, and R.A. McBride, 1995. Paleoenvironmental and taphonomic evidence of diverse bioclast sources for southwester Louisiana Cheniers. Gulf Coast Association Geological Societies Transactions, 45:21-30. McBride, R.A. and M.R. Byrnes, 1995. Surficial sediments and morphology of the southwestern Alabama/Florida Panhandle shelf. Gulf Coast Association Geological Societies Transactions, 45: 393-404. McBride, R.A. and M.R. Byrnes, 1995. A megascale systems approach for shoreline change analysis and coastal management along the northern Gulf of Mexico. Gulf Coast Association Geological Societies Transactions, 45:405-414 (2nd Place, Best Paper Award, GCS-SEPM). Taylor, M.J., M.R. Byrnes, and R.A. McBride, 1995. Sediment texture and composition changes along the southwest Louisiana coast: implications to sediment supply. Gulf Coast Association Geological Societies Transactions, 45: 557-564. Zenero, R.R., D.L. Seng, M.R. Byrnes, and R.A. McBride, 1995. Geophysical techniques for evaluating the internal structure of cheniers, southwestern Louisiana. Gulf Coast Association Geological Societies Transactions, 45:611-620 (1st Place, Best Paper Award, GCAGS). Byrnes, M.R. and M.W. Hiland, 1994. Shoreline position and nearshore bathymetric change (Chapter 3). In: N.C. Kraus, L.T. Gorman, and J. Pope (editors), Kings Bay Coastal and Estuarine Monitoring and Evaluation Program: Coastal Studies. Technical Report CERC-94-09, Coastal Engineering Reseamh Center, Vicksburg, MS, p. 61-143. Byrnes, M.R. and M.W. Hiland, 1994. Compilation and analysis of shoreline and bathymet~J data (Appendix B). In: N.C. Kraus, L.T. Gorman, and J. Pope (editors), Kings Bay Coastal and Estuarine Monitoring and Evaluation Program: Coastal Studies. Technical Report CERC-94-09, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Vicksburg, MS, p. B1-B90. Kraus, N.C. and M.R. Byrnes, 1994. Conclusions. In: N.C. Kraus, L.T. Gorman, and J. Pope (editors), Kings Bay Coastal and Estuarine Monitoring and Evaluation Program: Coastal Studies. Technical Report CERC-94-09, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Vicksburg, MS, p. 261-268. Byrnes, M.R. and M.W. Hiland, 1993. Regional seafloor changes near St. Marys Entrance, Georgia/Florida and their influence on shoreline response. In: List, J.H. (editor), Large-Scale Coastal Behavior'93, Research Conference Proceedings, U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 93-381, p. 17-20. McBride, R.A. and M.R. Byrnes, 1993. Shoreline response types along barrier coastlines: a regional perspective. In: List, J.H. (editor), Large-Scale Coastal Behavior '93, Research Conference Proceedings, U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 93-381, p. 119-122. Stauble, D.K., S.G. Unden~ood, M.R. Byrnes, and MW. Hiland, 1993. Re'gional impacts of inlet engineering and beach replenishment at Fenwick and Assateague Islands, Maryland. In: List, J.H. (editor), Large-Scale Coastal Behavior '93, Research Conference Proceedings, U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 93-381, p. 185-188. Byrnes, M.R., R.A. McBride, S. Penland, M.W. Hiland, and K.A. Westphal, 1991. Historical changes in shoreline position along the Mississippi Sound barrier islands. In: Coastal Depositional Systems in the Gulf of Mexico: Quaternary Framework and Environmental Issues, GCS-SEPM 12~ Annual Research Conference, pp. 43-55. Byrnes, M.R., S. Penland, K.E. Ramsey, T.G. Crawford, R.F. Kelly, and J. Rowland, 1991. Offshore sand resources for coastal erosion in Louisiana: physical environmental considerations and economic feasibility. MTS '91 Proceedings, Marine Technology Society, Washington, D.C., pp. 755-761. 11/17/2006 Mark R, Byrnes 5 of 19 Byrnes, M.R., R.A. McBride, and M.W. Hiland, 1991. Accuracy standards and development cfa national shoreline change database. In: N.C. Kraus, K.J. Gingerich, and D.L. Kdebel (editors), Coastal Sediments '91, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY, pp. 1027-1042. Anders, F:J. and M.R. Byrnes, 1991. Accuracy of shoreline change rates as determined from maps and aerial photographs. Shore and Beach, 59(1): 17-26. Hansen, M. and M.R. Byrnes, 1991. Development of optimum beach fill design cross section. In: N.C. Kraus, K.J. Gingerich, and D.L. Kriebel (editors), Coastal Sediments '91, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY, pp. 2067-2080. McBride, R.A., M.R. Byrnes, S. Penland, D.L. Pope, and J.L. Kindinger, 1991. Geomorphic history, geologic framework, and hard mineral resources of the Petit Bois Pass area, Mississippi-Alabama. In: Coastal Depositional Systems in the Gulf of Mexico: Quaternary Framework and Environmental Issues, GCS-SEPM 12th Annual Research Conference, pp. 116-127. McBride, R.A., M.W. Hiland, S. Penland, S.J. Williams, M.R. Byrnes, K.A. Westphal, B. Jaffe, and A.H. Sallenger, Jr., 1991. Mapping barrier island changes in Louisiana: Techniques, Accuracy, and Results. In: N.C. Kraus, K.J. Gingerich, and D.L. Kriebel (editors), Coastal Sediments '91, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY, pp. 1011-1026. McBride, R.A., D.W. Davis, F.W. Jones, M.R. Byrnes, D. Braud, M.W. Hiland, A.J, Lewis, and H.R. Streiffer, 1991, Louisiana Coastal Geographic Information System Network (LCGISN): access to spatial data. Meridian, 6: 29-43. Byrnes, M.R. and K.J. Gingedch, 1987. Cross-island profile response to Hurricane Gloria. In: N.C. Kraus (editor), Coastal Sediments '87, Amedcan Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY, p. 1486- 1502. Books and Edited Volumes Byrnes, M,R., M. Crowell, and C. Fowler, 2003. Shoreline Mapping and Change Analysis: Technical Considerations and Management Implications. Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue 38,215 p. John, C.J. and M.R. Byrnes, 1995. Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies Transactions, Gulf Coast Geology: A Global Resource. GCAGS 45th Annual Convention, Baton Rouge, LA, 648 p. Technical Reports Byrnes, M.R., 2006, Processes Affecting Wetland Change in the Calcasieu-Sabine Basin with Special Reference to Dot6 Energy Corporation Property. Expert Report to Defendants, 41 pp. Byrnes, M.R. and S.F. Griffee, 2006. Regional Sediment Transport Patterns Relative to Engineering Activities at the Mouth of the Columbia River, Washington/Oregon. Report to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District, Portland, OR, 45 p. plus 5 Appendices. Byrnes, M.R., 2006. Chronology of Events Affecting Wetland Change in Terrebonne Parish with Special Reference to Harp/Bourg Corporation Property. Supplemental Expert Report to Frilot, Partridge, Kohnke & Clements, LC, 30 p. Byrnes, M.R., 2005. Processes Affecting Wetland Change in Terrabonne Padsh with Special Reference to Harry Bourg Corporation Property South of Falgout Canal Between Bayou Du Large and the Houma Navigation Canal. Expert Report to Kean, Miller, Hawthorne, D'Armond, McGowan, & Jarman, LLP, 37 p. Byrnes, M.R. and J.L. Baker, 2005. Sediment Budget Analysis: Culloden Point to Shagwong Point, Lake Montauk, NY. Final Report to Offshore and Coastal Technologies, Chadds Ford, PA, 17 p. 11/17/2006 Mark R. Byrnes 6 of 19 Hammer, R.M., M.R. Byrnes, D.B. Snyder, T.D. Thibaut, J.L Baker, S.W. Kelley, J.M. Cote, L.M. Lagera, S.T. Viada, B.A. Vittor, J.S. Ramsey, and J.D. Wood, 2005. Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas on the Central East Florida Shelf and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Leasing Division, Marine Minerals Branch, Herndon, VA. OCS Report MMS 2004-037, Volume h Main Text, 328 pp. + Volume Il: Appendices, 276 pp. Byrnes, M.R., R.M. Hammer, S.W. Kelley, J.L. Baker, D.B. Snyder, T.D. Thibaut, S.A Zichichi, L.M. Lagera, S.T. Viada, B.A. Vittor, J.S. Ramsey, and J.D. Germano, 2004. Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration. U,S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Leasing Division, Marine Minerals Branch, Hemdon, VA. OCS Report MMS 2004-044, Volume I: Main Text 264 pp. + Volume I1: Appendices 194 pp. Wise, L.A., T.N. McLellan, and M.R. Byrnes, 2004. Feasibility analysis of shore protection for Rockefeller Wildlife Refuge in the chenier plain of southwestern Louisiana (USA). Proceedings Coastal Structures '03, Portland, OR, 13 p. Byrnes, M.R., R.M. Hammer, B.A. Vittor, S.W. Kelley, D.B. Snyder, J.M, Cote, J.S. Ramsey, T.D. Thibaut, N.W. Phillips, and J.D. Wood, 2003. Collection of Environmental Data Within Sand Resource Areas Offshore North Carolina and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Leasing Division, Sand and Gravel Unit, Hemdon, VA. OCS Report MMS 2000-056, Volume I: Main Text, 256 pp. + Volume Ih Appendices, 69 pp. Baker, J.L. and M.R. Byrnes, 2004. Appendix F: Shoreline and Bathymetry Data. In: Kraus, N.C. and H.T. Arden (editors), North Jetty Performance and Entrance Channel Maintenance, Grays Harbor, Washington. Technical Report ERDC/CHL TR-03-12, US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vickburg, MS. Byrnes, M.R. and J.L Baker, 2003. Chapter 3: Inlet and Nearshore Morphodynamics. In: Kreus, N.C. and H.T. Arden (Editors), North Jetty Performance and Entrance Navigation Channel Maintenance, Greys Harbor, Washington, Volume I: Main Text. ERDC/CHL TR-03-12, Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Reseamh and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS, pp. 67-136. Byrnes, M.R,, and F. Li, 2003. Chapter 3: Regional Processes. In: Gailani, J.Z. and others, Monitoring Dredged Material Disposal at Mouth of Columbia River, Washington/Oregon, USA. Technical Report TR-03-5, USAE Research and Development Center, Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory, Vicksburg, MS, pp. 42-82. Byrnes, M.R., J.L. Baker, and N.C. Kraus, 2003. Coastal sediment budget for Greys Harbor, WA. In: Proceedings Coastal Sediments 2003, The Fifth International Symposium on Coastal Engineering and Science of Coastal Sediment Processes, Clearwater, FL, 10 p. Byrnes, M.R, R.M. Hammer, and T.D. Thibaut, 2003. Environmental survey of identified sand resource areas offshore AJabama. 21st Annual Information Transfer Meeting Proceedings, MMS 2003-005, U.S. Minerals Management Service, New Orleans, LA, pp. 333-340. Byrnes, MR., R.M Hammer, and T.D. Thibaut, 2003. Environmental survey of potential sand resoume sites: offshore New Jersey. 21st Annual Information Transfer Meeting Proceedings, MMS 2003-005, U.S. Minerals Management Service, New Orleans, LA, pp. 349-354. Byrnes, M.R., R.M. Hammer, and T.D. Thibaut, 2003. Collection of environmental data within sand resource areas offshore North Carolina and the environmental implications of sand removal for coastal and beach restoration. 21st Annual Information Transfer Meeting Proceedings, MMS 2003- 005, U,S, Minerals Management Service, New Orleans, LA, pp. 355-360. 11/17/2006 Mark R. Byrnes 7 of 19 Kelley, S.W., J.S. Ramsey, and M.R. Byrnes, 2003, Numerical modeling evaluation of the cumulative physical effects of offshore sand dredging for beach nourishment. 21st Annual Information Transfer Meeting Proceedings, MMS 2003-005, U.S. Minerals Management Service, New Odeans, LA, 417-422. Kraus, N.C. and M.R. Byrnes, 2002. Technical Comments on 30 September 2002 Final Report "Independent Study Report, Brevard County, Florida, Shore Protection Project' by Independent Coastal Expert Team (ICE'r). Memorandum for Record dated 2 December 2002 from the U.S. Army Engineer Reseamh and Development Center, Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory, Vicksburg, MS to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District, Jacksonville, FL, 21 pp. Byrnes, M.R., F. Li, and J.D. Rosati, 2002. Inlets Online: A Tutorial for Evaluating Inlet/Beach Processes Using Aerial Photography. ERDC/CHL CHETN-IV-51, Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS, 10 p. Byrnes, MR., J.L. Baker, and F. Li, 2002. Quantifying potential measurement errors and uncertainties associated with bathymetdc change analysis. ERDC/CHL CHETN-IV-50, Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Reseamh and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS, 17p. Kelley, S.W., J.S. Ramsey, and M.R. Byrnes, 2001. Numerical Modeling Evaluation of the Cumulative Physical Effects of Offshore Sand Dredging for Beach Nourishment. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, International Activities and Madne Minerals Division (INTERMAR), Hemdon, VA. OCS Report MMS 2001-098, 96 pp. + 90 pp. appendices Cote, J.M. and M.R. Byrnes, 2001. Total Current Observations, Hudson River, Rensselaer, NY: March 27, 2001. Final Report to ENSR International, Acton, MA, 40 pp. Cote, J.M. and M.R. Byrnes, 2001. Physical Environmental Impacts of Pipeline Construction and Operation for the Mardi Gras Transportation System. Final Report to Paragon Engineering, Inc., Houston, TX, 35 pp. Byrnes, M.R., R.M. Hammer, B.A. Vittor, J.S. Ramsey, D.B. Snyder, J.D. Wood, K.F. Bosma, T,D. Thibaut, and N.W. Phillips, 2001. Environmental Survey of Potential Sand Resource Sites: Offshore New Jersey, Volume I: Main Text, Volume Ii: Appendices. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, International Activities and Marine Minerals Division (INTERMAR), Hemdon, VA. OCS Report MMS 2000-052, 380 pp. + 284 pp. appendices. Byrnes, M.R. and F. Li, 2000. Historical Shoreline Change Analysis: Satellite Beach to Fort Pierce Inlet, Florida. Final Report to the Sebastian Inlet Tax District Commission, Indialantic, FL, 88 pp. Byrnes, M.R., 2000. Sediment Erosion and Deposition Resulting from Steamship Authority Vessel Operations in Hyannis Inner Harbor and the Impact on Sedimentation at Hyannis Marina. Expert Report for Rubin and Rudman, LLP, Boston, MA, 27 pp. Byrnes, M.R., J.S. Ramsey, R.M. Hammer, and E.A. Wadman, 2000. Assessing Potential Environmental Impacts of Offshore Sand and Gravel Mining. Final Report to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, Coastal Zone Management, 48 pp. Kelley, S.W., J.S. Ramsey, and M.R. Byrnes, 1999. Comparison of Numerical Spectral Wave Transformation Models for Evaluating the Physical Environmental Impacts of Offshore Sand Mining. Report to the U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, International Activities and Marine Minerals Division (INTERMAR), Hemdon, VA, 24 pp. Byrnes, M,R., 1999. Sediment Deposition at Hyannis Marina Resulting from Steamship Authority Vessel Operations in Hyannis Harbor, 1988 to 1998. Report to Rubin and Rudman, LLP, Boston, MA, 7 pp. 11/17/2oo6 Mark R. Byrnes 8of19 Byrnes, M.R., R.M. Hammer, B.A. Vittor, J.S. Ramsey, D.B. Snyder, K.F. Bosma, J.D. Wood, T.D. Thibaut, and N.W. Phillips, 1999. Environmental Study of Identified Sand Resource Areas Offshore Alabama: Volume I: Main Text, Volume I1: Appendices. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, International Activities and Madne Minerals Division (INTERMAR), Hemdon, VA. OCS Report MMS 99-0052, 326 pp. + 132 pp. appendices. Kraus, N.C., M.R. Byrnes, and A-L. Lindquist, 1999. Coastal Processes Assessment for Brevard County, Florida, with Special Reference to Test Plaintiffs. Technical Report CHL-99-6, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Ware[ways Experiment Station, Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory, Vicksburg, MS, 162 p. Byrnes, M.R., and F. Li, 1999. Regional Analysis of Sediment Transport and Dredged Matedal Disposal Patterns, Columbia River Mouth, Washington/Oregon, and Adjacent Shores. Final Report to USAE Waterways Experiment Station, Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory, Vicksburg, MS, 45 p. V~ Fields, M.L., M.R. Byrnes, and K.F. Bosma, 1998. Historical Shoreline Change Analysis: Western Town Line to Horton Point, Southold, New York. Final Report to the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, NY, 86 p., 2 appendices. Taylor, M.J., M.R. Byrnes, and R.A. McBdde, 1996. Form/process relationships and geomorphlc evolution of the southwest Louisiana Chenler Plain. Gulf Coast Association Geological Societies Transactions, 46:413-422. McBride, R.A., M.R. Byrnes, and L.C. Anderson, 1996. Shelf sedimentary facies offshore southwestern Alabama and western Florida Panhandle: Northeastern Gulf of Mexico, Gulf Coast Association Geological Societies Transactions, 46:287-299. Byrnes, M.R. and R.A. McBride, 1996. Coastal erosion hazards in Louisiana. In: O.K, Huh (editor), Natural Coastal Environmental Hazards, Report of a Workshop by NASA and Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, pp. 61-71. Byrnes, M.R. and R.A. McBride, 1996. Shoreline change along the Chenier Plain. CoastWise, 6(1): 22-25. Byrnes, M.R. and R.A. McBride, 1996. Northeast Gulf of Mexico hard mineral resources study. Proceeding of the 15th Annual Information Transfer Meeting, U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, New Orleans, LA, pp. 481-486. Byrnes, M.R., R.A. McBdde, L.C. Anderson, M.J. Taylor, and R.R. Zenero, 1995. Sedimentary Processes, Geologic Framework, and Coastal Erosion Issues of the Chenier Plain in Southwestern Louisiana. Fieldtrlp Guidebook for the 45th Annual Meeting of the Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies, 196 p. Byrnes, M.R. and R.A. McBride, 1995. Preliminary Assessment of Beach Response to a Segmented Breakwater System: Constance Beach and Vicinity, 1990-1994. Final Report to Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Coastal Restoration Division, Baton Rouge, LA, 102 p. Byrnes, M.R. and R.A. McBdde, 1995. Shoreline Response to Natural and Human-Induced Processes Along the Chenier Plain of Southwestern Louisiana. Louisiana Barder Island Workshop, Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana, Baton Rouge, LA, 5 p. Byrnes, M.R., R.A. McBride, S.G. Underwood, and K.P. Corbley, 1994. Losing ground: mapping Louisiana's disappearing coastline. GPS World, p. 46-50. Hiland, M.W. and M.R. Byrnes, 1994. New York Bight Study, Report 4, Geographic Information System and Relational Database Management System Development. Technical Report CERC-94- 4, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Vicksburg, MS, 81 p. 11/17/2006 Mark R. Bymes 9 of 19 Wayne, L.D., M.R. Byrnes, J.D. Hayden, and G. Pallinti, 1994. An analytical model for classifying land loss in Louisiana. Proceedings of the Second Thematic Conference on Remote Sensing for Madne and Coastal Environments. Volume 1, p. 679-686. Byrnes, M.R., M.W. Hiland, and R.A. McBdde, 1994. Pilot Erosion Rate Data Study, Hardson County, Mississippi: Phase IV- Differential GPS Survey for Mapping High-Water Shoreline Position. Final Report to Federal Emergency Management Agency, Office of Risk Assessment, Washington, D.C., 164 p. Byrnes, M.R., 1993. Sea-level rise and shoreline change. In: National Park Service Global Change and Coastal Dynamics Workshop Proceedings, Charlottesville, VA, 11 p. Byrnes, M.R., M,W. Hiland, and R.A. McBride, 1993. Historical shoreline position change for the mainland beach in Hardson County, Mississippi. In: O,T. Magoon, W.S. Wilson, H. Converse, and L.T. Tobin (editors), Coastal Zone '93, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY, pp. 1406-1420. Hiland, M.W., M.R. Byrnes, R.A. McBride, and F.W. Jones, 1993. Change analysis and spatial information management for coastal environments. MicroStation Manager, 3(3): 58-61. Wayne, L.D., M.R. Byrnes, L.D. Britsch, S. Penland, P.L. Wilkey, T.A. Williams, and S.J. Williams, 1993. A method for classifying land loss by geomorphology and process. In: S. Laska and A. Puffer (editors), Coastlines of the Gulf of Mexico, Coastal Zone '93, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY, pp. 85-95. Staut)le, D.K., G.W. Holem, M.R. Byrnes, F.J. Anders, and E. Meisburger, 1993. SUPERDUCK Beach Sediment Sample Experiment: Beach Profile Change and Foreshore Sediment Dynamics. Technical Report CERC-93o4, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Vicksburg, MS, 41 p. Byrnes, MR., M.W. Hiland, and R.A. McBride, 1993. Pilot Erosion Rate Data Study, Harrison County, Mississippi: Phase III - Data Analysis and Interpretation. Final Report to Federal Emergency Management Agency, Office of Risk Assessment, Washington, D.C., 102 p. Debusschere, K., S. Penland, K.E. Ramsey, D. Lindstedt, K.A. Westphal, R. Seal, R.A. McBride, M.R. Byrnes, and E. Owens, 1993. Implementing the shoreline cleanup assessment team process in the Gulf of Mexico. Proceedings of International Oil Spill Conference, American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C., p. 95-97. Byrnes, M.R. and C.G. Groal, 1992. Characterization of the development potential of Ship Shoal sand for beach replenishment of the Isles Dernieres: an introduction. 