Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBombara, Robert G Jill M. Doherty, President Bob Ghesio, 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 August24,2011 BOARD OFTOWNTRUSTEES TOWN OFSOUTHOLD Peter S. Danowski, Jr. 616 Roanoke Ave. Riverhead, NY 11901 RE: ROBERT G. BOMBARA 1725 NORTH SEA DR., SOUTHOLD SCTM#54-4-19 Dear Mr. Danowski: The Board of Town Trustees took the following action dudng its regular meeting held on Wed., August 24, 2011 regarding the above matter: WHEREAS, Peter S. Danowski, Jr. on behalf of ROBERT G. BOMBARA applied to the Southold Town Trustees for permits under the provisions of Chapter 275 of the Southold Town Code, the Wetland Ordinance application dated June 20, 2011, and, WHEREAS, said application was referred to the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council and to the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program Coordinator for their findings and recommendations, and, WHEREAS, the LWRP Coordinator recommended that the proposed application be found Inconsistent with the LWRP, and specifically Inconsistent with the following coastal policies: Policy 4.1 - Minimize losses of human life and structures from flooding and erosion hazards, 4.2 -Protect and restore natural protective features, Policy 6- Protect and restore the quality and function of the Town of Southold ecosystem, and Policy 6.3 - Protect and restore tidal and freshwater wetlands, and, WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees reviewed the report prepared by Robert E. Herrmann from Eh-Consultants dated August 25, 2010 and accepts the findings in this report in its entirety, and, WHEREAS, Public Hearings were held by the Town Trustees with respect to said application on July 20, 2011 and August 24, 2011, at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard, and, WHEREAS, the Board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question and the surrounding area, and, WHEREAS, the Board has-considered all the testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application, and, WHEREAS, the size and location of the proposed project, does not comply with the standards set forth in Chapter 275 of the Southold Town Code, and, WHEREAS, the Board identified the natural protective feature and the cantilevering out of the proposed structure, as applied for, would jeopardize the integrity of the beach ridge and health of the plant species located in this protected area, and, WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the proposed project, as applied for, will have a detrimental effect upon the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the town and adversely affect the aesthetic value of the wetland and adjacent environmentally sensitive areas as well as the natural habitat of marine, wildlife and vegetation, and, WHEREAS, the proposed operation does not Comply with the conditions set forth by the Town Board in their decision of January 4, 2011, and, NOW THEREFORE BE IT, RESOLVED, for the foregoing reasons, and based upon the application's failure to meet the standards contained in Chapter 275 of the Town Code, that the Board of Trustees deems the proposed project to be Inconsistent with the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program pursuant to Chapter 268-5 of the Southold Town Code, and, BE IT FUTHER, RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the application of ROBERT G. BOMBARA to construct a single-family dwelling and garage, swimming pool and associated water supply and sewage disposal facilities, as applied for. This is not a determination from any other agency. Very truly yours, ent, Board of T~rustees Peter Young, Chairman Lauren Standish, Secretary Town Hall, 53095 Main Rd. P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Telephone (631 ) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 Conservation Advisory Council Town of Southold At the meeting of the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council held Wed., July 13, 2011, the following recommendation was made: Moved by Derek B0ssen, seconded by Audrey Horton, it was RESOLVED to SUPPORT the Wetland Permit application of ROBERT G. BOMBARA to construct a single-family dwelling and garage, swimming pool and associated water supply and sewage disposal facilities. Located: 1725 North Sea Dr., Southold. SCTM#54-4-19 Inspected by: Derek Bossen, Audrey Horton Vote of Council: Ayes: All Motion Carried Date: August 21,2011 To; Southold Town Trustees Number of Pages: 1 Fax No,: 631-765-6641 From: Irene C. Vitti PO Box 1337, Southold NY 11971 Re: Matter of Robert G, Bombara, SCTM# 1000-54-4-19 I am the owner of 1930 North Sea Drive, Southold, NY, SCTM# 1000-54-5-45.8, which is across the street (adjacent) from the subject parcel. The proposed excavation, construction and use of the subject parcel will cause the degradation and destruction of coastal wetlands. These activities will destabilize the dune, promote erosion of the beach, and contaminate water on the site of this development and in the surrounding area. As a further consequence of these hazards, the plant and animal life of these coastal wetlands will be disturbed and will not likely recover. Among the species which will be adversely affected are beach plum, piping plover, box turtle and red fox, Despite any measures which may be required to protect these sensitive wetlands, monitoring and compliance with such measures will be problematic. Moreover, once the delicate ecological balance of these coastal wetlands is upset, it will be vulnerable to further decline, causing irreparable harm to the entire coastline from Kenney's Beach to McCabe's Beach. The loss of this, the last remaining undisturbed coastal wetlands in the area, will create a substantial and unmitigated liability to the community. Based upon the foregoing, I believe that the application for the proposed development of the subject parcel should be denied, Sin, cerely yours, Irene C. Vitti ~0'~ 66£9-sgL-~£9-T ;335A '3 ~ue~I ~d9S=90 July 27, 2011 Board of Town Trustees Town of Southold 54375 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Att: Jill M. Doherty, President As a resident of North Sea Drive, my husband and I attended the Board meeting on July 20~ where the Bombara family is looking to construct on their property. We feel their request to build