12th Annual Information Transfer Meeting, U.S. Minerals Management Service, New Orleans, LA, pp. 75-78. Byrnes, M.R. and C.G. Groat, 1992. Characterization ofthe development potential of Ship Shoal sand for beach replenishment of the Isles Dernieres: conclusions and recommendations. 12th Annual Information Transfer Meeting, U.S. Minerals Management Service, New Orleans, LA, pp. 94-95. Byrnes, M.R. and P. Patnaik, 1992. An evaluation of physical environmental impacts of sand dredging on Ship Shoal. 12th Annual Inl'ormation Transfer Meeting, U.S. Minerals Management Service, New Orleans, LA, pp. 84-87. Wayne, L. and M.R. Byrnes, 1992. An Information Management Strategy to Ensure the Compatibility and Accessibility of Data Generated in Conjunction with the Barataria-Terrebonne National Estuary Program. Final Report to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Barataria- Terrebonne National Estuary Program, Thibodaux, LA, 35 p. 11/17/'2006 Mark R. Byrnes 10 of 19 Westphal, K.A., S. Penland, R.W. Seal, M.R. Byrnes, 1992. Aerial Videotape Survey of Coastal Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama 1991. Coastal Geology Map Series, Louisiana Geological Survey, Baton Rouge, LA, 163 p. Byrnes, M.R., J.S. Moody, and S.C. Knox, (contributors) 1991. Historical shoreline change in the northern Gulf of Mexico (Scale 1:2,000,000). Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Louisiana Geological Survey, Baton Rouge, LA. Byrnes, M.R., S. Penland, K.E. Ramsey, T.G. Crawford, R.F. Kelly, and T,A. Chisholm, 1991. Characterization of the Development Potential of Ship Shoal Sand for Beach Replenishment of Isles Dernieres. Final Report to the U.S. Minerals Management Service, Office of Marine Minerals International Affairs, Herndon, VA, 164 p. Byrnes, M.R., M.W. Hiland, R.A. McBride, and K.A. Westphai, 1991. Pilot Erosion Rate Data Study, Harrison County, Mississippi: Phases I and II - Data Compilation and Procedures. Final Report to Federal Emergency Management Agency, Office of Risk Assessment, Washington, D.C., 139 p. Hales, L.Z., M.R. Byrnes, and M.W. Dowd, 1991. Numerical modeling of storm-induced beach erosion, Folly Beach, South Carolina, Beach Fill Alternatives. In: O.T. Magoon et al. (editors), Coastal Zone '91, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY, pp. 495-509. McBride, R.A., D.W. Davis, F.W. Jones, M.R. Byrnes, D. Braud, M.W. Hiland, A.J. Lewis, H.R. Streiffer, and S.J. Williams, 1991. Louisiana Coastal Geographic Information System Network (LCGISN): Access to Spatial Data. U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 91-622, 17 p. Byrnes, M.R., S. Penland, R.A. McBride, K.A. Westphal, and D.W. Davis, 1990. Computer Mapping, Aerial Videotape Surveys, and Geographic Information Systems: An Integrated Approach to Developing a Shoreline Change Database. Great Lakes Shoreland Management Workshop, Cleveland, OH, p. 21-29. Larson, M., N.C. Kraus, and M.R. Byrnes, 1990. SBEACH: Numerical Model for Simulating Storm- Induced Beach Change, Report 2, Numerical Formulation and Model Tests. Technical Report CERC 89-9, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Vicksburg, MS, 117 p. Byrnes, M.R., 1989. SUPERDUCK Beach Sediment Sampling Experiment, Report 1, Data Summary and Initial Observations. Miscellaneous Paper CERC-89-18, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Vicksburg, MS, 52 p. Byrnes, M.R., K.J. Gingerich, S.M. Kimball, and G.R. Thomas, 1989. Temporal and spatial variations in shoreline migration rates, Metompkin Island, Virginia. In: D.K. Stauble (editor), Barrier Islands: Process and Management, Proceedings Coastal Zone '89, American Society Civil Engineers, New York, NY, p. 78-92. Byrnes, M.R., 1988. Holocene Geology and Migration of a Low-Profile Barrier Island System, Metompkin Island, Virginia. PhD Dissertation, Oceanography Department, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, 419 pp. Oertel, G.F., M.R. Byrnes, and K.J. Gingerich, 1985. Sediment Budget Analysis for Fort Story Section of Shore at Cape Henry, Virginia, Tech. Repor~ 85-2, Oceanography Department, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, 464 pp. Gingerich, K.J. and M.R. Byrnes (editors), 1984. Field Guide to Coastal Geologic Problems of Tidewater, Virginia. 11th Annual Shelf and Shore Workshop Fieldtrip Guidebook, Norfolk, VA, 66 PP. Oertel, G.F., K.J. Gingerich, and M.R. Byrnes, 1982. Sediment Budget and Shoreline Dynamics, East Ocean View, Norfolk, Virginia. Technical Report 82-6, Oceanography Department, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, 28 pp. 11/17/2oo6 Mark R. Byrnes 11 of 19 Byrnes, M.R. and G.F. Oertel, 1981. Particle size distribution of suspended solids in the Chesapeake Bay entrance and adjacent shelf waters. In: J.W. Campbell and J.P. Thomas (editors), Chesapeake Bay Plume Study - SUPERFLUX 1980. NASA Conference Publication 2188, p. 223-235. Technical Presentations Byrnes, M.R, and S.F. Griffee, 2006. Sedimentary Response to Navigation Structures at the Mouth of the Columbia River, Washington/Oregon, USA. Association of Engineering and Environmental Geologists Annual Meeting, Invited Paper to the Symposium Coastal Processes and Geotechnical Response, Boston, MA. Byrnes, M.R., 2006. Evaluating potential physical and environmental effects of offshore sand removal for coastal and beach restoration: central east Florida and the New York Bight. First MMS Marine Minerals Program information Transfer Meeting, Melbourne, FL. Byrnes, M.R., 2006. Shoreline Mapping and Management. Shoreline Change Conference I1: A Workshop on Managing Shoreline Change. NOAA Coastal Services Center, Charleston, SC. Byrnes, M.R., 2004. Potential physical and biological impacts of sand mining on the Outer Continental Shelf, Offshore Alabama. American Shore and Beach Preservation Association Annual Meeting, New Orleans, LA. Byrnes, M.R., R.M. Hammer, and T.D. Thibaut, 2003. Environmental survey of identified sand resource areas offshore Alabama. 21st Annual Information Transfer Meeting, U.S. Minerals Management Service, New Orleans, LA. Byrnes, M.R., R.M. Hammer, and T.D. Thibaut, 2003. Environmental survey of potential sand resource sites: offshore New Jersey. 21st Annual Information Transfer Meeting, U.S. Minerals Management Service, New Orleans, LA. Byrnes, M.R., R.M. Hammer, and T.D. Thibaut, 2003. Collection of environmental data within sand resource areas offshore North Carolina and the environmental implications of sand removal for coastal and beach restoration. 21st Annual Information Transfer Meeting, U.S. Minerals Management Service, New Orleans, LA. Kelley, S.W., J.S, Ramsay, and M.R. Byrnes, 2003. Numerical modeling evaluation of the cumulative physical effects of offshore sand dredging for beach nourishment. 21st Annual Information Transfer Meeting, U.S. Minerals Management Service, New Orleans, LA. Byrnes, M.R., R.A. McBride, and J.L. Baker, 2002. Consistent spatial reference feature for quantifying shoreline change: physical significance versus convenience. Shoreline Change Conference 2002, NOAA Coastal Services Center, Charleston, SC. Cot~, J.M. and M.R. Byrnes, 2002. Spatial and temporal variability of circulation patterns at offshore shoals on the eastern Florida Continental Shelf. AGU EOS Transactions, 83(4): OS136, Coastal Sciences Meeting, Honolulu, HI. Byrnes, M.R. and R.M. Hammer, 2001. Evaluating potential environmental impacts of sand mining on the Outer Continental Shelf, offshore New Jersey. Coastal Zone 2001, Cleveland, OH. Byrnes, M.R., J.S. Ramsey, K.F. Bosma, and F. Li, 2000. Nearshore sediment dynamics and potential physical environmental impacts of sand mining on the Outer Continental Shelf, Offshore Alabama. Gulf of Mexico Symposium 2000, Mobile, AL. Byrnes, M.R. and N.C. Kraus, 1999, Regional sediment transport patterns adjacent to Canaveral Harbor, Florida. Coastal Sediments '99, American Society of Civil Engineers, Long Island, NY, 11/17/2006 Mark R. Byrnes 12 of 19 Byrnes, MR., 1997. Holocene geomorphic evolution of the southwest Louisiana Chenier Plain. USGS Center for Coastal Geology, St. Petersburg, FL (invited Lecturer). Byrnes, M.R., R.A. McBride, M.J. Taylor, and R.R. Zenero, 1996. Holocene sedimentary framework of transgressions and regressions along the chenier plain, southwestern Louisiana. Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies, p. 472. McBride, R.A. and M.R. Byrnes, 1996. Shelf sedimentary facies offshore southwestern Alabama and western Florida Panhandle: northeastern Gulf of Mexico. Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies. Taylor, M.J., M.R. Byrnes, and R.A. McBride, 1996. Form/process relationships and the geomorphic evolution of the southwest Louisiana chenier plain. Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies. Byrnes, M.R. and McBride, R.A., 1996. Spatial and temporal variations in shoreline position change along Louisiana's outer coast. Geological Society of America (GSA): 30th Annual South-Central Section, March 11-12, Austin, TX, Abstracts with Programs, v. 28(1), February, p. 7 (Invited Paper). Taylor, M.J., McBride, R.A., and Byrnes, M.R., 1996. Sediment sources for southwest Louisiana cheniers. American Association of Geographers (AAG), 92nd Annual Meeting, April 9-13, Charlotte, North Carolina, Abstract with Program, p. 291. Byrnes, M.R., McBride, R.A., Seng, D.L., Zenero, R.R., and Taylor, M.J., 1995. Geologic framework of Holocene sedimentary deposits of the central Chenier Plain, southwestern Louisiana, Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Program, v. 27, p. A-272 (Invited Paper). Byrnes, MR., McBride, R.A., Tao, Q. and Duvic, L., 1995. Historical shoreline dynamics along the Chenier Plain of southwestern Louisiana. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 79. Anderson, L.C., Byrnes, M.R. and McBride, R.A., 1995, Paleoenvironmental and taphonomic evidence of diverse bioclast sources for southwestern Louisiana cheniers. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 79. Anderson, L.C., Byrnes, M.R., and McBride, R.A., 1995. Macroinvertebrate taphonomy of the southwestern Louisiana Chenier Plain: evidence of diverse bioclast sources, depositional regimes, and dynamic histories. Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Program, v. 27, p. A-446. McBride, R.A. and Byrnes, M.R., 1995. Processes of barrier shoreline change in Louisiana between 1855 and 1994: development of a geomorphic response-type model. Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Program, v. 27, p. A-341. McBride, R.A., Byrnes, M.R., and Anderson, L.C., 1995. Late Quaternary Iowstand and transgressive systems tracts of the northeastern Gulf of Mexico: surfaces, facies, and stratigraphy. American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Official Program, v, 4, p. 63A. McBride, R.A. and Byrnes, M.R., 1995. A megascale systems approach to shoreline change analysis and coastal management along the northern Gulf of Mexico. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 79. McBride, R.A. and Byrnes, M.R, 1995. Surficial sediments and morphology of the southwestern Alabama/western Florida Panhandle coast and shelf. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 79. Taylor, M.J., Byrnes, M.R., and McBride, R.A., 1995. Sediment texture and composition changes along the southwest Louisiana coast: implications for sediment supply. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 79. 11/1712006 Mark R. Byrnes 13of 19 Taylor, M.J., Byrnes, M.R., and McBride, R.A,, 1995. Local and distant sediment sources to the southwest Louisiana Chenier Plain. Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Program, v. 27, p. A-279. Zenero, R.R., Seng, D.L., Byrnes, M.R. and McBride, R.A., 1995. Geophysical techniques for evaluating the internal structure of cheniers, southwestern Louisiana, Amedcan Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 79. Zenero, R.R., Seng, D.L., Byrnes, M.R., and McBride, R.A., 1995. Applications of ground penetrating radar on the southwest Louisiana Chenier Plain. Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Program, v. 27, p. A-449. Byrnes, M.R., R.A. McBdde, and S. Underwood, 1995. Beach response to a segmented breakwater system: southwestern Louisiana. Eighth Annual National Conference on Beach Preservation Technology, St. Petersburg, FL. Byrnes, M.R. and R.A. McBdde, 1995. Shoreline response to natural and human-induced processes along the Chenier Plain of southwestern Louisiana. Louisiana Barrier Shoreline Restoration Workshop, New Orleans, LA. Byrnes, M.R., M.W. Hiland, R.A. McBride, and M. Bradshaw, 1994. Monitoring shoreline change. Second Thematic Conference on Remote Sensing for Marine and Coastal Environments, New Orleans, LA. McBride, R.A., Anderson, L.C., and Byrnes, M.R., 1994. Late Quaternary transgressive deposits and surfaces on the southeast Alabama/Florida Panhandle shelf: facies, stratigraphy, and chronology. Society for Sedimentary Geology Research Conference on Clastic Deposits of the Transgressive Systems Tracts, Long Beach, WA, July 10-16. Byrnes, M.R, and M.W. Hiland, 1993. Regional seafloor changes near St. Marys Entrance, Georgia/Florida, and their influence on shoreline response. Large-Scale Coastal Behavior '93, St. Petersburg, FL. McBride, R.A. and Byrnes, M.R., 1993. Geomorphic response types along barrier coastlines: a regional perspective. Poster session presented at Large Scale Coastal Behavior '93 (LSCB '93) conference, St. Petersburg, FL, Nov. 15-19. Byrnes, M.R. and D. Braud, 1993. Assessing accuracy of coastal change mapping in Louisiana: Moderator, Panel Discussion atthe Ninth Annual Remote Sensing/GIS Workshop, Lafayette, LA. Byrnes, M.R., S. Penland, and D.W. Davis, 1992. Man-induced Impacts on the Coastal Zone of Louisiana. 41"t Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Section of the Geological Society of America, Winston-Salem, NC. Byrnes, M.R., 1992. Shoreline Change Methodology. Louisiana Barrier Island Workshop. Sponsored by the U.S. Geological Survey and Louisiana State University at Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium, Cocodde, LA. Byrnes, M.R., 1991. Physical Environmental Impacts of Sand Mining at Ship Shoal. 12~h Annual Information Transfer Meeting, U.S. Minerals Management Service, New Odeans, LA. Byrnes, M.R., 1991. A GIS Strategy for Mapping Historical Shoreline Position. Seventh Annual Remote Sensing and GIS Workshop, New Odeans, LA. Byrnes, M.R., R.A. McBride, and M.W. Hiland, 1991. Accuracy standards and development of a national shoreline change database. Coastal Sediments '91, Seattle, WA. Byrnes, M.R., R.A. McBride, S. Penland, and M.W. Hiland, 1991. Classification of shoreline change. The Coastal Society 12th International Conference, San Antonio, TX. 11 I1712006 Mark R. Byrnes 14 of 19 Byrnes, M.R., S. Penland, K.E. Ramsey, T.G. Crawford, R.F. Kelly, and J. Rowland, 1991. Offshore sand resources for coastal erosion in Louisiana: physical environmental considerations and economic feasibility. Marine Technology Society '91, New Orleans, LA. Byrnes, M.R, R.A. McBride, S. Penland, MW. Hiland, and K.A. Westphal, 1991. Historical changes in shoreline position along the Mississippi Sound barrier islands. Gulf Coast Section- Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists 12th Annual Research Conference, San Antonio, TX. Byrnes, M.R., S. Penland, R.A. McBride, and K.A. Westphal, 1991. Louisiana's disappearing shores -- America's coastal erosion hot spot. Invited speaker. American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, D.C. Byrnes, M.R., 1991. Characterization of the development potential of Ship Shoal sand for beach replenishment of the Isles Demieres: Introduction and Objectives. U.S. Minerals Management Service 12th Annual Information Transfer Meeting, New Orleans, LA. Byrnes, M.R., 1991. Physical environmental impacts of sand mining at Ship Shoal. U.S. Minerals Management Service 12th Annual Information Transfer Meeting, New Orleans, LA. Byrnes, M.R., 1991. Characterization ortho development potential of Ship Shoal sand for beach replenishment of the Isles Dernieres: Summary and future direction. U.S. Minerals Management Service 12th Annual Information Transfer Meeting, New Orleans, LA. McBride, R.A. and Byrnes, M.R., 1991. Geologic framework and hard mineral resources in the Petit Bols Pass and adjacent shelf area, Mississippi-Alabama. Core presentation at the 41st annual Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies (GCAGS) meeting, Houston, TX, Oct. 16-18. Byrnes, M.R., S. Portland, R.A. McBride, K.A. Westphal, and D.W. Davis, 1990. Computer Mapping, Aerial Videotape Surveys, and Geographic Information Systems: An Integrated Approach to Developing a Shoreline Change Database. Great Lakes Shoreland Management Workshop, Cleveland, OH. Byrnes, M.R., 1989. Antecedent topographic control on barrier islands and inlets. Guest Seminar, Geology Department, Middlebury College, Middlebury, VT. Byrnes, M.R., 1988. Sedimentation patterns and processes along Matompkin Island, Virginia. Guest Seminar, United States Geological Survey, Reston, VA. Byrnes, M.R. and K.J. Gingerich, 1987. Cross-island profile response to Hurricane Gloria. Coastal Sediments '87, New Orleans, LA. Byrnes, M.R., 1986. Subaerial sediment budget analysis: a means of quantifying barrier island migration. Guest Seminar, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Vicksburg, MS. Byrnes, M.R., 1986. Morphodynamlcs of Virginia's barrier island chain. Guest Seminar, Environmental Sciences Department, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA. Byrnes, M.R. and K.J. Gingerich, 1985. Sediment budget analysis along a transgressive barrier shoreline. 12th Annual Shelf and Shore Workshop, Duck, NC. Byrnes, M.R. and K,J. Gingerich, 1985. The effect of lagoonal characteristics on the transgressive nature of Metompkin Island, Virginia (awarded best student paper). Virginia Journal of Science Abstract, 36: 147. Byrnes, M.R. and G.F. Oertel, 1981. Particle size distribution of suspended solids in the Chesapeake Bay entrance and adjacent shelf waters. SUPERFLUX 1980 - Chesapeake Bay Plume Study Workshop, NASA Langley Research Center, Newport News, VA. 11117/2006 Mark R. Byrnes 15of 19 Litigation Support Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., Applegate et al. v. the United States of America, 1996- 1999. Coastal Processes Assessment for Brevard County, Florida, with Special Reference to Test Plaintiffs. Client: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District, Jacksonville, FL. Rubin and Rudman, LLP, Boston, MA, Hyannis Marine Service LTD v. Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket Steamship Authority, Civil Action No. 98 CV 11771 WGY, U.S. District Court, Massachusetts, 1999-2000. Sediment Erosion and Deposition Resulting from Steamship Authority Vessel Operations in Hyannis Inner Harbor and the Impact on Sedimentation at Hyannis Marina. Client: Hyannis Marina. Kean, Miller, Hawthorne, D'Armond, McCowan, & Jarman, Baton Rouge, LA, Plaquemlnes Parish Government v. ChevronTexaco, 2003. Expert regarding historical wetland changes in West Bay, LA. Client: ChevronTexaco. Kean, Miller, Hawthorne, D'Armond, McCowan, & Jarman, Baton Rouge, LA, Harry Bourg Corporation v. ExxonMobil et al., 32nd JDC, Terrebonne Parish, LA, 2004-2005. Processes Affecting Wetland Change in Terrebonne Parish with Special Reference to Harry Bourg Corporation Property South of Falgout Canal Between Bayou Du Large and the Houma Navigation Canal. Clients: Devon Energy, ExxonMobil, Forest Oil, Denbury Oil, British Petroleum, KCS Energy. DLA Piper Rudnlck Gray Cary US LLP, New York, NY, Town of Southampton v. County of Suffolk, 2005-2006. Consultant to Town regarding beach erosion between Westhampton to Georgica Pond related to shore-perpendicular engineering structures. Client : Town of Southampton. Kean, Miller, Hawthorne, D'Armond, McCowan, & Jarman, Baton Rouge, LA, Dor~ Energy Corporation v. Carter-Langham et al., 381h JDC, Cameron Parish, LA, 2006. Processes Affecting Wetland Change in the Calcasieu-Sabine Basin with Special Reference to Dor~ Energy Corporation Property. Clients: Transco Exploration, Pitco USA, ExxonMobil, Samedan Oil, Exchange Oil and Gas. Research Grants and Contracts U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District, Planning and Environmental Division, 2006-2007. Channel Dredging Impacts on Shoreline Response at and Adjacent to Main Pass, Mobile Bay Entrance, Alabama. Principal Investigator. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory, 2006-2008. Quantifying Regional Sediment Dynamics in Nearshora Environments: Historical Sediment Pathways, Lateral Inlet and Island Migration, and Detailed Sediment Budgets. Principal Investigator. U.S. Minerals Management Service, Leasing Division, Marine Minerals Branch, 2005-2007. Potential Biological and Physical Impacts of Dredging on Offshore Ridge and Swale Features. Co-Program Manager with Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory, 2002-2005. Quantifying Inlet Sedimentation Dynamics: Sediment Pathways, Overwash and Island Breaching, Detailed Sediment Budgets, and Navigation Channel Resources. Principal Investigator. ENSR International, 2001. Empire State Newsprint Project: Geophysical and Water Velocity Measurements for the Hudson River Field Program. Principal Investigator. U.S. Minerals Management Service, International Activities and Marine Minerals Division, 2001- 2003. Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration. Program Manager. 1111712006 Mark R. Byrnes 16 of 19 Paragon Engineering, Inc., 2001. Physical Environmental Impacts of Pipeline Construction and Operation for the Mardi Gras Transportation System. Principal Investigator. Offshore and Coastal Technologies, Inc.- East Coast, 2000-2001. Sediment Budget Evaluation Using Historical Shoreline and Beach Profile Data: Western Town Line to Horton Point, Southold, NY. Principal Investigator. U.S. Minerals Management Service, International Activities and Marine Minerals Division, 2000- 2002. Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas on the East Florida Shelf and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration. Principal Investigator. ENTRIX, Inc., 1999-2000. Evaluation of Geological and Physical Processes Impacts Associated with the Gulfstream Pipeline, Northeast Gulf of Mexico. Principal Investigator. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory, 1999-2002. Sediment Bypassing at Structured Entrances and Geomorphic Change Modeling. Principal Investigator. U.S. Minerals Management Service, International Activities and Marine Minerals Division, 1999- 2001. Numerical Modeling Evaluation of the Cumulative Physical Effects of Offshore Sand Dredging for Beach Nourishment. Principal Investigator. Rubln and Rudman, LLP, 1999-2000. Sediment Erosion and Deposition Processes in Hyannis Inner Harbor, Hyannis, MA. Principal Investigator. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory, 1999. Inlets Online: A Tutorial of Interpreting Aerial Photography for the Analysis of Sediment Transport Patterns and Geomorphic Change at Entrances. Principal Investigator. Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management, 1999. Study of the Environmental Impacts of Offshore Sand Mining. Principal Investigator. Sebastian Inlet Tax District Commission, 1998-1999. Historical Shoreline Change Analysis: Satellite Beach to Foal Pierce Inlet, Florida. Principal Investigator. Town of Southold, NY, 1998. Historical Shoreline Change Analysis: Western Town Line to Horton Point, Southold, NY. Principal Investigator (subcontractor to Aubrey Consulting, Inc.). U.S. Minerals Management Service, International Activities and Marine Minerals Division, 1997- 2000. Collection of Environmental Data Within Sand Resource Areas Offshore North Carolina and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration. Principal Investigator (subcontractor to Aubrey Consulting, Inc.). U.S. Minerals Management Service, International Activities and Marine Minerals Division, 1997- 2000. Environmental Survey of Potential Sand Resource Sites: Offshore New Jersey. Principal Investigator (subcontractor to Aubray Consulting, Inc.). U.S. Minerals Management Service, International Activities and Marine Minerals Division, 1997- 1999. Environmental Survey of Identified Sand Resource Sites Offshore Alabama. Principal Investigator (subcontractor to Aubrey Consulting, Inc.). U.S. Department of Justice, Environmental and Natural Resoumes Division, 1997-1998. Coastal Change Assessment for Brevard County, FL. Principal Investigator. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center, 1996-1998. Historical Sediment Transport Patterns, Columbia River Mouth and Adjacent Shores. Principal Investigator. U.S. Department of Justice, through Texas A&M Research Foundation, 1996. Shoreline and Bathymetric Change Analysis for Assessing Downdrifl Impacts Associated with the Port Canaveral Entrance Jetties. Principal Investigator. 11117/2006 Mark R, Byrnes 17of 19 U.S. Minerals Management Service, Office of International Activities and Marine Minerals, 1996. Environmental Impact Statement to Support Phase I of the Louisiana Barrier Shoreline Feasibility Study (Barataria-Terrebonne Basin Barrier Shoreline Restoration Effort). Principal Investigator. U.S. Minerals Management Service, Coastal Marine Institute, 1995-1997. Synthesis of Hard Mineral Resources of the Northeast Gulf of Mexico Shelf: Spatial Distribution, Subsurface Evaluation, and Sediment Budget. Principal Investigator, R. McBride Co-Principal Investigator. T. Baker Smith and Sons, Inc., through LA Department of Natural Resources, 1995-1997. Feasibility of Barrier Shoreline Restoration in Coastal Louisiana - Coastal Geology, Geomorphology, and Physical Processes. Principal Investigator, R. McBride Co-Principal Investigator. U.S. Geological Survey, National Coastal Geology Program, 1995-1996. Shoreline and Bathymetric Change in Lake Pontchartrain. Principal Investigator. U.S. Geological Survey, National Coastal Geology Program, 1995-1996. Geologic Processes Affecting Coastal Erosion in Western Louisiana, Including the Impact of Hurricane Andrew. Principal Investigator, R. McBride Co-Principal Investigator. LA Department of Natural Resoumes, Coastal Restoration Division, 1995-1996. Assessment of Beach Response to a Segmented Breakwater System: Southwest Louisiana Coast. Principal Investigator. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center, 1994-1996. Geographic Information System Development for Evaluating Sediment Transport Paffems at inlets and Adjacent Environments: Data Capture, Analysis, and Management. Principal Investigator. LA Department of Natural Resources, Office of Coastal Restoration and Management, 1994- 1995. Technical Study Advisors for the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act (CVVPPRA): Louisiana Barrier Island Study. Principal Investigator, R.A. McBride Co-Principal Investigator. U.S. Geological Survey, National Coastal Geology Program, 1994-1995. Geologic Processes Affecting Coastal Erosion in Louisiana, Including the Impact of Hurricane Andrew. Principal Investigator, S. Penland Co-Principal Investigator. U,S. Geological Survey, National Coastal Geology Program, 1993-1994. Geologic Processes Affecting Coastal Erosion in Western Louisiana, Including the Impact of Hurricane Andrew. Principal investigator, S. Penland Co-Principal Investigator. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Reseamh Center, 1993-1994. Geographic Information System and Relational Database Management System Development: New York Bight Study. Principal Investigator. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Office of Risk Assessment, 1992-1993. Pilot Erosion Rale Data Study - Phase IV: Global Positioning System Survey. Principal Investigator. Argonne National Laboratory and Gas Research Institute, 1992-1993. Coastal Land Loss Classification, Mapping, and Spatial Analysis. Co-Principal Investigator with S. Penland. U.S. Geological Survey, National Coastal Geology Program, 1992-1993. Geological Processes Affecting Coastal Erosion in Western Louisiana: 1991-1996. Co-Principal Investigator. State of Louisiana, Louisiana Education Quality Support Fund Enhancement Program, May- December, 1992. Flat-Bed Scanner and Geographic Information System Equipment for Accurate Computer Mapping of Land Loss in the Coastal Zone. Principal Investigator. 11117/2006 Mark R. Byrnes 18of 19 APpLI'ED COASTAL 766 Falmouth Road, Suite A-~., Mashpee, MA 02649 Mark R. Byrnes, Ph.D. Phone: 508-539-3737 Fax: 508-539-3739 Email: m bymes~applledcoastal.com Web: www,applledcoastal.com OFFICE LOCATION: 'Town Hall Annex MAILING ADDRESS: 54375 State Route 25 ~ P.O. Box 1179 Main Rd. & Youngs Ave. Southold, NY 11971 Southold, NY 11971 Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM TOWN OF SOUTHOLD To: Jim King, President II kl: dl ....... l:i Iii Town of Southold Board of Trustees /llllilll 0 T- Fr°m: Mark Ten3' and Scott Hilary, LWRP Coordinators I 1112;~'II S0~ra~0td Date: October I, 2008 (REVISED from L Re: Proposed Coastal Erosion and Wetland Permit ROBERT G. BOMBARA SCTM#54-4-19 ~Oung & Young on behalf of ROBERT G. BOMBARA requests a Wetland Permit & Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a single-family dwelling, detached garage, swimming pool and associated water supply and sewage disposal facilities. Located: 1725 North Sea Dr., Southold. SCTM#54-4-19 The proposed action has been reviewed to Chapter 268, 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 us, it is our recommendation that the proposed actions are INCONSISTENT with the denoted following Town of Southold LWRP policy standards and NOT IN COMPLIANCE with Chapter 275, WETLANDS AND SHORELINE and Chapter 111, COASTAL EROSION HAZARD AREAS. Therefore, the actions are INCONSISTENT with the LWRP. The ur oseof Chh ter 275 WETLANDS AND SHORELINE is to re ulate wetlands in order to maintain and contribute to the followin resource area values and the attributes and functions th~ flood control, erosion a~'~ sediment control, storm dams e revention and water~ion control~on the followln resource area values I~uec~tuerde; a~e;Tatit;~.~~'mitin of develo ment in flood hazard areas' ................ · --.-.,~..~,u,~c~ as a result o[ erosion' rotection of coastal~ minimizin the im act of new deve~toration and/or ex ansion on the resource area values listed above. § 275-3 Findings; purpose; jurisdiction; setbacks. B. Purpose. It is the intention of this chapter to ensure for the citizens of the Town of $outhold the protection, preservation, proper maintenance and use of its wetlands, giving due consideration to the reasonable economic and social development of the Town. In addition, the Town Board declares that it is the intention of this chapter to regulate the type and placement o f fixed and floating piers and docks for the protection, preservation, proper maintenance and use of its waters and wetlands. Therefore, the Town Board declares that the regulation of the wetlands of the Town of SouthoM is essential to the health, safety and welfare of the people of the Town of Southold. The wetlands shall be regulated in order to maintain and contribute to the following resource area values and the attributes and functions they possess: protection of public and private water supply; groundwater; flood control; erosion and sedimentation control; storm damage prevention; water pollution control; fisheries; shellfish, including spawner sanctuaries; wildlife habitat; agriculture,, aquaculture; aesthetics; public access and recreation. In addition, the following resource area values shall be maintained and protected: prevention of flood damage by limiting of development in flood hazard areas; prevention of damage to structures and natural resource,; as a result of erosion; improvement of ware- ~uality,. protection and enhancement of e' "ting vegetation cover in order to maintain water quality and wildlife habitat: ~ ,ection of wildlife, waterfowl, and plant, itat and the maintenance of existing populations an.d species diversity; prevention of loss or degradation of critical wildlife and plant habitat; prevention of new stormwater runoff discharge and the intprovement of existing stormwater runoff discharges; protection of coastal ecosystems which support the continued viability of harvestable shellfish and finfish habitat; public access to water and land; improvement of groundwater recharge; and the minimization of the impact of new development, restoration and/or expansion on the resource area values listed above. The purpose of Chapter 111, COASTAL EROSION HAZARD AREAS is to regulate, in coastal areas~ land use and development activities so as to minimiTe or prevent damage or destruction to man-made property~ natural protective features and other natural resources and to protect human life. In addition~ the purpose of Chapter 111 is to regulate new construction or placement of structures in order to place them a safe distance from coastal hazard areas~ § 111-4. Purpose. The Town of SouthoM hereby assumes the responsibility and authority to implement and administer a Coastal Erosion Management Program within its jurisdiction pursuant to Article 34 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law. In addition, it is the purpose of this chapter to: Establish standards and procedures for minimizing and preventing damage to structures from coastal flooding and erasion and to protect natural protective features and other natural resources. Regulate, in coastal areas subject to coastal flooding and erosion, land use and development activities so as to minimize or prevent damage or destruction to man-made property, natural protective features and other natural resources and to protect human life. C. Regulate new construction or placement of structures in order to place them a safe distance from areas of active erosion and the impact of coastal storms to ensure that these structures are not prematurely destroyed or damaged due to improper siting, as well as to prevent damage to natural protective features and other natural resources. Restrict public investment in services, facilities or activities which are likely to encourage new permanent development in erosion hazard areas. Regulate the construction of erosion protection structures in coastal areas subject to serious erosion to assure that when the construction of erosion protection structures is justified, their construction and operation will minimize or prevent damage or destruction to man-made property, private and public property, natural protective features and other natural resources. Minimize losses of human life and structures from flooding and erosion hazards. Minimize potential loss and damage by locating development and structures away from flooding and erosion hazards. 1. Avoid development other than water-dependent uses in coastal hazard areas. Locate new development which is not water-dependent as far away from coastal hazard areas as practical. The proposed actions do not have a functional relationship to coastal waters and therefore is not a water-dependent us,, pursuant to § 275-2. § 275-2 Definitions; word usage. WATER-DEPENDENT USES -- An activity which can only be conducted on, in, over or adjacent to a water body because such activity requires direct access to that water body, and ~vhich involves, as an integral part of such activity, the use of the water. The uses include, but are not limited to commercial and recreational fishing and boating facilities, finfish and shellfish processing, fish storage and retail and wholesale fish marketing facilities, waterfront dock facilities, shipyards and boat- building facilities, navigation aides, basins and channels, industrial uses dependent upon waterborne transportation or requiring large volumes of co~;~g or processing water and which cannot ~ ~sonably be located or operated at an inland site, and uses which primarily pr6 ~ general public access to marine or tida~ .rets. a. No development is permitted in natural protective feature areas, except as specifically allowed under the relevant portions of 6 NYCRR 505.8. The proposed actions are located entirely within the coastal erosion hazard area and the primary dune~ a natural protective fea~-ure. A primary dune is defined in § 111-6 Definitions as a natural protective feature. NATURAL PROTECTIVE FEATURE -- A nearshore area, beach, bluff, primary dune, secondary dune or marsh and their vegetation. PRIIgL4RY DUNE -- The most water*yard major dune where there are two or more parallel dunes within a coastal area. Where there is only one dune present, it is the "primary" one. Occasionally one or more relatively small dune formations exist waterward of the primary dune. These smaller formations will be considered to be part of the ''primary dune"for the purposes of this chapter. The waterward limit ora primary dune is the landward limit of its fronting beach. The landward limit of the primary dune is 25feet landward o fits landward toe. Avoid hazards by siting structures to maximize the distance from Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas. Provide sufficient lot depth to allow relocation of structures and maintenance of required setbacks over a period of thirty years. ~bert G. Bomba~w s conducted on October ~ In attendance at · ll'e site visit among others~ were r-~pr~se~ of the Town of Southold Board of Trustees~ LWRP Coordinator Marl{ Terry and NYS DEC's Environment Program Specialist Robert McDonough~ which confirmed that the proposed actions are entirely located seaward of the CEHA line and within a primary dune (*see attached letter referencing th,. same~ dated April 15, 2008, si~ned by Robert McDonough~ Environmental Program Specialist-Coastal Erosio,, Mana~nt Section*.h. 4.2 Protect and restore natural protective features. Natural protective geologic features provide valuable protection and should be protected, restored and enhanced. Destruction or degradation of these features should be discouraged or prohibited. A. No development is permitted in natural protective feature areas, except as specifically allowed under the relevant portions of 6 NYCRR 505.8. Natural protective features area nearshore areas, beaches, dunes, bluffs, and wetlands and associated natural vegetation. ~ natural ~}rotective feature area as defined in § 111-6 Definitions is a land and/or water area containing natural protective features such as a primary dune_ NATURAL PROTECTIVE FEATURE AREA -- A land and/or water area containing natural protective features the alteration of which might reduce or destroy the protection afforded other lands against erosion or high water or lower the reserve of sand or other natural materials available to replenish storm losses through natural processes. ]New construction is prohibited in natural protective feature areas (primary dune). Only nonmaior additions h, existing structures are allowed on primary dunes pursuant to § 111-13. § 111-13· Dune area. Dunes prevent overtopping and store sand for coastal processes. High, vegetated dunes provide a greater degree of protection than low, unvegetated ones. Dunes are of the greatest protective value during conditions of storm-induced high water. Because dunes oflen protect some of the most biologically productive areas as well as developed coastal areas, their protective value is especially great. The key to maintaining a stable dune system is the establishment and maintenance of beachgrass or other vegetation on the dunes and assurance ora supply of nourishment sand to the dunes. The following restrictions apply to regulated activities in dune areas: In primary dune ar¢~, Excavating, grading or mining of primary dunes is prohibited. Clean sand ora compatible type and size is the only material which may be deposited Any deposition requires a coastal erosion management permit. All depositions must be vegetatively stabilized using species tolerant of the conditions at the site and lnust be placed so as to increase the size of or restore, a dune or dune area. Active bird nesting and breeding areas must not be disturbed, unless such disturbance is pursuant to a specific wildlife management activity approved, in writing, by the Department. Nonmajor additions to existing structures are allowed on primary dunes pursuant to a coaStal erosion management permit and subject to permit conditions concerning the location, design and potential impacts of the structure on the primary dune. Stone revetments or other erosion protection structures compatible with primary dunes will only be allowed at the waterward toe of primary dunes and must not interfere with the exchange of sand between primary dunes and their fronting beaches. The distance from the proposed actions to the natural protective feature (primary dune) is 0 feet; a minimum setbaclr dlatance of 100 feet~ursuant to Chaoter ~ 275-3. Findiu s- ur ose' 'urisdiction. setbacks. Please reauire ~ am.