will in no way take away the beauty of North Sea Drive and should not be denied any longer, we support Mr. Bombara's desire to build. Respectfully submitted ~'~, Jean a n~Dc n~Vaz~uez~ 2360 North Sea Drive Southold, NY 11971 Tele: 656-9159 EN-CONSULTANTS, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING Seot~ Russell, Supervisor Town Board, Town of Southold P.O. Box I 179 Southold, NY 11971 1319 North Sea Road Southampton, New York 11968 631-283-6360 ultants.com Ssuth0!d To,:.,r~ Bo,~rd of Truste~ U t 25,2010 Re: "Appeal of the Denial of Coastal Erosion Management Permit of R. G. Bombara~ 1725 North Sea Drive~ Southoid' Dear Supervisor Russell: As requested, I have reviewed the most recently submitted vemion of the Coastal Erosion Application by Peter Dunowski, Esq., and the accompanying site plan for the development of the captioned parcel, prepared by Young & Young, last dated November 25, 2009. Based on my review of these materials, I offer the following assessment. Background A~r 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 Bombara 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 Hazard Area Map issued by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Requirement for Coastal Erosion Management Permit in a Coastal Erosion Ha~'ard Ares 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 I00 feet from the "beach," which is a "natural protective feature" regulated by Chapter l 11. 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 HaTard Area boundary line shown on the New York State "Coastal Erosion Hazard Area Map," which delineates the boundaries of"erosion hazard 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 hazard 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 hazard area the activities would occur within. An "erosion ba?ard area" is defmed as an area of the coastline that is a "structural hazard 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 ama," 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 hazard area, evidence of which is presented in the teclmieal reports submitted with the applicant's appeal, but it is located in a natural protective feature area. Identification of the most landward natural protective 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 §111-9 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 and therefore of a "natural protective feature." I thus met at the site in October 2009 with Arum 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. Therefore, while the geomorphic toe of the beach ridge is situated at a slight angle to the road and ranges in distance to the road from 69 to 79 feet, the regulatory landward limit of the primary dune is situated a distance of 44 to 54 feet from the road. Because new construction is prohibited within a primary dune pursuant to §I 11-13(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 pumuant to § 111-20: 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 2 reasonable to conclude that strict application of the standards and restrictions of Chapter 111 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 fi.om 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" pursuant 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" does propose to locate the f'mished slxuctures predominantly behind thc now depicted "landward toe 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) All responsible means nnd 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. 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 ~his site, has more to do with making the proposed structures safer fi.om 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 Hazard 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 bat 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 construction 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 structures 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 eoustruction activity envelope," it is critical to the protection of the 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 erosion 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 downs[zing 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 the applicant's hardship is being requested. "Alternate 6" proposes structures located physically adjacent to the beach 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-foot 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 shil~ed 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. Summary and Findings 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 def'med 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 geomorohic limits of the beach ridge, both during construction and afterwards, 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 afier 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 structures 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 construction 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 necessary, but the Town Board may wish to require submission of 5 certified plans and construction methodology 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 downsizing 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, gutters, 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, nonfertilizor-dependent vegetation and maintained as a landscape buffer, 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 Hazard 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 haybales along the proposed limit of clearing, grading, and ground disturbance to be erected prior to commencement of construction and maintained until completion; cc: Martin D. Finnegan, Town Attorney Elizabeth A. Neville, Town Clerk Should you have any questions or wish to discuss the above further, please let me know. Coastal Management Specialist EN-CONSULTANTS, INC. (Environmental Consulting) TERRASSESSMENTS, INC. (Phase I Environmental Inspections) ROBERT E. HERRMANN CURRICULUM VITAE 1319 North Sea Road Southampton, NY 11968 Phone: 631-283-6360 Fax: 631-283-6136 Emall: rherrmann~enconsultants.com EDUCATION PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE OTHER EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATIONS Duke University, Nicholas School of the Environment, Durham, NC Master of Environmental Management, 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 management. Master's Project: The effects of shoreline hardening on Long Island, NY. Brown