__en_.~d th._..~e ~ t_.9.o .lnee_.~t th__e ~ to t~st extent ~m~ nl~mage or destruction to man-made property, natural protective features and other ~esources and to protect human life. Policy 6 Protect and restore the quality and function of the Town of Southoid ecosystem 6.3 Protect and restore tidal and freshwater wetlands. A. 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. § 275-3 Findings; purpose; jurisdiction; setbacks. Jurisdiction: The following areas are subject to protection under Chapter 275 of the Code of Southold. (1) Any freshwater wetland, tidal wetland, beach, bluff, dune, fiat, marsh, swamp, wet meadow, bog, or vernal pool; D. Setbacks. 1) The following minimum setbacks apply to any and all operations proposed on residential property within the jurisdiction of the Board of Trustees: (a) Wetland boundary. [1] Residence: 100 feet. .l.f the Agency~ Town of Sour~- ~ld Board of Trustees makes a contrary d" ~ermination of consistency, the Agency shall .~laborate in writing the bas, Jr its disagreement with their recomme. ,tions Pursuant to Chapter 268 Waterfront ~ons. istenc¥ Review. § 268-5. Review of actions. H. 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 polic~ standards. Pursuant to Chapter 268, the Board of Trustees shall consider this recommendation in preparing its written determination regarding the consistency of the proposed action. Cc: Kieran Corcoran, Assistant Town Attorney Lori Hulse, Assistant Town Attorney To: OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 Main Rd. & Youngs Ave. Southold, NY 11971 LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Jim King, President Town of Southold Board of Trustees MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 From: Mark Terry and Scott Hilary, LWRP Coordinators ~4Z57~i7i ~ ~ ~ Date: September 23, 2008 (REVISED from LWRP review dated N vember 1~.0~_~~g .-~ ~ Re: Proposed Coastal Erosion and Wetland Permit ROBERT G. BOMBARA SCTM#54-4-19 ~oung & Young on behalf of ROBERT G. BOMBARA requests a Wetland Permit & Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a single-family dwelling, detached garage, swimming pool and associated water supply and sewage disposal facilities. Located: 1725 North Sea Dr., Southold. SCTM#54-4-19 The proposed action has been reviewed to Chapter 268, 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 us, it is our recommendation that the proposed actions are INCONSISTENT with the denoted following Town of Southold LWRP policy standards and NOT IN COMPLIANCE with Chapter 111, COASTAL EROSION HAZARD AREAS. Therefore, the actions are INCONSISTENT with the LWRP. The purpose of Chapter 111, COASTAL EROSION HAZARD AREAS is to regulate~ in coastal areas~ land use and development activities so as to minimize or prevent dama.~e or destruction to man-made property, natural protective features and other natural resources and to protect haman life. Further~ the purpose of Chapter 111 is to regulate new v,~,~ruction or placement of struclureS in order to place them a safe distance from coastal hn,ard areas. § 111-4. Purpose. The Town of Southold hereby assumes the responsibility and authority to implement and administer a Coastal Erosion Management Program within its jurisdiction pursuant to Article 34 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law. In addition, it is the purpose of this chapter to: Establish standards and procedures for minimizing and preventing damage to structures from coastal flooding and erosion and to protect natural protective features and other natural resources. Regulate, in coastal areas subject to coastal flooding and erosion, land use and development activities so as to minimize or prevent damage or destruction to man-made property, natural protective features and other natural resources and to protect human life. C. Regulate new construction or placement of structures in order to place them a safe distance from areas of active erosion and the impact of coastal storms to ensure that these structures are not prematurely destroyed or c~amagedduetoimpropersitin? ~swellastopreventdamagetonaturalprf~ctivefeaturesandothernatural resources. Restrict public investment in services, facilities or activities which are likely to encourage new permanent development in erosion hazard areas. Regulate the construction of erosion protection structures in coastal areas subject to serious erosion to assure that when the construction of erosion protection structures is justified, their construction and operation will minimize or prevent damage or destruction to man-made property, private and public property, natural protective features and other natural resources. 4.1 Minimize losses of human life and structures from flooding and erosion hazards. Minimize potential loss and damage by locating development and structures away from flooding and erosion hazards. 1. Avoid development other than water-dependent uses in coastal hazard areas. Locate new development which is not water-dependent as far away from coastal hazard areas as practical. The proposed actions do not have a functional relationship to coastal waters and therefore is not a water-dependent use pursuant to § 275-2. § 275-2 Definitions; word usage. s~EacR-DEPENDENT USES - An activity which can only be conducted on, in, over or adjacent to a water body because tivity requires direct access to that water body, and which involves, as an integral part of such activity, the use of the water. The uses include, but are not limited to commercial and recreational fishing and boating facilities, finfish and shell, fish processing, fish storage and retail and wholesale fsh marketing facilities, waterfront dock facilities, shipyards and boat- building facilities, navigation aides, basins and channels, industrial uses dependent upon waterborne transportation or requiring large volumes of cooling or processing water and which cannot reasonably be located or operated at an inland site, and uses which primarily provide general public access to marine or tidal waters. No development is permitted in natural protective feature areas, except as specifically allowed under the relevant portions of 6 NYCRR 505.8. The proposed actions are located entirely within the coastal erosion hazard area and the primary dune~ a natural protective feature. A primary dune is defined in § 111-6 Definitions as a not!!ral protective feature. NATURAL PROTECTIVE FEATURE -- ,4 nearshore area, beach, bluff, primary dune, secondary dune or marsh and their PRIMARY DUNE -- The most waterward major dune where there are two or more parallel dunes within a coastal area. Where there is only one dune present, it is the "primary" one. Occasionally one or more relatively small dune formations exist waterward of the primary dune. These smaller formations will be considered to be part of the ''primary dune"for the purposes of this chapter. The waterward limit ofa primary dune is the landward limit of its fronting beach. The landward limit of the primary dune is 25feet landward of its landward toe. Avoid hazards by siting structures to maximize the distance from Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas. Provide sufficient lot depth to allow relocation of structures and maintenance of required setbacks over a period of thirty years. A site visit of the properly of Robert G. Bombara SCTM#54-4-19 was conducted on October 17~ 2007. In attendance at the site visit among others, were representatives of the Town of Southold Board of Trustees~ LWRP Coordinator Marlr Terry and NYS DEC's Environment Program Specialist Robert McDonough~ which confirmed that the proposotl actions are entirely located seaward of the CEHA line and within a primary dune (*see attached letter referencing the same, dated April 15~ 2008~ signed by "nbert McDonough~ Environmental Prog'' n Specialist-Coastal Erosion Ma?a2ement Section*). 4.2 Protect and restore natural protective features. Natural protective geologic features provide valuable protection and should be protected, restored and enhanced. Destruction or degradation of these features should be discouraged or prohibited. A. No development is permitted in natural protective feature areas, except as specifically allowed under the relevant portions of 6 NYCRR 505.8. Natural protective features area nearshore areas, beaches, dunes, bluffs, and wetlands and associated natural vegetation. The natural protective feature area as defined in § 111-6 Definitions is a land and/or water area containim, natural protective features such as a primary dune. NATURAL PROTECTIVE FEATURE AREA - .4 land and/or water area containing natural protective features the alteration of which might reduce or destroy the protection afforded other lands against erosion or high water or lower the reserve of sand or other natural materials available to replenish storm losses through natural processes. New construction is prohibited in natural protective feature areas (primary dune). Only nonmaior additions to existing structures are allowed on primary dunes pursuant to § 111-13. § 111-13. Dune area. ~es prevent overtopping and store sand for coastal processes. High, vegetated dunes provide a greater degree of protection th"dn low, unvegetated ones. Dunes are of the greatest protective value during conditions of storm-induced high water. Because dunes often protect some of the most biologically productive areas as well as developed coastal areas, their protective value is especially great. The key to maintaining a stable dune system is the establishment and maintenance of beachgrass or other vegetation on the dunes and assurance ora supply of nourishment sand to the dunes. The following restrictions apply to regulated activities in dune areas: A. In primary dune areas: (1) Excavating, grading or mining of primary dunes is prohibited Clean sand ora compatible type and size is the only material which may be deposited Any deposition requires a coastal erosion management permit. AH depositions must be vegetatively stabilized using species tolerant of the conditions at the site and must be placed so as to increase the size of or restore, a dune or dune area. Active bird nesting and breeding areas must not be disturbed, unless such disturbance is pursuant to a specific wildlife management activity approved, in writing, by the Department. Nonmajor additions to existing structures are allowed on primary dunes pursuant to a coastal erosion management permit and subject to permit conditions concerning the location, design and potential impacts of the structure on the primary dune. Stone revetments or other erosion protection structures compatible with primary dunes will only be allowed at the waterward toe of primary dunes and must not interfere with the exchange of sand between primary dunes and their fronting beaches. The distance from the proposed actio-q to the natural protective feature (prim~.3' dune) is 0 feeti a minimum setback distance' of 100 feet is required purs~ t to Chapter § 275-3. Findings~ purpm urisdiction~ setbacks. Please require · that ihe applicant amend the application to meet the above policies to the greatest extent practicable~ minimizine damage or destruction to man-made property~ natural protective features and other natural resources and to protect human life. Policy 6 Protect and restore the quality and function of the Town of Southold ecosystem 6.3 Protect and restore tidal and freshwater wetlands. A. Comply with statutory and regulatory requirements of the $outhold Town Board of Trustees laws and regulations for all.4ndros Patent and other lands under their jurisdiction 1. Comply with Trustee regulations and recommendations as set forth in Trustee permit conditions. § 275-3 Findings; purpose; jurisdiction; setbacks. C. Jurisdiction: The following areas are subject to protection under Chapter 275 of the Code of Southold. (1) Any freshwater wetland, tidal wetland, beach, bluff, dune, flat, marsh, swamp, wet meadow, bog, or vernal pool; D. Setbacks. The following minimum setbacks apply to any and all operations proposed on residential property within the jurisdiction of the Board of Trustees: (a) Wetland boundary. Ill Residence: 100 feet. If the Agenc% Town of Southold Board of Trustees makes a contrary determination of consistency~ the Agency shall elaborate in writing the basis for its disagreement with their recommendations Pursuant to Chapter 268 Waterfront Consistency Review. § 268-5. Review of actions. H.. In the event the £WRP Coordinator's recommendation is that the action is inconsistent with the £WRP, 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 £14'RP policy standards. Pursuant to Chapter 268, the Board of Trustees shall consider this recommendation in preparing its written determination regarding the consistency of the proposed action. Cc: Kieran Corcoran, Assistant Town Attorney Lori Hulse, Assistant Town Attorney TOWN OF SOUTHOLD APPLICATION FOR APPEAL TO THE COASTAL EROSION HAZARD BOARD OF REVIEW DATE NAME OF APPLICANT: ADDRESS: 98-1 6 Robert G. Bombara Fee: $250.00 163rd Ave.r Howard Beach~ NY 11414 AGENT: Thomas E. wolDert~ P.E.~ Young & Young; Peter S. Danowski,Jr.,Es( DATE OF DECISION APPEALED FROM Verbal decision: October 15, 2008; Written resolution received b~.ma~l: .November 3, 2008 SPECIFICCHAPTE~SECTION INVOLVED ~napcer 111; 111-6:111-12 TItE ALLEGED ERRORS IN THE DETERMINATION ARE: Development prohibited in area proposed. Factually, no proof of erosion for in excess of 40 year period. In fact, proof of accretion. INTERPRETATION THATISCLAIMED TO BE CORRECT: No erosion; issue permit with reasonable conditions as depicted on any of alternate plans submitted; more than 100 feet from Long Island Sound and beyond beach. RELIEFSOUGtIT: Issuance of permit as proposed on any of plans submitted. * COPY OF THE ENTIRE BOARD OF TRUSTEE FILE INCLUDING ANY RELEVANT MAPS MUST BE ATTACIIED TO THIS APPEAL SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT ROBERT G. BOMBARA THOMAS E. WOLPERT, P.E. JOHN R TAGGART, ESQ. LAW OFFICES PETER S. DANOWSKI, ~R, 616 ROANOKE AVENUE RIVERHEAD, NY 11901 (631) 727-4900 FAX (631) 727-7451 E-Mail: pdanowski @ danowskilaw, com jtaggart @ danowskilaw.com November 12, 2008 Board of Trustees Town of Southold 53095 Main Road, Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Attn: Lauren Standish Re: Robert F. Bombara - 1725 North Sea Drive, Southold SCTM #1000 - 54 - 4 - 19 Dear Lauren: Please note that I will need two (2) complete copies of the Town's file regarding the above. One will be delivered to the Town Clerk's Office for their consideration of the administrative appeal being filed. The additional copy is for my records. My copy is not as urgent, but since the Town's form for filing the appeal includes a notation that a copy of the record must be included, it appears I must make this request of your office. Very truly yours, PETER S. DANOWSKI, JR. PSD:gsg Board of Trustees 31 October 15, 2008 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would make a motion to approve the application as it is written, with the stipulation that the comer on the extension be brought back landward of the coastal erosion line -- not to extend any further than the existing; that it incorporates drywells for the pool backwash, hay bales along the bluff and gutters and drywells according to code 268. And that would make it consistent with LWRP. MR. STRANG: Is the condition, if I may ask a question before the motion closes, was the condition of the CAC with respect to the ddveway surface going to be a condition of the Trustees? We'll probably do that anyway. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Then I would like to make it a condition. Make it a condition that the ddveway also become pervious. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll second that. All in favor?. (ALL AYES.) MR. STRANG: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE. DICKERSON: Number two, Peter Danowski on behalf of ROBERT BOMBARA requests a Wetland Permit & Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a single-family dwelling, detached garage, pool and associated water supply and sewage disposal facilities. Located: 1725 North Sea Drive, Southold. Is there anyone here who would like to speak to this application MR. DANOWSKI: I will. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is this the coastal erosion application or wetland application that we are doing first? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We'll open this as a coastal erosion application. MR. DANOWSKI: My name is a Pete Danowski. I do represent the Bombara's, who are present tonight. They are sitting in the back row. I'll also be calling Mr. Mark Bums to testify with regard to his expertise regarding coastal zone erosion issues. I know this Board, perhaps some members of the public are aware of the history here. I last appeared before this Board approximately a year ago, and at that time, at the conclusion of the headng, the Board indicated they would seek some outside consulting advice before rendering a decision. Subsequent to that time I wrote to the Board saying I would like a decision. As the Board knows, should I have an unfavorable Board of Trustees 32 October 15, 2008 decision, my relief is to seek administrative relief to the Town Board, and I certainly would promptly file for that relief. But I had not received a decision. Ultimately, I did receive recently a notice saying to post the property again and serve notice on the neighbors again, and there would be a new public headng which is being held tonight. I would point out, and I know this Board is aware of it, that initially this matter was reviewed with a plan that called for a swimming pool in front of a home. It was pointed out that there was a definition in the Town Code with regard to beach area, and the beach area was described in an ultimate decision of denial without prejudice from this Board. We filed our administrative appeal but we agreed to try to cooperate to the extent of trying to revisit the plan and come up with some altemative ideas that perhaps this Board might see fit to favor. And we submitted three alternate plans showing different ways to proceed with regard to the build out on this particular lot. I believe the most favored of those three plans is identified as altemate number three. That plan called for a distance approximated on the survey of 157 feet from the high water mark to the nearest structure, which would be the house. There was a small swimming pool put to the east of the property. Also we were cognizant of the recommendations and permits that had issued from this Board that said build the house on posts so it can be lifted off of the ground. We also provided proof by way of experts' reports dealing with the question that there has not been erosion in this area. In fact there has been accretion, and in fact this Board has issued permits along the stretch of read that have in fact current testimony from both experts and attorneys saying accretion has occurred. Most recently, in fact, when I was appearing on this issue before the Board, there was in fact a neighboring property that gained relief, I believe, from the Trustees for an addition to the property. For an addition to the house that is exactly on the adjacent piece of property. So the circumstances relating to homes in the area are circumstances that also fit this lot. All we are looking to do is build a home similar in size, certainly no closer to the water than all the other homes in the area that front along the Long Island Sound, and we distance ourselves back from the water as far as we can in order to locate the house and still