University, Providence, RI Bachelor of Arte, 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, En-Consultante, Incorporated, Southampton, NY Provides environmental consulting services specializing 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 enviroamental attributes, and appropriate methods of development or restoration; 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 Southampton, Southampton, NY Performed detailed study of the effects of shore hardening structures on the qua)Jty of Long Island public 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 ehoroline. Presented findings to the Southampton Town Board. Summer 1996 Research Assistant, Duke Wetland Center, Duke University Sorted benthic macrofauna and dried marsh softs as part of a NOAA-funded study of the functional evolution of restored 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 Ut'flized SCUBA to survey and map fish biodiverslty at a 3000 me 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 State University of New Jersey, in the methodology of delineating wetlands, including the identification of wetland vegetation and hydric soils. Certified Environmental 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. EN-CONSULTANTS, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING 1319 Nodh Sea Road Southampton, New York 11968 631-283-6360 -Fax: 631-283-6136 www. enconsultants.com Scott Russell, Supervisor Town Board, Town of Southold P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 October 4, 2010 Re: "Appeal of the Denial of,Coastal Erosion Management Permit of R. G. Bombara, 1725 North Sea Drive~ Southold" Dear Supervisor Russell: Based on my review of Peter Danowski's letter written in response to my 25 August 2010 report; ~he accompanying letter from Douglas Adams, P.E.; and the revised site plan prepared by Young & Young, all dated 21 September 2010, I can offer the following comments. The applicant appears largely agreeable to mitigation measures I suggested in my report, and the revised site plan now depicts the items I suggested should be depicted. The question of whether the development could be moved closer to the road via reduction in the size of the sanitary system has also been addressed. Specifically, based on the previous labeling of the dwelling as having 4 bedrooms, I had suggested that the number of bedrooms and corresponding sanitary system could be downsized to allow the proposed structures to be moved-closer to the road without downsizing or eliminating any of their components. Mr. Adams has clarified, however, that the. sanitary system is in fact designed for 3 bedrooms and that the proposed dwelling was incorrectly labeled as,having 4 bedrooms. Mr. Adams also states that grading restrictions mandated by the Suffolk County Health Department prevent the system from being moved any closer to the road. Therefore, if the proposed development is to be shifted farther from the beach ridge without the need for zoning relief(which Mr. Danowski appears to believe should not be considered), it appears that the proposed structural footprint would have to be redesigned and/or reduced. Whether by relocation or redesign, my suggestion to increase the s~paration between the proposed structures and the beach ridge was predicated upon my belief that the proposed structures~which are showli physically adjacent to the proposed clearing limit and project-limiting fence now depicted on the site plan~annBt be physically constructed without machinery and/or workers breaching the fenced clearing limit and disturbing the beach ridge. Mr. Danowski suggests to the contrary that the structures could be installed physically adjacent to the project-limiting fence without the need to access or disturb the seaward side of it, but no plan or other supporting evidence has been offered to demonstrate how this feat could be accomplished. Therefore, I reiterate my prior suggestion that the Town Board require the applicant to provide an engineering plan and construction narrative prepared by a licensed professional to demonstrate and certify how the structures could be installed whether as proposed or some distance farther landward--without breaching the clearing limitation and damaging the beach ridge. Coastal Management Specialist cc: Martin D. Finnegan, Town Attorney Elizabeth A. Neville, Town Clerk SCOTT A. RUSSELL SUPERVISOR TOWN HALL - 53095 MAIN ROAD Fax. (631)-765-9015 JAMES A. RICHTER, R.A. ENGINEER TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971 Tel. (631) - 765 - 1560 JAM IE.R ICHTER~TOWN.SOUTHO LD.NY.US OFFICE OF THE ENGINEER TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Members Of the Town Board Town of Southold 53095 Main Road, P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 December 8, 2010 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 pdmary 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 ddven 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. DEC 1 3 zu!u Page 1 of 2 Members of the Town ~ Town of Southold Re: Robert Bombara / Coastal Erosion Management Appeal ~December 8, 2010 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 pdmary 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 centilevered 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. CC: Michael Verity, Chief Building Inspector Martin Finnegan, Tow~ AO, orney S~ ly; .,~c~' Richter,R.A. 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 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, Peter S. Danowski, Jr. PSD/eaf cc: Robert C. Bombara , EN.CONS.ULTANTS, INC, · ', ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING 1319 North Sea Road Southampton, New York 11968 63i.283-8360 Fax: 631-283-6136 www. enconsultants.oom oc~l~ 4, 2010 Town ~ Town of ~uflmld p.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 cc: lvlaflin ~..F~To?nA~ £1izabeth'A. N~,dl~;.To,~n - ~ Managemoat Specialist '%, c.. November 8~ 2010 Mr. Peter Danowski, Jr. 616 Roanoke Avenue Rlverhead, New York 11901 Dear Mr. Danowski, Re: Bombara- 1725 North Shore Drive, Southold, N.Y. As requested, a complete review of the aforemenUoned site was conducted on Thursday, November 4, 2010. ! am an experienced contractor with 35 years of construction experience. ! have worked:li~ c0astal'fl0od zones, tidal wetland areas and used piling foundatlonsl'I' have concluded that the deslred construction can be accomplished without damaging the environmental features or values north of the line Identified on the survey and staked In the field. ! have developed the following construcUon sequence to ensure that' both the house can be built and the envlronrnent protected: * A corn plete stakeout' of the site will be done. * Fencing can be placed at the perimeter of the bulldlng 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 wlthln 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 flll for the approv.ed sanitary system that will not affect the dune area In any way. 73 Rockledge Path, Port :lefferson 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 accordl g to approved building plans. * Decking Will be completed with prescribed and approved finish materials, All of the aforementioned work can andwill 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 fenclng. 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 a rea will be replanted with naUve vegetation such as Amerlcan'Beach Grass or Bayberry, v~hlch are already thriving on this site. If I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me, 73 Rockledg~ Path; Port :)efferson New York, 11777 Phone 63:L,255.4040 Fax 866.683.3086 Iderco, Inc. November 8, 2010 Mr. Peter Danowski, Ir. ~iOV ] 2 ;~0]0 616 Roanoke Avenue Riverhead, New York 1:~901 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. ! am an experienced contractor with 35 years of construction experience. ! have worked in coastal flood zones, tidal wetland areas and used piling foundations. ! 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. ! 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 ! can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very/truly yours~--x 73 Rockledge Path, Port .lefferson New York, 11777 Phone 631.255.4040 Fax 866.683.3086 JOHN P. TAGGART, ESQ. LAW OFFICES PETER S. DANOWSKI, UR. 616 ROANOKE AVENUE RIVERHEAD, NY 11901 (631) 727-4900 FAX (631) 727-7451 E-Mail: pdanowski@danowskilaw.com jtaggar[@danowskitaw.com August2,2011 Board of Trustees Lauren Standish Town of Southold 53095 Main Road, Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Re: Robert F. Bombara - 1725 North Sea Drive, Southold SCTM #1000- 54-4- 19 Dear Board Members and Ms. Standish: Enclosed please find DEC approved permit modification, with a copy of the approval stamp on the survey last dated March 10, 2011. Very truly yours, PETER S. DANOWSK1, JR. PSD:gsg Encls. cc: Lori M. Hulse, Assistant Town Attorney New York State Departme~°f Environmental Conserv;~n Division of Environmental Permits, Region 1 SUNY @ Stony Brook 50 Circle Road, Stony Brook, NY 11790-3409 Phone: (631) 444-0403 · Fax: (631) 444-0360 Website: www.dec.ny..qov PERMIT MODIFICATION Joe Martens Commissioner July 20, 2011 Robert G. Bombara 98-16 163~a Ave. Howard Beach, NY 11414 Re: Bombara Property North Sea Drive Southold, NY 1t971 DEC# 1-4738-03647/00001 Dear Permittee: Your recent request to modify the above permit has been reviewed pursuant to 6NYCRR, Part 621. It has been determined that the proposed modifications will not substantially change the scope of the permitted actions or the existing permit conditions. Therefore, the permit is amended to authorize: Construct single family dwelling, driveway, swimming pool and deck. Install sanitary system. All work must be done in accordance with the plans prepared by Howard W. Young last revised March 10, 2011 and stamped "NYSDEC Approved" on July 20, 2011. All other terms and conditions remain as written in the original permit. Very truly yours, George H. Hammarth Permit Administrator sla cc: Young & Young BOH - TVV file 4~years or sto, varoiship 197o-2olo N NYSDEC APPROVED AS PER TERMS . · ,~'qQ CONDITIONS oF,/~ PERMIT NO. ~ (,,~/0 00~/ P~=~I=NT ADJAC, ENT AI:~EA C.~2V~EA~E JUN ~ ? ZOII HEALTH DEPAI~'rHENT U~E E:,UI~.VE'YOI~ '5 C. ERTIFI, 5UI~VE¥ FOR At ~uthold, To~n o~ ~u~old ~olk Oovn~, Ne~ York Ooun~ Tox ~ap oi,~ I000 ~ 54 ~ 04 L*t I~ ~IT ~ - ~ ~AI J I Date: July 20, 2011 To: Southold Town Trustees Number of Pages: 1 Fax No.: 631-765-6641 From: Irene C. Vitti PO Box 1337, Southold NY 11971 631-765-6798 Re: Matter of Robert G. Bombara, SCTM# 1000-54-4-19 I am the owner of 1935 North Sea Drive, Southold, NY, $CTIV~ 1000-54-05- 45.8, writing to you in response to the above referenced application to construct a single family dwelling. As an adjacent property owner, and a concerned citizen of Southold, I believe that this application should be denied, The proposed development of this fragile parcel of land at the edge of the Long Island Sound would be the first new construction on North Sea Drive in over 20 years, and will result in the degradation and destruction of the dune and beach along that stretch of shoreline. As such it raises serious issues which are not adequately addressed in the application. Among these issues are interference with sensitive plant and animal life, including the nesting of an endangered species, contamination of ground water, non-conformity with the character of the neighborhood, and diminishment of scenic vistas. Therefore, I respectfully request that Board of Trustees deny the subject application, subject to adequata consideration and protection of the valuable and irreplaceable resource of the Town of Southold. Irene C. Vitti Peter Young, Chairman Lauren Standish, Secretary Town Hall, 53095 Main Rd. P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Telephone (63 I) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 Conservation Advisory Council Town of Southold At the meeting of the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council held Wed., July 13, 2011, the following recommendation was made: Moved by Derek Bossen, seconded by Audrey Horton, it was RESOLVED to SUPPORT the Wetland Permit application of ROBERT G. BOMBARA to construct a single-family dwelling and garage, swimming pool and associated water supply and sewage disposal facilities. Located: 1725 North Sea Dr., Southold. SCTM#54-4-19 Inspected by: Derek Bossen, Audrey Horton Vote of Council: Ayes: All Motion Carried Jill M. Dohedy, President Bob Ghosio, Jr.. Vice-President James F, King Dave Bergen John Bredemeyer P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Telephone (631 765-1892 Fax (631 ) 765-6641 Southold Town Board of Trustees Field Inspection/Worksession Report Date/Time: Young & Young on behalf of ROBERT G. BOMBARA requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling and garage, swimming pool and associated water supply and sewage disposal facilities. Located: 1725 North Sea Dr., Southold. SCTM#54-4- 19 Typ,,~of area to be impacted: &--'Saltwater Wetland Freshwater Wetland /,-'Sound Bay Distance of proposed work to edge of wetland Part of Town Code psoposed work falls under: ~_:Ciiapt.275 _~.