deal with the septic system Board of Trustees 33 October 15, 2008 situation. So, with that said, I have handed up not only the proof with regard to the mailing of the notices and the posting of the sign, I have also handed up a report prepared by Mr. Burns as well as his curriculum vitae. I would like him to come up for a brief statement. I would like him to explain his pdor background, even his work in the local area, and I think there are two things that are important here. Not only mentioning the historical significance of no sedous erosion in this area, for a long period of time, but also I think one of your natural questions that has set forth in the state enabling legislation is will in fact Iongterm coastal erosion happen here, either to destroy the beach area or, will it reach the location of proposed structures. And I think Mr. Bums can comment on his expertise in those two issues. So with that said I would sit down, however I would like to call up Mr. Bums to follow in the natural order of my comment. MR. BURNS: Thank you. Good evening. My name is Mark Bums. I'm principal of Tri-Coastal Research and Engineering. My background in the field of coastal erosion and coastal change goes back to a little over 20 years ago when I finished my PHD in coastal oceanography from Albany University. More germane to this specific application is the work that I have done in this area. In fact the short coastal assessment report that you have, you'll notice it has a series of shorelines in here which represent shorelines that were compiled for the town by me years ago. We have added a couple of newer shorelines to it but it's basically the data set that the town has at its disposal. What i'm going to do is quickly go through the summary that I have provided in here relative specifically to the Bombara property. But I also have some general comments on the entire area. The first figure just simply shows the location of the Bombara property relative to the general area and goes to the setting itself. I'm going to speak specifically to figures two through five and the discussion that is presented or that is written on page two is going to be very similar to what I discuss. In figure two, what I'm trying to do is summarize changes that have occurred historically as they have been mapped by different federal agencies and from aerial photography. So you'll notice the first shoreline goes l~oard of Trustees 34 October 15, 2008 back to 1884. That was a land survey that was done by the National Ocean Service which is part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. They are the ones responsible for mapping the shoreline historically. You'll notice that blue line is far out into The Sound. That was the position of the shoreline as they mapped it back in 1884. Now you'll notice national next shoreline, 1933, it's going to end up being the landward most shoreline that exists in this data set. I think there is nine or so shorelines here. And you also notice on figure two, that that shoreline was mapped approximately 25 feet or so landward of the seaward bound to the Bombara property. Now, it should be mentioned that the 1933 shoreline was mapped in April of 1933. Which was just after the significant January, 1933 nor'easter. So it's no coincidence that this shoreline is the landward most one. It was just mapped three months later and recognizes that it's the storm representation of the shoreline, not the average Iongterm position. We'll see by 1955 and 1964, the shoreline has actually accretion accreted. The beach has accreted, the shoreline has moved out into The Sound. And this trend of moving out into The Sound with some fluctuations is what follows after 1933. in other words, if we are using 1933 as your reference shoreline there has always been net accretion along this section of the beach. Let's go to figure three. Now we are looking at 1964. You'll notice that what I do is ovedap between the two figures. The '64 shoreline between two and three so you can have a reference point between the two. You'll see that there is some variation in position of the shoreline, but overall, the variability that exists in this area is far seaward of the Bombara property. And there is only about a 30-foot variability. If you go forward again to the period 1980 to 2004, you notice we have the same general trend in that there is about a 30-foot variability in the change rate in this area at the Bombara property, however, in this case, as well, all shorelines are seaward of the seaward boundary of the property. In other words, they are not encroaching upon any part of the Bombara property. For the period from about 1955 to 2007, and all of imagery that you see that the shorelines are superimposed on is 2007 imagery. What you recognize right away is that the position of the shoreline has really changed very little between 1955 and 2007. It's effectively zero. That Board of Trustees 35 October 15, 2008 doesn't mean there was not variability in that position, but net change has been about zero. So I think just, in summary here, there certainly has been change or variability in change that has existed over a 50-year plus time period, but net change, the net movement of that shoreline has been zero for that 50-year period of time. Meaning that the property we are talking about is outside the area of wave activity for that 50-year pedod of time. And I think this supports the idea of being able to build in this area and being outside of the erosion zone based on the 130-year pedod of historical record. If you have questions, I'll be glad to entertain them. Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there else here who would like to speak? MR. HARDY: Doug Hardy, Southold. Mr. Burns gave a very interesting review of the shoreline dynamics. There is two things that he omitted. One, it's a possibility that he cherry picked the data because there are seasonal cycles and it's in the winter time the shoreline regresses and in the summer it accretes, and there is quite a difference between summer and winter. And he didn't mention the time. Possibly, he is correct. The second factor which will have repercussions in the near future is the sea level is rising and you can, in a conservative estimate is that in 20 years it will be at least six inches higher than what it is today. And that would be a conservative estimate as it's presently accelerating from the past 100 years where it was one to two millimeters per year and now, since 1991, it's three to four millimeters per year. So the implication of this is that storm surges are going to be more and more frequent in this whole area, not just in this property. So there is a great deal of danger to property during severe storms. Thank you. MR. BURNS: May I respond, quickly. First, about cherry picking the data, it's not true. All the data available for this area have been used and, secondly, the time period, I didn't mention this, but it gives me an opportunity to mention it. The time period for most of the shorelines, I don't know if it's every one, but most of the ones that exist are for April of the year that is listed here. So they are all at the same time. In other words, we are not moving from season to season so we are picking up these changes. It's all at the same season. Board of Trustees 36 October 15, 2008 Second, the sea level rise comment, sea level has been dsing since the last glacial pedod, approximately 10,000 years ago. That certainly includes the entire pedod of record for the historical data set, which includes the last 50 years which is the data cleady shows there has been no net change in shoreline position during that period of time. And in fact if we use 1933 as a reference time period, we have seen beach accretion in this area for that pedod of time. So we have a 50-year pedod of time that has sea level dse going on in there and we can't measure its impacts. I think historically if we work with the data that exists, that should give us an indication of what we can see in the future. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I certainly don't have the background that either of the last two people that spoke, but I did feel that, when you mentioned little change, I don't know that in this day and age of what we have seen in recent -- and when I say recent, I mean the last year or two or three -- of unexpected changes of weather that you can forecast it not happening, that we are not going to have that problem. MR. BURNS: I understand what you are saying. These, if you look back in the past, let's just use the 130-year time period we are looking at. The changes in weather have shown up throughout that entire 130-year pedod. There are times when we have stormier cycles. There are times We have less stormier cycles. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm just saying weather prediction is not easy. MR. BURNS: Exactly. That's why often times we use, almost all the time, we use the shoreline data because what they represent is a response of the coastal system to the weather patterns, to sea level rise, to waves. And that gives you the indication of what the beach is going to be doing. MS. BALL: Hi, I'm Lillian Ball appearing as an individual person here today. I must say, I live in the Kenney's Beach-McCabe's Beach area. I'm a member of the civic association there. And I wanted to ask specifically what the LWRP statement was and have that read for the record in the court. This is something -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That was next. MS. BALL: Maybe you'll answer some of the issues that I bring up. But I wanted to say that this is a primary dune area, a virgin beach piece of which we have very little left. Urn, it is an area where adjacent wetlands are endangered. It's an area where we have substantially proven already to the Board of Trustees that there are Board of Trustees 37 October 15, 2008 endangered species and globally rere wetlands that actually protect the property already on the shoreline. Now once you built one house, that's one house. And there are several houses in this area, as the Bombara situation states. But because there are several houses there doesn't mean we need several more. It is extremely sensitive for the wetland area and for the primary dune area to have more houses built, even without climate change. And it is a prediction that none of us can make. Anyone who walks the beach every day, as I do, knows that serious erosion is a relative term. There are many lawsuits and controversies about the Kenney's McCabe Beach area and erosion produced by the Goldsmith jetty and other circumstances which are beyond human scope. So I think this is, it's a very tenuous area right now to say !here is no erosion. And if you walk the beach any time, day-to-day, any season, April through March, you'll see that the beach changes every day. Every day it's different. Every day there is different sand deposits in the sand bar that runs parallel beyond the point of the Goldsmith jetty that runs parallel to both McCabe's and Kenney's Beach and my bottom line feeling is that there are properties already there that have been built upon that have been enlarged upon and that's one thing to give permission for but to destroy virgin beach when we have a choice seems very unwise. Thank you. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Thank you. I'll read the LWRP report unless there is someone else who would like to speak first. MR. SAMUELS: Hi, I'm Jeremy Samuels, Group for the East End. I just want to ask a question. I understand this on for public headng tonight. You anticipate you'll vote and close the record this evening? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't think we can answer that at this point in time. We have to get through with hearing the testimony. And understand what we are doing is right now we are considering this under coastal erosion. Not under 275. We'll do that separately. MR. SAMUELS: Understood. The reason I raise the question is we have phone calls this week from a couple of our members saying could you please go down and take a look at the file and see what's going on. Obviously Monday was a holiday. I went over to the office today. I just wanted to take a look at the file and became aware of the apparent procedure of the Trustees which is the day of, the files are not open for public review. I just want to go on record and ask if you are anticipating closing the hearing Board of Trustees 38 October 15, 2008 this evening, if you could hold open the record open for public commentary for an appropriate period of time that would be up to your decision so that we have an opportunity to review the file. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: We have had it open over a year. MR. SAMUELS: Understood. There also have been amendments along the way, and there have been discussions that have been made and amendments that have been made. And as I said, obviously, it's up to you. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: This has been in a holding pattern for quite a while. That's why it's on tonight. Maybe you'll get the gist of the file as we continue. MR. SAMUELS: Obviously the hope would be we were able to comment in some specific terms. MS. HULSE: Once it's closed, you can submit something in writing if you want. But once it's closed, it's closed, and there won't be anymore public comment. MR. SAMUELS: Understood. That's why I was asking if it could be held open. Thank you. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All right. The LWRP review as of October 1, 2008, says the proposed actions are inconsistent with the denoted following Town of Southold LWRP policy standards and not in compliance with Chapter 275. It's all together, that's why I'm reading it. Wetlands and shoreline and Chapter 111 Coastal Erosion hazard areas. Therefore the actions are inconsistent with LWRP. More specifically, to address the Chapter 111, the purpose of Chapter 111 Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas is to regulate coastal areas land use and development activities so as to minimize or prevent damage or destruction to manmade property, natural protective features and other natural resource and to protect human life. In addition, the purpose of Chapter 111 is to regulate new construction or replacement of structures in order to place them a safe distance from coastal hazard areas. There is a list of such areas but I'm going to read the ones that are highlighted, which would be (b) under 111-4, regulate and coastal areas subject to coastal flooding and erosion land use and development activity so as to minimize, prevent damage or destruction to manmade property, natural protective features and other natural resources and to protect human life. Aisc 111-4(c), regulate new construction or placement of structures in order to place them a safe distance from areas of active erosion and the impact of coastal storms to ensure these structures are not permanently destroyed or damaged due to ~3oard of Trustees 39 October 15, 2008 improper siting as well as to prevent damage to natural protective features and other natural resources. Let me just skim here -- the proposed actions don't have a functional relationship to coastal waters and is therefore not a water-dependent use. The proposed actions are located entirety within the coastal erosion hazard area of the primary dune, a natural protective feature. This is a definition -- that's under 275. Okay. These are just a lot of definitions that I'm skimming through. New construction is prohibited in natural protective areas which this is a primary dune or has been specified as a primary dune. The distance from the proposed action to the natural protective feature is zero feet. That's 275 again. I'm just trying to separate the 275 from 111. Are there any comments while I'm filtering through here? Any comments from the Board? MR. MEINKE: Howard Meinke from Mattituck. I just wanted to say that I think under the current regulations, the LWRP and everything else, if there were no houses in that area, we would not consider putting any there. And there are houses there that date way back before we got as well informed as we are now, so I just think that all our regulations mean nothing if we feel we have to approve a house because there are already houses. The point of our regulations is to mirror that we are getting smarter, that science is getting better and sometimes we should not do what we did in the past, so you shouldn't do it again. Thank you. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Thank you. We do have a letter received from DEC on April 17. This was the most recent, I believe. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Instead of reading the entire letter, I'm just going to read from: Before a permit could be issued the town would have to review the proposal by applying permit issue standards Southold 111-9 and assure that the proposal would meet all of them. Those standards require that the proposed regulated activity is reasonable and necessary considered reasonable alternatives to the proposed activity and to the extent to which the proposed activity requires a shoreline location is not likely to cause immeasurable increase in erosion at the proposed site and at other locations, prevents if possible or minimizes adverse effect on natural Protective features and their functions and protective values Existing erosion protection structures and natural resources. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Just read who that is from, what · Board o f Trustees 40 October 15, 2008 department. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's Robert McDonough, Environmental Program Specialist, Coastal Erosion Management Section. Board comments? TRUSTEE BERGEN: This is being considered right now under 111 and 111 section 16, it talks about primary dunes and secondary dunes, what is allowed and what's not allowed, and it talks about non-major additions. This obviously is not a non-major addition. This is an entirely new construction. It also says all other activities in dune areas are prohibited, unless specifically provided for by this chapter. So for myself, it's fairly clear that under coastal erosion, I could remember a year ago I voted against this and I, there is nothing that has been submitted to me that changes my mind on this, regarding my vote, in regard to coastal erosion on this. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: With that comment and no one standing up, either of the speakers, I'm going to close this hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. A n favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And Ill make a motion to deny this coastal erosion permit to the construct a single-family dwelling at 1725 North Sea Drive, Southold. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES.) Note for the record it was denied under Coastal Erosion Chapter 111. I'm going to ask if there is anyone here who would like to speak to the application for Robert Bombara for a wetlands permit to construct a single-family dwelling on 1725 North Sea Drive, Southold. MR. DANOWSKI: Pete Danowski, once again. I recognize that these two hearings are following one another. They didn't quite to that last time around, however, I would note that I understand there is an administrative appeal from your last decision on Coastal Zone Erosion and I'll be taking that appeal. As you pointed out on the record, during some of the previous hearings in public record, you indicated that at a prior time there was some rationale to not reaching a final conclusion on tidal wetlands until the administrative appeal is concluded. That is something for you to consider tonight after the close of this particular hearing. Obviously, there is not an administrative appeal. If Board of Trustees 41 October 15, 2008 you deny both ends of the permit that would lead to instant litigation that will have to take place as the administrative appeal on coastal zone erosion is proceeding. I would just like to incorporate by reference the comments I just made on the prior hearing rather than bore you on this late evening, and I would ask you to just note that as I pointed out on the eadier testimony, we have distanced ourselves well beyond the 100-foot distance that is the jurisdictional prerequisite for tidal wetlands here. We are 157 feet away. I pointed that out in wdting to you before. I point it out to you again. I'll not make any further comment other than to say to you, I would ask you to either find you have no jurisdiction or to issue a tidal wetlands permit. Thank you. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Lori, we are continuing. MS. HULSE: Okay. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: There was a lot of language in there. I was not sure if you wanted to continue. MS. HULSE: That's fine. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Anyone else? MS. MURRAY: Anne Murray, North Fork Environmental Council. My question is, the attorney is pointing out he's 157 feet back. Is he saying that you have no jurisdiction as this Board because he's not within the hundred feet of the shore? Is that the point that he's making? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I believe so. TRUSTEE BERGEN: As I understand it, that's the point he is trying to state, that since this is 157 feet from the high tide mark, it's outside our jurisdiction. MS. MURRAY: Is it in fact outside your jurisdiction? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I was just about to answer that. I can only speak for myself. But in reviewing this and having been out in the field several times, I feel this is within our jurisdiction because I feel this is within 100 feet of the top of the beach and the beach dune line there, so I definitely feel that this is within our jurisdiction. Myself. MS. MURRAY: Okay. I would strongly recommend the Board not issue a wetland permit. I understand the applicant would need both coastal erosion and wetland permit but there is certainly no reason in our view to issue either one, given the sensitive environmental nature of that area. And as Howard pointed out eadier, it's a pristine beach in that spot. Just because it was built on before is certainly no reason to add to the insult by building again. Thank you. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll read from our LWRP report, again, ' Board o f Trustees 42 October 15, 2008 of October 1, 2008, and referencing the 275 comments. The purpose of Chapter 275 wetlands and shoreline is to regulate wetlands in order to maintain and contribute to the following resource area values and the attributes and functions they possess. Flood control, erosion sediment control, storm damage prevention, water pollution control. In addition, the following resource area values shall be maintained and protected: Prevent flood damage by limiting of development in flood hazard areas; preventive damage to structures and natural resources as a result of erosion; protection of coastal ecosystems minimizing impact of new development, restoration and/or expansion on the resource area values listed above. This might be a bit repetitive. I'll read it again. A site visit of the property of Robed G. Bombara was conducted on October 17, 2007. In attendance at the site visit, among others, were representatives of the Town of Southold Board of Trustees, . LWRP coordinator Mark Terry and New York State DEC Environmental Programs Specialist Robed McDonough which confirmed the proposed actions are entirely located seaward of the coastal erosion hazard area line and within a pdmary dune. And I believe I have covered all comments on 275. MS. BALL: I'll spare you my advanced state of laryngitis and just very bdefiy remind you that we did discuss many of these issues, that Peggy was on the Board at that time, most of the rest of you weren't. Jim was, too. We did discuss a number of these issues in relationship to the inter-dunal swale which exists between Goldsmith Inlet and Horton's Point. So this area is smack dab in the middle of the inter-dunal swale, which is designated by the New York Department of State as significant habitat also for fish and wildlife. So it is on the significant habitat maps, regardless of the fact that there are places in and out which previously built houses have destroyed. It is the general area of the inter-dunal swale which is a globally rare ecosystem and it is designated by the New York Department of State as a significant habitat. So I'm glad you voted "no" first time and I hope you will vote "no" again. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll mention there are some letters here. If someone is here that would like them read, I'll read them, otherwise we'll have them entered into the record. This was received on August 22, 2007, from Irene Viti in Southold. These are all old. There is another letter from Ed Booth, Thomas Rosaca, and I believe these are in the records already. CAC does not have a recommendation due to the location .Board of Trustees 43 October 15, 2008 of the Coastal Erosion Hazard line being landward of all proposed activity, therefore a review of the application cannot be conducted at this time. So that was their comment. We had some expertise shared before and I would just like to mention that I value our expertise, Mark Terry and Scott Hilary, I don't have their resumes with me, but they are certainly very impressive also. So I feel very strongly toward their comment with their LWRP review. If there are no further comments, I will make a motion to close this hearing for a wetland permit for Robert Bombara. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm going to make a motion to deny the wetland permit for Robert Bombara to construct a single-family dwelling, detached garage, pool and associated water supply and sewage disposal facilities located 1725 North Sea Drive. rll make note to our Chapter 275's regulations and also Chapter 111's, and I'm not rereading all of the review, that this is an area where this Board should not be permitting a structure. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do we have a second? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Before we vote. I have a comment. As I recall from, again, it's at least a year ago when this was open the first time, there were ideas presented with the proposal then, that would help mitigate some of the concerns under the LWRP, and the applicant has not, in this revised plan that I see here dated, it's just October, 2008, utilized any of those suggestions that were made last year. So as of such, I'm going to vote no on this. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do we have a second? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Motion denied under Chapter 275 wetlands. At this time I would like to take a short recess, please. (After a brief recess, these Proceedings continue as follows.) WETLAND PERMITS: TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, under wetland permits, number one, JOSEPH F. GONZALES, requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 16x18' deck attached to the rear of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Water Bureau Of Flood Protection and Dam' Safety, 4m Floor 625 Broadway, Albany, New York 12233-3504 Phone: (5181 402-8185 · FAX: (518) 402-8082 Website: www. dec.state.ny, us Alexander B. Grannis Commissioner December 12, 2007 Ms. Heather Cusack Town of Southold Planning Dept. Town Hall Annex PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Dear Ms. Cusack: You requested clarification on the portion of the Town of Southold's code which applies to the review of requests for reconstruction within a Coastal Erosion Hazard Area (CEHA). Additionally, you asked whether or not such construction could permit a structure to move seaward. Coastal Erosion Hazard Area Regulations (6 NYCRR Part 505) and corresponding certified coastal erosion management programs implemented through local law such as Southold's § 111 are designed to locate development and new structures 'out of these high hazard areas over time. Therefore, when reviewing such a-proposal for reconstruction, one must consider the purpose of SoutholWs local coastal law which is listed in part, below with special emphasis on § 111-4.C: 3~ 111-4. Purpose. The Town of Southold hereby assumes the responsibility and authority to implement and administer a Coastal Erosion Management Program within its jurisdiction pursuant to Article 34 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law. In addition, it is the purpose of this chapter to: A. Establish standards and procedures for minimizing and preventing damage to structures from coastal flooding and erosion and to protect natural protective features and other natui'al resources. B. Regulate, in coastal areas subject to coastal flooding and erosion, land use and development activities so as to minimize or prevent damage or destruction to man-made property, natural protective features and other natural resources and to t~rotect human life. I hope that this is helpful in answering questions the Town may have on reconstruction of existing structures within CEHA jurisdiction. If you have any additional requests.or questions regarding coastal erosion management, please oontact me at 518-402-8147. Sincerely, Environmental Program Specialist Coastal Erosion Management Section c: Eric Star, NYSDEC Region 1 CEM Rep. Board of Trustees 21 August 22, 2007 TRUSTEE KING: To come in and ask for an amendment? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, so that what is on the permit matches what is there on the location now. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is that your motion? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?, (ALL AYES.) VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS: TRUSTEE KING: I11 make a motion to go off our regular hearings and go on to our public hearings. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) COASTAL EROSION AND WETLAND PERMITS: TRUSTEE KING: Number one, under Coastal Erosion and Wetland Permits. Young & Young on behalf of ROBERT G. BOMBARA requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a single-family dwelling, detached garage, pool and associated water supply and sewage disposal system. Located: 1725 North Sea Drive, Southold. There is a little history on this. There was an application before us before. It was denied under Coastal Erosion. The entire project is seaward of the coastal erosion line. And it was denied under Wetlands application also, without prejudice. And they are coming back now with another application and I think it's going to be a long review. We'll need a lot of information on this. It's a very sensitive area. We are going to ask our environmental technician to do ewrite up on it and I think we also need to get some more .expert opinion, perhaps, from DEC, somebody in the coastal e. ngmeer, soi;nebody will ,have to take a look and give.us some guidance on thi~ wh.ole thing, exactly where the beach Is. There is a. lot of interpretation here, as to what I could see, in the descr ption. So ~e'll start with gathering the information. Go ahead. MR. DANOWSKI: My name is Pete Danowski. I'm an attorney representing Mr. and Mrs. Bombara, who are here this evening. I will in a few minutes ask that Mr. Bombara be allowed to speak to just explain the underlying acts that led to his purchase of this property and his desires. I would say as well that I have heard and read a few comments Board of Trustees 22 August 22, 2007 from the immediate neighbors. I certainly respect their opinions and have had a bdef time tonight to chat with a few of them and perhaps those conversations will lead to some more meaningful conversations after tonight. And we'll certainly let you know if that is the end result of those conversations. I would say, as the president has stated here, there was an earlier denial without prejudice. An appeal has been filed to the town board. That appeal has been held in abeyance as we proceed to the reapplicafions that we filed before this Board. I recognize this Board has met out at the site to examine the site. We had the firm of Young & Young stake the site showing the three alternate locations we now suggest. We color coded the flag so there is some attempt to try to have some clarity when you went there. Not that that was totally successful. In simplest of terms, we have tried to move the location of the house back as far as possible and also reduce in size to some degree the house. We have also an alternate plan number three. We've taken the pool location and removed it from the area between the Sound frontage and the home itself and moved it to the eastern side of the house. These also have recognized, as you have made conditions in the past or made suggestions, we have agreed with at least one alternative and we do with all three° to build the house on poles so the house would not be sitting absolutely on the surface. We also connected the garage so it's not a separate building. We also have to be mindful of the Suffolk County Health Department regulations with regard to location of septic system. So their location is depicted on the plans, and the house location is as close to the read as it could be located, on all of the plans. Mr. President did say something that's totally accurate. There has been a lot of comments made about interpretations or moanings of some of the words both in the Town Code and in the state legislation that preceded the Town Code. Certainly it's our position, as we have established it on the site plans and surveys, that the physiographic change has been located by Douglas Adams of the firm of Young & Young. He's a qualified engineer who has located that physiographic change. By definition, the beach area is defined as a 100-foot distance from the physiographic change. That is noted on each of these plans and you'll note varying degrees of distance beyond the 100-foot distance. I think there was also a request made and certainly it's been on all of the plans that we locate the high and Iow tides and clearly, for tidal wetlands purposes or any other purpose, each of the plans shows a location of the structure to be well beyond the 100-foot setback distance. Board of Trustees 23 August 22, 2007 Also, all of the plans comply with zoning regulations as far as the building envelope and that building envelope has been depicted on each of the plans. So we think, on behalf of the Bombara's, we have done everything possible to relocate the house, to resize the structure, to deal with the structure being placed on poles and to relocate the possible swimming pool and still be mindful of the Suffolk County Department of Health Department regulations. Having said that, I would also ask to repeat something that was done by reference the last time, so the record is totally complete, without having to reiterate all the comments from the last hearing. That is, I would ask you to incorporate by reference the total record from the prior hearing. That would include the prior granting of coastal zone erosion permits for the neighboring properties along the same stretch of road. I make note of it because on many of those instances there are comments such as no tidal wetlands jurisdiction, house is setback beyond 100 feet. There are comments certainly on the Betsch case that are well taken and I would note the attorney from Twomey Latham, Ms. Palumbo, who represented the Betsch people, did an excellent job of presenting the law on that question. That same law applies to this particular applicant. The same cases that were found are applicable. The same positions are applicable, that you may recognize that you have the ability to regulate this activity but that does not mean that you are prohibited from granting a permit. Albeit, if you did that, I think it would be an inverse condemnation taking away my client's property rights in that regard. So having said that, I would wait, in a few moments, comments from the public, with regard to this application. My client only wishes to be treated as others have been and granted a coastal zone erosion permit, subject to reasonable conditions. We will certainly revegetate areas, we'll certainly listen to types of construction comments and we would like to reach an agreement on where to locate the building and how to build it. Having said that, I would ask at this time to be allowed to bring Mr. Bombara up to make comment about his decision to purchase this property, if I may. TRUSTEE KING: Before you do that. Just one comment I would like to make. The cases you talked about, those were additions, not new constructions. MR. DANOWSKI: I certainly understand that, but the same conditions take place with regard to regulated areas. When we talked about the Susan Tasker (sic) case which was cited as, often cited, as one of the earlier decisions in this case, and that was made part of the brief, I certainly understand the position. But it's our Board of Trustees 24 August 22, 2007 position once you go beyond the beach area and once you go beyond that distance, by definition, 100 feet frem the physiographic change, then you are entitled to and we have a right to a building ~/ithin that area beyond the hundred feet. That is our position. MR. CORCORAN: I think that is a point that there is some clarification. I think that's what Mr. King was speaking to when he opened this heating. One thing you stated which is totally correct is that the beach extends 100 feet from the marked change and physiographic territory, but the definition goes on to read where there is no dune or bluff landward of that beach. So this Is what we are concerned about. Does the beach end at that 100 feet or is there either more beach or dune beyond that 100 feet. I think that's what the Trustees are grappling with and will want some expert opinion about. MR. DANOWSKI: And I have reason to say that I don't blame them for grappling with it or waiting for some further information from experts in that regard. MR. CORCORAN: Because if it's a dune or it's beach, there is nothing in this law that allows a house to be built from scratch in that area MR. DANOWSKI: I think you'll have some debate on that as to regulated areas and non-regulated areas. The same argument you had on major and minor with regard to existing structures where you say well you are building more than 25%. It doesn't prohibit you from doing that. It just makes you ask for permission because it's regulated. And I'm suggesting to you, you can build in the area. But there is no sense two attorneys debating about that tonight MR. CORCORAN: I disagree, but I'll be happy to talk to you about it. MR. DANOWSKI: I'll be happy to talk to you about it as well. If I could carl Mr, Bombara, with your permission. TRUSTEE KING: Try and keep it brief. We are not going to move on this tonight. We have a lot of information, so we'll just get a feel for it and we'll move on. MR. BOMBARA: Thank you. Good evening. I want to tell you how we got to this particular point. My wife and I are both near retirement age. We always spent a lot of time on the North Fork, We are looking for a place to build and ultimately for a final retirement home. We entered into a contract which was subject to being able to build a certain square footage house. The first thing I did is I called the Town of Southold Building Department and gave them the block, lot, address, told them exactly where it was. I told them what my contract read and said if I was able to build on this lot and I was told yes. If I was told no, we would certainly not be here today. I'm certainly not a fool to spend the kind of money that I did to buy a piece of land that you can't do anything Board of Trustees 25 August 22, 2007 with. So I just want to let you know, this is how we got here and, to be honest with you, if I was not given that information by the Town of Southold Building Department, we would not be hem tonight. Thank you. MR. CORCORAN: For clarification, our Building Department doesn't and is not authorized to give letters of buildability on property, to avoid this sort of exactly he said she said debate we often get post hoc. MR. DANOWsKI: I think it was part of the record the last time but I think I have to establish and I'll make the comment rather than call Mr. Bombara up again. He closed on this property and paid $1.1 million for this particular parcel. And the other comment that he might have made last time, I think, as well, that I might have repeated, is that when he visited the site and looked to the left and right, there were buildings under construction. Albeit, they were renovation projects. Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to speak in opposition to this project? MS. MURRAY: Hi, I'm Ann Murray, I'm with the Land Use Committee of the North Fork Environmental Council and I was cudous to know why since the coastal erosion hazard permit was previously denied why it's being reheard again. Can anybody answer that? MR. CORCORAN: There is a new proposal and a new plan and every application deserves to be heard. MS. MURRAY: Okay, because it kind of defies logic for me to consider it again if it's already been denied under that. In any case, I think granting this, which it appears you are not going to do tonight, it would be inconsistent with the LWRP, which has been the law in the town since 2004. Not only that, if you are truly stewards of the land, consideration of your earlier rejection and the CAC refusal to conduct a full review because of the coastal erosion hazard line, and the LWRP inconsistency, should prevent you from permitting the destruction of this fragile sand dune, which is also in a slgniflcent environmental area. I mean this is a beach, this is a sand dawn, I'm sure you have all been there. We don't build on sand dunes in Southold Town. Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else? MS. AMPER: My name is Julie Amper, I'm also on the Land Use Committee. I too urge the Board of Trustees to deny a wetland permit and m-confirm their earlier decision of November 15, 2006, to deny a coastal erosion permit on this property. One of the key issues I think impacting on this decision was touched on by Trustee Dlckerson at that November 15 meeting. She said, and I quote, you mention things, permits, buildings that have been done in the past and one of the things we are always doing is looking ahead and not looking back. Always .reviewing and revising how we see things and Board of Trustees 26 August 22, 2007 taking into consideration so much new information, scientific, et cetera. And we as a Board have been working very seriously revising our code. I applaud this and agree with it. We cannot make a policy of allowing nearby pre-existing construction to legitimatize new construction that has been found to be non-compliant. This is sort of the but~Johnny-did-it-so-why-can't-I defense, which we know what our parents say to that. To do so makes a complete mockery of the environmental review process from the coastal erosion hazard authorization and the CAC to Southold Town code and the LWRP. All over Southold are examples of buildings that do not conform to current codes, that could not and should not be built today. They exist only because they were build before we knew any better, before we had scientific information available to us, information that as we acquired it, we wisely made part of our Town Code. Who today would use lead paint on his home just because it was used next door at some time or other in the distant past? Who, if he could find it, would use DDT or Chlordane as a pest control? Whenever we have discovered threats to our health and to our environment, we have acted imposing bans and enacting laws. To ignore such threats would be unconscionable. Since much of the prime waterfront real estate has been developed in Southold Town, most of the remaining waterfront parcels may well be non-compliant and will face insurmountable regulatory difficulty. I urge the Trustees to stand fast in the face of overwhelming evidence against granting these permits. New knowledge triumph trumps past mistakes and previous building in a contested area in no way justifies the compounding of the felony. We can not make real environmental threats disappear simply by conjuring up mitigating circumstances that strain any rational interpretation of the code. Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. Anybody else? Yes, sir. MR. ROSAKIS: Good evening. My name is Tom Rosakis, I'm a member of the Kenneys Beach Civic Association and I wrote a letter to you which I would like to place in the record and just read two sentences of it if I might. It's actually an E-mail that I -- may I approach the president? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I can confirm we did receive it. MR. ROSAKIS: Thank you. Basically, the letter states: I agree with Ann Murray. I don't know why we are here since the permit was, the coastal erosion hazard permit was denied, and we don't see any substantive changes to this application. I just will quote from your resolution; your revised resolution. The project, my sentence here, the project in any form remains as stated in your revised resolution of December, 2006, quote, seaward of the coastal erosion hazard area, end quote, is prohibited as per chapter 111 of Board of Trustees 27 August 22, 2007 the Town Code, in quotes, inconsistent with the local waterfront revitalization program. No amount of redesign of the project can change these conditions. This application should not be considered. Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you: Anybody else? MR. RETSCH: One more, please, if you don't mind. My name is John Betsch, I live at 2325 North See Drive. I'm vice-president of the Kenneys Beach Civic Association but tonight I'm here as a resident of North See Ddve. Before I begin, I just want to take exception to Mr. Danowski's comment about my property in that I had an existing structure in place and my approval had to do with the 25% requirement. I understand that it was disapproved for the coastal erosion permit on November 15 and the wetland permit on December 13. The information as presented in this new application is generally the same as has been in previous applications with the exception now there are three proposals. Having appeared before this Board numerous times, I want to be sure that the Trustees' determination is simply based on correct and proper information and a decision is based on consistent and equal applications of other people who have appeared before this Board. For example, when I look at the new applications I do not see any coastal erosion hazard line drawn on any of the three proposals. Which was a requirement. The submitted survey indicates a lot size of 24,879 square feet, however the town assessor's office, which I believe is an official record, states the property is 19,100 square feet, and increase which he shows of 5,779 square feet, Approximately 6,000 square feet. To say that the property has grown approximately 6,000 square feet seems to be a little bit of fuzzy logic considering the ongoing suit going with Goldsmith Inlet and the loss of beach all along that area. And finally, with the notoriety of recent pool accidents I'm sure that the applicant would want to have inplace significant safety measures to do with a pool and I'm not sure whether fencing is allowed in beach areas. Finally, I heard Scott Russell say it's becoming necessary to legislate good manners. I realize legislating is not within the authority of this Board, but common sense is. While Southold does not have a pyramid law in place, as Southampton does, it's important to consider the effect of a structure like this on the quality and character of the neighborhood. We do not want another hotel Reydon in place, which the Trustees did approve some time in the past. That Hotel Reydon, if you are familiar with it, down on Reydon Drive, which had an effect on both the quality of life and 1]oard of Trustees 28 August 22, 2007 for the people living on Reydon Drive, and it was also very detrimental to their property values in that it is now overwhelming and looks more like a yacht club from Disneyland versus all the other houses in place. And I just appreciate your time. Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE KING: We had asked for the coastal erosion to be put on the surveys. I would also like to find out what the required first floor elevation is in that zone also. I think they have it down hero as 17 feet on the plans. I don't know what the minimum is that is roquired by law. I think we need to know that. Anybody else? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Jim, as was stated by, and I can't romember the name of the gentleman, I apologize for that, when we addressed this before -- previously, we addressed this in one hearing under coastal erosion and a month later a hearing for the wetland permit and it's been stated many times by people in their statements tonight it was denied under coastal erosion. People said why are we hero again tonight. I know for myself, and I'm only speaking for myself up here, it's been denied under coastal erosion, it's cleady brand new construction. It's clearly proposed to be seaward of coastal erosion. For myself, I agroe. I think it should continue to be denied under coastal erosion. So we can do what we want to as far as having a environmental technician look at the area and having DEC look at the area and any other engineers to look at the area -- TRUSTEE KING: Under the wetland policy. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. But for myself, personally, we are going through a lot of time and effort on something that I think we should just deny under coastal erosion again. MR. CORCORAN: You really need to be certain what natural protective feature the proposed activity -- the activity being proposed is in. Because it makes a difference under the law. It's a tortured law, but it matters if it's a dune area, it matters, if it's a beach area or it matters if it's just any other area behind the line. You can get a permit for certain construction if it's not in a particular natural protective feature. If it is in a particular natural protective feature, I would argue -- counsel might disagree - you can't do anything. So it makes a difference where it is. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I understand. MR. CORCORAN: So your decision should be precise when you make it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I appreciate that and, as I said, I'm happy to hear, that we are going to, under the wetland permit, ask for some professional advice. MR. CORCORAN: And I don't want to predict any outcome you are going to make, but whatever outcome you make you want it to be solid and principled. Board of Trustees 29 August 22, 2007 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: We have three letters here. I'm not going to read them in. I'll just say who they are from. Mr. Rosakis; I don't know if he's still here or not. We have the letter in the file on the record. There is a letter from Ed Booth and there is a letter from Irene Vittl. These three letters are here. They are in here, just to let you know. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would also like to state, along with Dave, I happen to agree. I have an issue, you know, with it having come up again under coastal erosion. I think we made the proper decision the first time around. But I'll address the question that came up tonight, one of the folks just spoke, as to why we would even consider the application. It's my belief that, you know, a person has every dght to put in as many applications as they want. If he wants to put in an application every month for it, as annoying as that might be, he's got every right to do that. So we are encumbered to consider it. We can deny it, approve it, what have you. I think everybody has a right to bring an application in. TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else? (No response.) I'm make a motion to table this application, then. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. (ALL AYES.) MR. CORCORAN: As well as both on 275 and 111, dgh[.~ TRUSTEE KING: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: Number three, Patricia Moore on behalf of RONALD STRITZLER requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to cut back the vertical slope of the bluff to a more natural angle, cut back the trees overhanging the bluff edge to ground level and plant between the lawn area and the bluff edge. Continue planting bluff with existing vegetation, complete terracing and backfill, and plant area. Add terracing to strategic locations based on site conditions using wood and plastic sheet pilings. Located: 3055 Soundview Avenue, Mattituck. MS. DIACK: What happened to number two, Missy Diack? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That was tabled. That was postponed. They felt they didn't notify all the neighbors properly and they wanted to make sure that was done. That's why it was postponed. We mentioned in the beginning it was postponed. So, sorry, for any confusion. TRUSTEE KING: Ma'am, it was at your request, I guess, or your agent's request. MS. DIACK: Not my request. 02/01/2007 16:82 16317277451 PETERSDAN PAGE 02/03 JOHN R TAGGAR% ESQ. LAW OFFICES PL:'TER S. DANOWSKI, ,JR. 8t S ROANOKE AVENUE P.O. BOX 77g RIVERHEAD, NY 11901 (631) 727-4900 FAX (631) 727-7451 February 1,2007 Board of Trustees Town of Southold ' 53095 Main Road, Box 1179 Southold, New York 1971-0959 Re: Robert F. Bombara - 1725 North Sea Drive, Southold SCTM #1000 - 54 - 4 - 19 Dear Lauren: I am filing an administrative appeal to the Town Board from the denial by the Trustees of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area permit. Please provide myself and the Town Board with an entire copy of the record, including all files relating to permits that have issued on the same roadway system for those parcels facing the Long island Sound. If you recall, counsel to the Board of Trustees agreed to produce same as part of the record, ! enclose a'copy of the Town form. Note the requirement at the bottom regarding the production of the entire Board of Trustees file. Very truly yours, PETER S. DANOWSKI, JR. PSD:gsg Ends. Wednesday, October 17, 2007 Peter S. Danowski PO Box 779 Riverhead, NY 11901 RE: Robert Bombara 1725 North Sea Drive Southold NY SCTM # 54-4-19 Dear Mr. Danowski: I conducted a site inspection at the above property on September 20, 2007. In addition, I conducted a literature review of existing coastal studies of this area of the Southold Long Island Sound shoreline. Based on these reviews, the area in question appears to be a beach and the proposed development consistent with the size and location of existing development. Geologic Settin_,.q The area between Horton Point and Duck Pond Point is a deposition area for sand. Brought into this sweeping embayment by tides, currents and waves. Sediments have been accumulating in this embayment for thousands of years, since the retreat of the last glaciers. The most prominent geomorphic features north of the bluffs are beach ridges that are most apparent from an aerial perspective. These Iow relief features mark locations of past shorelines and the intervening lower areas denotes sand that has accreted seaward of the old shoreline. There are at least two sets of beach ridges in this area. One runs just soundward of the pond system and the other runs just soundward of the road area (although its does appear to cross the road in several places). Beach ridges are relict features and typically vegated with mature shrubs and trees such as eastern red cedar, large bayberry and beach plum, as well as Iow growing heather and heath. They are typically very stable features. First Coastal Corporation, Post Office Box 1212 Westhampton Beach, NY 11978 Phone: 631-288-2271, Fax: 631-288-8949 www.firstcoastal.net Environmental Consulting and Construction. Permits to Construction. Preserving the coast since 1975 FIRST Figure 1 Location of Bombara property Site Inspection My site inspection of 9/20/07 reinforced many of the observations made from the aerial photographic analysis. The project site and the entire area is made up of Iow profile beach ridges dominated by mature vegetation. Moreover, a large portion of the site is sandy beach that is void of any vegetation. Between these two areas is a margin of beach grass. Several photographs taken on that day confirm these observations. The site staking shows the proposed location of a house that is consistent with the north/south location of other houses in the vicinity. A diagram depicting this condition in enclosed. First Coastal Corporation, Post Office Box 1212 Westhampton Beach, NY 11978 Phone: 631-288-2271, Fax: 631-288-8949 www.firstcoastal.net Environmental Consulting and Construction. Permits to Construction. Preserving the coast since 1975 FIRS.T Figure 6 Seaward trend of existing development Literature Review I also conducted a literature review of the project area. I attach a podion of the report by Davies, Axelrod and O'Conner from 1973 that discusses this section of shoreline in particular as part of a comprehensive evaluation of the entire North Shore of Long Island.. Davies, et al conducted investigations and developed a Beach Utility Index (BUI) that was used to describe different segments of shoreline. The entire north shore of Long Island was divided into 158 segments. The project area is between segments 137 and 138. In Table 3-5 of the Davies report, both segments are found to have "No bluff or dune". This is derived by looking at the "Natural Protection Barriers" columns of Table 3-5 where a value of "6" is given for segments 137 and 138. Referring to Table 3-4 that defines each value, a "6" is defined as "No bluff or dune". Note also that in Table 3-4 there is a notation that if a dune exists seaward a bluff that a "d" is added to the number value. Thera is no "d" in the Natural Protection Barrier designation for either segment 137 or 138. First Coastal Corporation, Post Office Box 1212 Westhampton Beach, NY 11978 Phone: 631-288-2271, Fax: 631-288-8949 www.flrstcoastal.net EnvironmentalConsulting and Construction. Permits to Construction~ Preserving the coast since 1975 FIRST In conclusion, my review of aerial photographs, site conditions, and the literature show this section of shoreline to be dominated by Iow profile beach ridges that are vegetated by mature shrubs and tree fronted by a sandy beach and argin of beach grass. The comprehensive report by Davies et al in 1973 identified this shoreline as having "No bluff or dune" I have attached my Curriculum Vitae for your information. Please advise if there is additional information that you require. Sincerel~J~ __ Aram V. Terchun'Fa~n, M.Sc. ~- President First Coastal Corporation, Post Office Sox 1212 Westhampton Beach, NY 11978 Phone: 631-288~2271, Fax: 631-288-8949 www.firstcoastal.net Environmental Consulting and Construction. Permits to Construction. Preserving the coast since 1975 FI RS.T ARAM V. TERCHUNIAN, M. Sc. Curriculum Vitae Areas of Expertise * Geomorphology, coastal processes, coastal hazard and erosion analysis * Wetlands delineation, permitting and erosion control construction * Environmental science and resource management * Endangered species monitoring and management * Zoning analysis and interpretation Experience * 1990 to Present, First Coastal Corporation - President Responsible for all aspects of the firms consulting and construction services for coastal property owners, municipalities, and associations. * 1999 to Present - Commissioner of Wildlife Protection - Village of West Hampton Dunes Appointed by the Village of West Hampton Dunes to perform duties ordered by U.S. Federal Court in Consent Judgment Rapf Et. Al. vs. Suffolk County, including piping plover monitoring and protection, as well as coordination with Endangered Species Agencies. * 1988 to 1990 Coastal Stabilization, Inc. - Regional Manager of Development Market development and technical sales for the development of a proprietary beach stabilization product. Prepared and executed marketing strategy, prepared and presented technical results at national and international conferences, and presented proposals and RFP responses to local, State, and Federal agencies. * 1984 to 1988, New York State, Department of State, Division of Coastal Resources Coastal Hazards Supervisor responsible for review and recommendations for improvement of existing coastal hazard area management programs in New York State, including coastal erosion hazard areas, flood protection, and disaster relief. Represented the Secretary of State in post coastal disaster survey, assessment, and evaluation teams. Reviewed erosion control and coastal area development actions within coastal hazards areas in New York's coastal zone. * 1982 to 1983, University of Delaware and Ecuadorian Remote Sensing Agency Technical Advisor Instructed Ecuadorian nationals in the use of remote sensing techniques for natural resources mapping including mangroves, coastal erosion, sea surface temperatures, and Amazon land use changes. Prepared grant application for Space Shuttle Imaging Radar mission. First Coastal Corporation, Post Office Box 1212 Westhamplon Beach, NY 11978 F Environmental Consulting and Construction. Permits to Construction. Preserving the coast since 1975 Education * M. Sc. Marine Studies (Coastal Geology), University of Delaware, 1984. M. Sc. Thesis: Hen and Chickens Shoal, Delaware: Evolution of a Modern Tidal Shoal * B. S. Environmental Science and Resource Management (Geology), Lehigh University, 1980 * Endangered Species Training - see attached * Peace Officer, Division of Criminal Justice, State of New York 2000, Completed all required Training and Examination of the Municipal Police Training Council Publications *Daley, W., C. Jones, T.G. Mootoo, A.V. Terchunian, and G. Vegliante, 2000, A Blueprint for Coastal Management: The West Hampton Dunes Story, Shore and Beach, January 2000, V68, N1, pp 25-29. *Terchunian, A.V. and J.A. Smith, 1998, An Economic Snapshot of Long Island's Barrier Island System, Shore and Beach, October 1998, V66, No. 4, pp9-11. * Spencer, R., and A.V. Terchunian, 1997, The Sand Thieves of Long Island's South Shore, Shore and Beach, July 1997, V65, No. 3, pp 4-12. * Terchunian, A.V., and C.L. Merked, 1995, Little Pikes Inlet, Westhampton, New York, Journal of Coastal Research, V 11, n 3, pp 697-703. * Psuty, N.P., P.A. Gares, M. Kearney, and A. Terchunian, 1992, Coastal Environments: A Field Symposium of the Mid-Atlantic Bight Coastal Zone. Guidebook, Center for Coastal and Environmental Studies, Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, 79 pp. * Terchunian, A. V., 1990, Performance of Beachface Dewatering: The STABEACH System at Sailfish Point (Stuart), Florida, In Proceedings of the 1990 Conference on Beach Preservation Technology, St. Petersburg, FL. * Ball, Sally, F., P. R. Lanza, and A. V. Terchunian, 1989, Coastal Hazard Area Management in New York State, in Proceedings of Coastal Zone '89, Charleston, South Carolina, pp. 4749 - 4760. First Coaslal Corporation, Post Office Box 1212 Westhampton Beach, NY 11978 Phone: 631-288-2271, Fax: 631-288-8949 www.firstcoastal.net Environmental Consulting and Construction. Permits to Construction. Preserving the coast since 1975 FIRS.T 137-138 1.9E 138-139 0.Tg 139-140 0.4E 140-14! 