~-C~apt. 111 other Type of Application: \_,2/Vetland ( C~oastal Erosion __Amendment __Administrative__Emergency Pre-Submission __Violation Info needed: Modifications: Conditions: Present Were: ~'J. Doherty ~- B. Ghosio (~k'l~ing __ L J. Bredemeye~__ D. Dzenkowski --other Form filled out in the field by ~D.' Bergen, Mailed/Faxed to: Date: PHOTO NO. 1 ROBERT G. BOMBARA AT SOUTHOLD, T/O SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK OCTOBER 13, 2006 8:26 A.M, PHOTO NO2 ROBERT G. BOMBARA AT SOUTHOLD,~O SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK OCTOBER13,2006 8:26A.M. PHOTO NO. 3 ROBERT G. BOMBARA AT SOUTHOLD,~O SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK OCTOBER13,2006 8:27A.M, PHOTO NO. 4 ROBERT GBOMBARA AT SOUTHOLD,~O SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK OCTOBER13,2006 8:27A.M, PHOTO NQ5 ROBERT G. BOMBARA AT SOUTHOLD, T/O SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK OCTOBER13,2006 8:29A.M PHOTO NO, 6 ROBERT G. BOMBARA ATSOUTHOLD,~O SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK OCTOBER13,2006 8:29A.M. 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 Resolution 2011-68 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: Cl~istopher 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 TOWN BOARD COASTAL EROSION HAZARD BOARD OF REVIEW TOWN OF SOUTHOLD In the matter of the Application of ROBERT BOMBARA 1725 North Sea Drive Southold, NY SCTM #1000-54-04-19 DECISION 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 reliefi 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. 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. fi. or .6 acre and is located in the R-40 zone, with approximately 100 fi. of road frontage on No~,h Sea Drive. Unlike many other properties in this area which are developed wi~h single ~'~imily 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 properly 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: 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. 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) 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. I1. Documentation in the Trustees Record Additionally, the applicant submitted the folio,wing materials in support of the application: -2- 1. A report of Dm 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)argin 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 Keuny's Beach in 2004 and a 2005 map shows a nest between Kennys and McCabe's beaches. The memo concludes that given the nesting pattems, 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 {he proposal daied S, eptember 17, 2007 which indicates that the lot is located in the CEHA and their 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." -3- 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 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 Sonnenborn; 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 hear. ing, Mr. Danowski, again appeared on behalf of the apphcant and presented the testimony of Mark Burns stating that th~s particular beac 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 LWRP 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 fi.om 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 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 0fthe community also provided testimony in opposition to proposal including: o 3. 4. 5. Requests that the~Town Bohrd take into account the rising sea level and that the coastal erosion hazard line may be moved further inland in the future. The existence of homes in the area, does not provide a sound basis for granting an approval. A primary dune is a dynamic system and is a natural protective feature under the Town Code. The approval of this proposal with set a precedent for the undeveloped lots in the area. 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, Dm 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 ("Hemnann") 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 p~:otective 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. 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 Hemnann 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, Hemnann 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 Hetimann 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 Hen'mann 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": 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 pdrhary dune and that all construction should be conducted 8-10 feet from the landward toe of the primary dune. 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. Impacts to natural resources could be mitigated with the installation of leaders, gutters and drywells. Limit rqmoval 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 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: That contrary to what was suggested by Hemnann, 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. The applicant h~s proposed~ 0,house 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. Mr. Herrmann's report confirmed that them 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. Hemnann's report and reserving the Town's right to respond. The applicant submitted a response to the Hemnann report by letter dated September 21,2010 which set forth the following: 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. Additiona!ly, the area between the proposed structure and the road is necessarY-to accomrnbdate 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- 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. The applicant is willing to limit the introduction of fertilizer and other contaminates and ~vill supplement existing seaward vegetation, iNo clearing will be performed seaward of the construction area. There is no need for approximately 8-10 feet of width on the seaward side of the structures to protect the dune. 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. The applicant also submitted a revised survey, dated September 21, 2010 with the changes requested in the Hemnann 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, xvas going to be moved farther from the primary dune without zoning relief, that the ~,pPlicant would have to decrease or redesign the structural footprint. Heiimann 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 n6ted 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 affect 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 CEHA. Regulated activities are defined in § 111-6 as: The construction, modification, restoration or placement ora 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 is seaward 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 app!y 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 (§ 11 I- 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 linel of the nat~ral 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: Excavating, grading, or mining of primary dunes is prohibited. Clean sand ora compatible type and size ts the only material which may be deposited. Any deposition requires a coastal erosion management permit. 3 It is noted that tho 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 §11 l-13(C). -11- 3. '4ll dep°sitions 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...,Ictive 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. 5. N°nmajor 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 tmpacts of the structure on the primary dune. 6. St°ne 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 I 11-13(C) further states that "[a]ll ther act~wtles 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 ~ 111-13(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 afftrms the determination by the Trustees. While the applicant argues that the Trustees have granted applications for Coastal Erosion HaTard 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 i~n this appli~Cation: o 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. 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 ora new gravel driveway. Construction was not proposed on an identified primary dune. Rosicki was granted a CEM permit for the construction of a .proposed addition and alteration to an 9xisting family residence including a deck and sanitary system. 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 ora new single family dwelling and garage, in place of an existing dwelling, to be built on pilings with conditions. -12- Paskoffwas 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. Litner was required to obtain only a building permit as the additions to the existing home did not constitute a major addition under Chapter 111 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 ~rosion. 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 0fthe Trnstee's denial of a coastal erosion hazard permit, the applicant has requested var!ance relief from the standards of Chapter 111 pursuant to §111-20. In permitting the l)~ard 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 advers~ 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 are 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 ~ natural protective featureJ 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 Hemnann 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 Hemnann 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 Alteinate 6, Wl~ich proposes a house on pilings and a cantilevered deck, adequately mitigates potential adverse impacts within the primary dune area. As noted in the Hemnaun 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 found,ations would necessitate workers, equipment and machinery accessing the seaw~d side during construction (Henmann -15- report page 4). This would ultimately breach the proposed cleating 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 acl:ess 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 Her,mann 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 Heiimann 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: i. Erect a project-limiting fence and staked hay bales along the proposed limit of cleating, grading, and ground disturbance prior to the commencement of construction and maintained until the completion. ii. The undisturbed portiofilofthe site;'~hall 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 He,m~ann 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? 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 a~vay 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 strudture 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 shii'ted 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. n 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 publicfuncls 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: All stmcturas 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. 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. The undisturbed portion of the site shall be maintained as a nondisturbance buffer. All cleared areas not built upon must be restored with native, nonfertilizer- dependent vegetation and maintained as a landscape buffer. 5. No pesticides, ferti'lizers, or similar chemicals shall be permitted on site. The installation of leaders, gutt~ers, 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- O54 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 August 9, 2011 Southold Town Board of Trustees P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 Attn: lib M. Doher _ty. President AUG 1 0 2011 Re: Robert $. Bombara 1725 North Sea Dr., $outhold, 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, 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 HallAnnex 54375MainRoad P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NewYork 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD August 8, 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, ;Board of Trustees JMD:lms Enc. Cc: Martin D. Finnegan, Town Attomey 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 SCTM #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 SCOTT A. RUSSELL SUPERVISOR Town Hail, 63095 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 August4,2011 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 N AUG - 4 .~11 / / / / / ~ \\% NOTE.~ AREA = 24,6"FI ~. PT. 12W. AINA6,E CRI'I'I~RIA I GAI. CMLATION~ 7.62 8 E JUN 2 7 2011 400 Ostr~z~er A'oe~e, Rive.rl~e~zd, Ne~u York 11901 Bo~za ~. Adams, Prof~s~mai R~ns~r At: ¢~ouf. hold, To~n oF ~.