0.8A NORTH SOUTHOLD Fig. 3-27. Central Southol~ To~nBhip. LONG ISLAND SOUND . · ,~-~~.,...;~,.,,~_ ~ '".,.,~ ....... , ...... i 1-6 16 91-96 2 6-17 17 96-101 3 17-27 18 101-104 4 27-35 19 104-107 5 35-41 20 107-111 6 41-49 21 111-115 7 49-55 22 115-118 8 55-59 23 118.-123 9 59-67 24 123-127 10 67-71 25 127-132 11 71-74 26 132-137 12 74-78 27 137-141 13 78-81 28 141-145 14 81-85 29 145-152 15 85-~1 30 152-158 Table 3-5 BEACH UTILITY INDEX (con't.) Station Number Natural Protection Barriers Shoreline ~oaion/Accretion Beach Forebeach Backbeach Beach Width Grain Size Grain Size Access 126 3 4 127 2 3 128 6 129 5 ? 130 3 4 131 3 4 132 3 3 133 3 4 134 4 5 136 6 6 137 6 ? 138 6 6 139 3 4 140 6 141 6 1 142 4 143 4 2 144 ~ 4 145 3 2 146 4 2 147 4 3 148 5 149 6 2 150 5 2 4 5 5 3 6 5 5 3 6 ? 6 2 i 5 5 2 6 4 5 3 3 3 4 1 4 4 ? 3 6 4 4 3 6 5 5 2 5 5 6 3 6 4 4 3 5 6 5 5 T~ble 3-4° MEANINg3 OF BEA(~ UTII~ITY INDEX ~BI~,S FOR F,A,C~ (:~2%CT~BX~TIC Index Natural Protection Shoreline Beech ' Forelhore Number* Barriers* (Elevation Erom[on (B)/Aocret~on (A) Width ModiBA ~n Feet) (~r) (~) ~ra~ Size Backlhoro Beach Blufft 150 · 0.4A > 150 < 2.0 < 2.0 Park~nq Bluff: 101-150 0.4~-OB 126-150 2.0-3.9 2.0-3.9 P~k~q Blu~ ~ 51-100 0. lg~0.5B 101-125 4-7.9 4-7.9 P~IEC BIu~ 11-50 O. 6E-l.~ 76-100 8-15.9 8-15.9 5 Bluff: ~ 10 1.1B-1.SB 51-75 16-31.9 16-31.9 or Dune 6 No Bluff Or Dune 1.6B-2.0B 26-50 32-63.9 32-63.9 Walk~g Only 7 · 2.0E 1-25 · 64 > 64 8 No Beach *A "d" following ~n index n.m~er for neturel pr~teotion barriers indicates the prezenae of e ~une aeewer~ of a bluff. Ecologica Consultants 40 Hitching Post Lane, Glen Cove, NY 11542 21 ML Ponds, Box 311 Wilmington VT 05363 (516)676-7107 (802)464~3341 October 17, 2007 Mr. Peter S. Dm,owski, l';sq. 616 Roanoke Ave Riverhead, NY 1190l Re; Robml Bombara, Southold, ccastal zooc pcmfits I)ear Peter: Dm Associates, ]uc. has rcvlcwed the proposed development by Ilomhara, visited the site and consulted with other c.xpcrts in dcvdoping our opinion ctmcernh~g environmental protection at this site. Our findings tbllow, in which we reflect DEC's CEHA regulatious (6NYCRR Part 505) in italics, in order to explain 'the potential impacts on the cnviromncnt fi-om this proposal (our response tu each item in normal type Background New York State developed thc Coastal Erosion l lazard Area program to identil~' and protect from erosion all re'ecs of the State's coastline that are subjecl to such impacts. ~Activitie$, development or other action in erosion hazard amos should be undertaken to minimize damage to property, and prevent the exacerbation of erosion hazards. Some actions may be restricted or prohibited if necessary to protect natural protective features or to prevent or reduce erosion impacts." Moreover, the policy of' thc State is to discourage actions within the designated zones unkss it cfm be shown that these actions include "...erosion protection or non-strttctural measures which are most likely to prevent damage from effects of erosion during the anticipated life of such proposed actions." Thc CEHA (Article 34 of thc I,;uvirnnntental C(mservation I.aw) is intcndcd to prevent and reduce erosion by preserving natural protective lbatures through regulation of actions within or adjacent Io the nearshore ×one that could remove or reduce thc effectiveness of these features. The Act requires the placemeut of uew construction at safe distances fi'om areas of active I 619~6§L9I~ 1 PE:£'[ LOOZ'LI erosion, with the intent of keeping these facilities out of areas typically impacted by coastal storms. ]''he Act establishes procedures for local program implementation and mmouragea administration of coastal erosion managenrent programs by alii:clad municipalities, such as Suuthnld Township. However, since the intent of the Act is directly related to protectioa of shoreline structm'es, it.,~ protection of natural coastal Iimturcs is not aimed at the t~atnres themselves, but at thc function such features serve in protecting coastal resources. Hence, in establishing standards fin' the issuance of coastal erosion management pcrnfits, the law provides for couti~med use of thc State's C~mtal zone, and outright prnhibition of dcvelopmem was newt the intent. In other State regnlations, such as for tidal wetlands, tile intent ol'the law was to protect tile wetland resources for their own intrinsic ceolngical fmmtioa (which I~mctJons arc specifically listed in those Acts). In the CI,;I IA prngram, rite tkmctional values of the natural features are expressly aimed at pn',tecting structures agai,lst erosion, and where development can occur without flu-eat of erosion or expansion of the impacts, develnpment can occur. Am~rdingly, permit issuance stm~dards (6NYCRR Part 505) require that a proposed activity: is reasonable and necessary, considering reasonable alternatives to the proposed ac~ivily, and the extent which the proposed activity requires a shoreline location; i~. will not be likely to cause a measurable increase in erosion at the proposed site or olher Iocalions;. and ¢. prevents, if possible, or minirnizes adverse effects on: *natural protective features and their functions and protective values as described in section 505. 3; *existing erosion protection struclures; and *natural resources including, but not limited to, significant fish and wildlife habitats and shellfish beds. Site Specific Conditions at thc Bombara property Wifl~ respect to the defined functional benefits of thc CELIA, thc regulations list a wide array of natural features that offer varying amounls of prolection tn fl~e shoreliue from wind and water erosion (i.e., beaches, blufl~s, dunes and ne:u-shore a~eas including vegetated habitats). Thc regulatinns were designed to prewmt activities that may "diminish or eliminate entirely" the protective function of thc tmtural features. 2 Z ef~d 61966~LgI~ ~:£I LOO['L[ ~30 The thnctions of dl fferent types o[ natural protective fcatarcs arc context-specific, so that issuance of a permit mast ctmsider the protective hmctions that "specific (¥pes q/'natural protective.features provide ", and iht relationship between each site's specific, natural features and the local coastal processes. Al the Bombara site, thc specific l~atums that provide protection l~r this slrclch or coastline are herein evaluated to show how the conservation of their I%netions relate tn tile proposed rcsidcnce: At the Bnmbara site, thc prcdomhrant land cover is beacl~ to a poiut some 130 feet inland of mean high water, and a 'back-heath' area which is covered with 'beach ridges' and scrub-shrub habitat that has grown up over these slightly elevated sandy are~q (see report by First Coastal Consultants describing the Bombara site). According to DEC, "Beaches btqyershorelandsfrom erosion by absorbing wave energy that otherwise would he expended on the toes o./'blu./]3' or dunes." While the project sile beach provides for absorptiun u[wavc energy, there are no danes or bluffs within reach uf thc shoreline ut this site, and recent evidence Jt~dicatcs that thc inshore area (where tile Bombara borne is proposed) has nut been topugraphically altered by stm'ms for many years. '[he homesite nrea is lelatively level, except for tile 'sand ridges', so that there arc no dunes or blul'l:s within this CEI-[A zone that are suhject tn washout. 'llxercforc, thc lot would trot be subject to tile loss of its erosiou protection function il'it is developed Ibr residential use, provided the homcsitc is established using the same topography that is now present at thc site. DEC also nntcs that "Beaches also act as a reservoir ~!['sand or other uncom-olidated n)ateriol .for longshore littoral trattsport and oJf~hore sandbar and shoal formation." At the I~,ombara site, the topngmpby of the main beachfront is sufficiently separated mad slightly elevated liom fl~e proposed devulopmcnt area by a rise in elevatinns tn ~ slope thcing the water, so it is not often that littoral transport delivers matodal inland on this site. Nevertheless, accretion of sm~d along this coastal area nver recent decades has evidently occurred, judging by the 'sand ridges', which are raised sas~d nlouads that arc well vegetated with shrubs and grosses. Within the development area, these clumps of scrub-shrub habitat arc acting to stabilize thc sands effected by wind, and the persistence ol'tbese 'sand ridges' is evident IYum the age and density of the vegetation upon them., A homesite can be developed without disturbing most uf the vegetatiun (i.e., the natural l%atures protecting the ,sea from erosion impacts), and supplemental plantings of baccharls and bayberry can be added to enhance thc vegetative component of erosion protection ou the develnpcd Iht, and seaward of tile house to further support ttm rear of thc beachfmm. ~£:~ LOOZ'L~ £ o6~d 619P6§LgI§ Permit Issuance Shmdards The CEI IA provides regulatory standards aimed al. protecting shoreline stmctnr~s from storm-related damage. Some specific guidance is provided Iht thc type of habitat in which the P, ombara property is located: 1:o~ a project such a.s thc Bombard pmpusal, located inlm~d of a beach aa'ca, thc lblhiwing requirelnenls apply to regulated activities on and dear beaches: (I) Excavating, grading or mining which diminishes the erosion protection afforded by beaches is prohibited. Thc development o£this resJdeacc will bc done in such a manner as to avoid signilicant re-gmding o£any of the areas currently bullkring the humesite from erosion impacts. (2) Ail development is prohibited on beaches unless specifically a/lowed by this subdivision. This project thcrcJbrc rcqulres a permit under thc CEHA program. (3) The normal maintenance of structures may be undertaken without a coastal erosion management permit. Currently, there is a homes/lc adjacent to thc Bombard site which is routinely maintained hi similar hah/Iai, and at which there are no signs of Joss of erosion protection attributable to thc prese n ce of the barnes itc. (4) The restoration of existing stroctures that are damaged or destroyed by events not related to coastal flooding and erosion may be undertaken without a coastal erosion management permit. Not applicable. (5) Nonmajor additions to existing structures that are damaged or destroyed by events not related to coastal flooding and erosion may be undertaken without a coastal eros/on management permit. Not applicable. (6) The following restrictions apply to the use of motor vehicles on beaches: Nut applicable. (7) A coastal erosion management permit for deposition of material on beaches will bo issued only for eXpansion or stabilization of beachesi clean sand, or gravel of an equivalent or slightly larger grain size, must be used. Thc preparation or thc Bombard homes/re will he conducted using only clean sand anti gravel that pcrnlils ready percolation uf stormwater. ~ e6ud 6[9~6§L9[§ gE:E[ LOO['L[ (8) Beach grooming or dean-up operations do not require a coastal erosion management permit. Not applicable. (9) A coastal erosion management permit is required for new construction, modification or restoration of docks, piers, wharves, boardwalks, groins, jetties, seawells, bulkheads, breakwaters, revetments, and adificial beach nourishment. A permit bas been requested fei' Bombma. (10) Active bird nesting and breeding areas must not be disturbed unless such disturbance is pursuant to a specific wildlife management activity approved in wdting by the depa/tment, The site in qucstion ts not considered a b rd brood'ag habitat. Conclusion Accordingly, the Bombers proposal complies with thc permit issuance standards required for a CEHA permit (6NYCRR Part 505), in that the proposed activity: d. is reasonable and necessary, considering reasonable alternatives to the proposed activity, end the extent which the proposed activity requires a shoreline location; The landowner has no ether prnpen'y in the Town al which they can abide. e. will not be likely to cause a measurable increase in erosion at the proposed site or other Iocafions; and The site does not cnntain n physiography that is subject to erosion since there is evidence of recent accretion of sand and thc sand ridges demonstrate stability, and the nelghbnr's homesite on similar ground docs show evidence for crnsion impacts. jr prevents, if possible, or minimizes adverse effects on: *natural protective features and their functions add protective values as described in sectioo 505,3i Thc natural prntectiv¢ features, beach and sand ridges, are stable and their prntcctlve functions will not be altered by thc proposed development, *existing erosion protecfion structures; and No structures exist now, *natural resources including, but not limited to, signtTicant fish and wildlife habitats and shellfish beds. The site does not support significant fish and wildlife, nor is it a host site fro shoreline bird breeding or any other threatened or ends.gered species. ~ ~.a 619~6§L9I§ §£:£1 LOOZ'L[ iDO Finally, it is the opkfion of I)ru Ass )ciates that the issuance of a permit fin' development of thc Bombara lot is compatible with bolh CEHA and Tidal Wetlands protectim~, since thc resources protected by either of these programs will remain unaltered by the proposed home. Please feel free to contact as if we eau provide further inl'onnation. Sincerely, Dr. R.W. Abrams, CEP 9 o6~d 619~6§L9I§ §£:~I LOOE'LI " ,~ t7,2007 14:50 §167§94619 page I Ecoloaical Consultants 40 Hitching Posl Laoe, Glen Cove, NY ] 1:5,12 21 MI, Ponds. Box 31 I. Wilmington, VT 05363 (516) 676-7107 (802) 464-3341 Personal: Current address: 411 I lltching Post La Glen Cove, NY I 1542 .Curriculum Vitae Dr. Ronald W. Abrams, CEP Bom: 7-2-59 New York, N.Y. Married, 2 children Education: ~ Ph.D. Ecology, University of Cape Town, Zoology Department, Romlebosch, RSA. 19~85. M.S. Biology, West Virginia University, Biology Departmcnl, Morgantown, W.VA. 1{}79. B.Sc. Zoology, University of Cape Town, Zoology Department, Rondcbosch, RSA. 1~76. B.A. Politics and History, Washington and Lc~ Univursity, l,exington, Va. 1972. Qualifications: Certiffed Environmental Professional (CEP), 1994 Nalivual Association or' Er vironmental Professionals; Academy of Board Certified Environmental Proli~ssionals, Washingto~h D.C. Qualified Superfund Expert Wih~ess, Federal District Court, Suffi Ik t. ~ inly, NY, 199~ Licensed for Endangered Species (2ollection/Rcscarch: 2000 Comtccticut 1995 New York State 1980 Antarctica, sub-Antarctic lslaxds 1979 Botswima, Southern Africa 1977 US Virgin Islands 1976 South Africa Certified SCUBA Assistant Instructor, 1977, YMCA Undetxvatcr Program ,T-17,2007 14:50 516759e~61~ pag~ 2 Dr. ILW. Abrams, CEP (cent) Employment: (since 1980, further data on request) October 1986 to present; t,ong Ishmd University, C.W. l nst I~iology Department; Adjunct Associate Pnffessor teaching Environmeotal Science and Ecological Mod¢liixg and supervising graduate students. July 1986 to present: Dru Associates, Inc., Principal l/.colngist, consulting in Wetlands (freshwater mid tidal), eo~tal zones, ends,gered species and ecological habitat protection, attd environmental re ,ulmion/management tbr private and public sectors. g May 1985 to May 1986: N.Y.S. I)epamnent of Enviromx~ental Conservation, Rcginnal Supervisor, Division of Fish and Wildlife. Supe~wised biological m~d regulatory stall'; provided technical gnidance tbr policy-making involving tidal and fl'eshwatcr wetlands, iodudiog urban water- front renewal, gn'oundwater protection, conservation educatioq, public liaison and species management. April 1980 to April 1985: Percy FitzPatrick Institute of Afl'lean Omithnlogy, I Iniversity of Cape Town. Senior Research Ollicer in marine and coastal community ecology; supervised graduate students; Administered operatiotxs of Antan:tic Program Research Granl ,,(5 field scientists, 5 field techs, 4 lab and computer techs). Professional Distinctions and Appointments: Society for Conservat,on B~o o~, I,ocal Orgmuzmg Commmcc 2007 Aounal C'.onl~renc~, ?orr Elizabeth, South Africa i Society tbr Conservation Biology, Bnard of Governors Africa section representative, 2005- Africa Section Board, mancml el ~cer, Society for Coaservatxon Biology, 2004- Certification Review Boa'd, Member, 1995- present, Academy of Board Certified Envuconmcntal Profess'o mis, Wash., D.C. Natio,ml Registry of Wetland Prol~essionals, 1994, Institute for Wetland Policy a~d, Science, Association of State Wetland Managers i Who's Who Environmental Register, 19!)2 l Who's Who in Rising Young Americans, 1992 Nassau County Reoycling Board, Appoiatee lbr City of Glen Cove. 1990-2002 Co-Chairman, City of Glen Cove Environmental ConserYation Advisory Council, 1988-1p92 Mayor's 'l'a.sk Force on the Eovironment, City of Glen Cove N.Y. 1986-1992 N I=11~ TO / / / / / / / / / / / / / /..-T'/~. ./ x Y' / NOTE~ AREA = 24~'/q D::~. FT. · V'ERTIC.AL D'ATI~ = N.~,.V'. DATUI~I (t'-t.SJ-. I'=1~.~) · ~ FLCOD INE:,Ut~.ANC. E RATE PAN,EL NUt.'I~ER ~'10~C. OI5,4- ~, LAST PAT'F_~ I.'L~¥ 4, Iq~,~ U/ - 6 2007 HEALTH DEPAI~,Tt,,ENT E E, UP..VEY'O~'~ C. EI~TIFIC. ATh FOOL ~C. ALE= ~ tlC). 2OO~,.-O1~2 DI,*~. 2OO6_Ol&2_bp_r~ O N TEST I-~U= / / / ./ / / / NOTE5 AP.~A = :24/5"/q 5(~. FT. · VEP. TIC. AL ~^TI,IH = N.~,.V'. DATUH (H.~/. Iq2q) · ~ FLOOD INSUI~t~NCE ~AT~ PANI~L NL)Ivl~E~ ~i~54 ~ LAST DATED HAY 4, 1~5 6oard of Trusfee~ Young & Young 'gOO Os~rav~r Av~u~, Riv~rhead~ New Y~k ffgO~ H~ard W. y~, L~ S~ ~ob~ C. T~ Aro~i~ot R~ R. P~ L~oape A~hiteot ~)I~VE~(;::)P.'~ C. Et~TIFIC. ATI~ At ~:>uthold, tomn of 5our, hold 5uFf'olk C, ount~, t,l~m Yore Count:~ tox Hap D~ct IC:~O s~,t~'54 ~ 04 L~t Iq PER, HIT ~ - AL~7'E ') 5(:;ALE, NO. I;~f~. 200d,_Ol~2_l~._r2