~F~olk, Govn~, N¢~ York Countg Tox ~ap 0~t I000 s~uo. ~5~- ~o~ 04 ~ot Iq CTORI'4~TER, CRAPINg, PtRAINACE Eta, O~ION CX2N'f'~OL PLAN / / //' / / / / //--'S,// (6.to / / /: /' / / ,/. /. /. / / / / / / / / ./ J / / ~ ? NO"r~5 AREA = 24,~-)'q 5~. FT. J DRAINAS, E CRi ~t:RJA 4 CAL~TION~ ~JI~VEY' FOI~ Southhold Town Ak 5outhold, Tonn ot' 5outhold 5utg=olk Col)nb.j, N~ York 5TORMHATER, ~R, APlI'~,, ~P-,AINA~,IE EROSION C, ONTROL PLAN HAP PRL=PAR, ED JUN. ~ 2011 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 PeterS· 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 headng 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, · Dob '~oard of lrustees JMD:lms Enc. Cc: Martin D. Finnegan, Town Attorney Town Board SCOTT ~ 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 SCTM #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 N / / / ,/ / (6.10 ~EI~AL POLJ.-UTION GON'TI~OJ_ HE~ASUt~E~ AREA = 24,6-~'~ 5G. FT. ~RAINA~:SE CP, ITEI~IA ~ GALGULATION5 · * 7.62 5.44,t / J · ,/ JUN 2 7 2011 Southhold T~wn 5UP. VEY FOR ROBERT I OIvlI ARA At: 5ou~olcl, Town oF 5ou[hold SufFolk Gounf. y, New York C, oun[~l Tax Hop D~,~=t I000 S*¢U0n 54 aock 04 Lot 5TOP. HINATER, ,~RAPlN¢, DP. AINA~E EI~.OSION ¢ONTI~OL PLAN HAP Pf~EPARE~ JUN. :~2, 2011 SC, ALE.. JOE~ NO. 200~-0520 DPt5. 200~_Ol~2J~p_bom~_EG I OF I 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 TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Supervisor Scott Russell Members of the Town Board Jill M. Doherty, President~ Board of Trustees July 25, 2011 ROBERT G. BOMBARA SCTM#54-4-19 The Board of Trustees is currently reviewing an application submitted on behalf of Robert G. Bombara for the construction of a single-family dwelling and garage, swimming pool, associated water supply and sewage disposal facilities under Chapter 275-Wetlands of the Town Code. Based on the Conditions of the relief granted from Chapter 111 of the Town code, we respectfully request your Board review the attached new survey prepared by Howard W. Young dated June 22,2011 for consistency with the Town Board's decision referencing Resolution No. 2011-68 adopted on January 4, 2011, specifically with Conditions 1 and 3. Please provide our office with a copy of the final approved survey when available so that we may proceed with our review. cc: Board of Trustees Enc. OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY 11971 MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MEMORANDUM To: Jill Doherty, President Town of Southold Board of Trustees From: Mark Terry, Principal Planner LWRP Coordinator Date: July 20, 2011 Re: Proposed Wetland Permit for Robert G. Bombara SCTM#1000-54-4-19 On October 1,2008 I reviewed the above application and recommended that the action be found INCONSISTENT with the LWRP. The coastal consistency review was revised on September 23, 2008. On June 30,2011 my office received an LWRP coastal consistency review request for an action titled Robert G. Bombara Building Permit Survey - Alternate 6Al. Procedurally, the action should not be reviewed a second time. The Board in evaluating the action can either agree with the INCONSISTENT recommendation or disagree and render the action CONSISTENT based upon the applicants amendments of the original action and assessment whether the revised action meets or furthers the LWRP policies. If the action is rendered CONSISTENT, the Board shall elaborate in writing the basis for the disagreement pursuant to § 268-5. Review of actions, item H. which states: In the event the LWRP Coordinator's recommendation is that the action is inconsistent with the LWRP, and the agency makes a contrary determination of consistency, the agency shall elaborate in writing the basis for its disagreement with the recommendation and state the manner and extent to which the action is consistent with the LWRP policy standards .... The designated agency (Board of Trustees in this instance) will make the final determination of consistency. The best management practices applied to further or meet the LWRP policies should be referenced in any decision. Cc: Lori Hulse, Assistant Town Attorney OFFICE LOCATION: 'Town Hall Annex 54375 State Ront~ 25 Main Rd. & Youngs Ave. Southold, NY 11971 From: Date: Re: LOCAL WATEI~RONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM TOWN OF SOUTHOLD · . {4m l} Mark Terry and Senti Hi{sty, LWRP Ccord,nators I I I ! JI1 I l $o~tnd'dONv~swn l October [ 2008 .................. 1. L .Bo~,_a Ii,lakes / MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 Proposed Coastal Erosion and Wetland Permit ROBERT G. BOMBARA SCTM#to4-4-19 ~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 be~n reviewed to Chapter 268, Waterfront Consistency Review of the Town of Southold Town Code and the Local Waterfront Revitalization Progrnm (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 nuruo~e of Chanter 275, WETLANDS AND SHORI~.I.1NE ia to ,~=--'~_te wo*l?a? in order to m,~},,tain an,, contribute to the folluwlu.~ resource area v~l~,_~ and the attributea and fo.#~_~ie~_- they _~-_--_-_-_-~_: flood ~u~tau]~ _sediment control; storm dnmnoe prevention lind water _~e!!~_,_~_~ control. In ..... ~q. the follow;no rmonree ~mll be mnln*nin_~J and pr6t~tml~ nrevuutlon of flood dnmnoe bv llmi~_-_~ of development in flPgd ~=-~yd aroas~ ~fion of damage to structurm and nnnwal rmouroe~ as a result of ~_-_-_-'~_~ m-6~.t~on of ---~-==-~=~' minimizinR the imuact of new devel,~_n_m_ent, restora~,,~ and/or nz_~mng[on on the r~0urte area value~ :L--~--~ abow, § 275-3 Findings; purpose; jurisdiction; setback. B. Purpose. It is the intention of this chapter to ensure for the citizens of the Town of SouthoM 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 of fixed aad 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 SouthaM is essential to the health, safety and welfare of the people of the Town of $outhold. 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; ~hellfish, 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 fload damage by limiting of development in flood l~zard areas; prevention of damage to structures and natural resources as a resuh of erosion; improvement of wate' ~uali~rotection and enhancement of e' "ting ve~ion cover in order to maintain water quality and wildlife habitat: ~ ,ectff~f wildlife, waterfowl, and plant . itat ~ maintenance of existing populations and species diversity; prevention of loss or degradation of critical wildlife and plant habitat; prevention of new stormwater runo.~Tdi~charge and the improvement of existing slormwater 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/ar expansion on the resource area values listed above. The ouroose of Chanter 111. COASTAL EROSION ~RD AREAS is to regulate, in e~_~-~_al areas, hand use development activities 8o as do minlmiT~ or orevellt dnmaoe or d_~nction to ma---""e~ DrooestV. natural pr~l~tiN,e fcoture~ and other na¢~rai resources and to or~-!~t b.m,-., life. In addiflo_~= the nnrlmse 0f ~ho.~eq~F 111 is t9 regnlato new construction or placement of sffucturss in order to n~n~ them a safe distance from c_-~*~! h .H~d 8reas. § !11-4. 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.4rticle 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 fkom coastal flooding and ernsion and to protect natural protective features and other natural resources. Regulate, in coastal areas subject to eoastal flooding and erosion, land use and development activities so as to minimize or prevent damage or destruction to man-made property, natural protecttve features and other natural resources and to protect human life. Reg.alate new construction or placement af structures in order to place them a safe distance from areas of active erosMn and the impact of coustal storms to ensure that these structures are not prematurely destroyed or damaged due to improper siting, as well as to prevent damage to natural protectDe features and other natural Restrict public investment in services, facilities or activities which are likely to encourage new permanent development in erosion hazard areas. Regulate the construction of erasion 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 J~om flooding and eras/on I, Avoid development other than water-dependent uses in coastal hazard ureas. Locate new development which is not water-dependent as far away from coastal hazard areas as practical. The I)rouoaed actions do not have a f..*c~ional r~g!~!.n to coastal water~ and therefore Lq not a water-depe-~ent .~- pursuant to ~ 275-2. § 275-2 Definitions; word usage. WATER-DEPENDENT USES - ,4n 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 which involves, as an integral part of such activity, the use of the water The uses include, but are not limited lo commercial and recreational ftzhing and boating facilities, JTnftsh 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 ofco~;;gg orl~cessing water and which cannot ' ~sonabl~ocated or operated at an inland site, and uses which primarily prt ~ ge~ public access to marine or tida~ .ters. a. No development is permitted in natural pronto:tire feature areas, except as specifically allowed under the relevant portions of 6 NYCI~ 505.8. The Drouoml actions are located entirelF within the ,~s~! erosion #--~xl are~ and the primary dune~ protective fea~-ure. A nrintnry dune is defineqJ in § 111-6 Defini~gp~ as a natural prg_~_~qCIve feature. NATURAL PROTECTIVE FEATURE - .4 nearshore area, beach, bluff, primary dune, secondary dune or marsh and their vegetation. PRIMAR Y DUNE - The most walerward major dune where there are two or more parallel dunes within a coastal area, F/here there is only one dune present, it is the ~primary" one. Occasionally one or more relatively small dune farmations 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 nfs primary dune is the landward limit of its fronting beach. The landward limtt of the primary dune is 2.5 feet 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 tvlocation of structures and maintenance of required setbacks over a period of thirty years. ~:-~ visit of the property of l~,~i-t ~, Bomba~a ~CT/V~S4-4-19 was ~...a~.-;...4 on O~;~-k~? 17, 2007. In a:_L-~:~.¢e a~ ~ site visit amon~ others, were renr,~,~t_s_flve~ Of the Town of Sou~h-"!d~ BoaFd of TF.~__~t__-~__~ LWRP Coordlnsafor Mat Terry and NYS DE(~'s EnviFonment Prop_ram $--,-"*~!~t P~befl McDonoufh. whi,-I, confl~ that the actions are entirely Ioeated seaward of the UEHA line and within a orimarv fin? f'see iff=~.~ let',ei: i~f,i ~...,ino. th, same. dated April 15, 200& s!o_~,~ bv Robert McDonoufh. Envtronmentul Pra~ram ~-_- ~-~--~:gst-CoastM Mans ement Section*. 4.2 Protect and restore natural protective features. Natural pwtectivc geologic features provide valuable protection and should be protected, restored and enhanced. Destruction or degradation of these features should be discouraged or prohibited. ,4. No development is permitted in natural protective fealure ureas, except as speciftcally allowed under the relevant portions of 6 NYCRR 505.8. Natural protective featares area nearshare areas, beaches, dunes, bluffs, and wetlands and associated natural vegetation. ~ natural protective featur~ area as defln,~ in ~ 111-6 Deflni*ions is n land and/or water area eontainino uatural protective features such as a primary dun,.: N.4 TURAL PROTECTIFE FEATURE .4R~4 -- ,4 land und/or water urea containing nnt~ral 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 pracesse~. New construction is nrohibited tn natural pratective feature areas (primary duneL Only nonmaior ~aap_~ons existina 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 Iow, 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 L~ especially great. The key to maintaining a stable dune system is the establishment and maintenance of beachgrazs 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 ureas: A. ~ p~mV dune ~e~ ' (1) Excavating, grading or mining ofprirnary dunes is prohibited. Clean sand of a compmible type ~ s~e is t~ only ~eriM which ~y be d~sited Any de~sttion requires a coastal erosion ~ge~nt permit. 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 area. .~ctive 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. IVonmajor ml~iti'ons to existing structures are allowed on primary dunes pursuant to a coastal erosion management permit and subject to permit co~*~!t_,_'ons concerning the location, design und potential Impacts of tko structure on the prinutry dun~ 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 excltange of sand between primary dunes and their fronting beaches. Tho distance from the proposed actions to the ~p~ntl urotective fea_!~_ro f~,';,,,ery dune) is 0 fe~t~ a minimum ~etb~¢~, db of 100 feet ia uired t to Chu ter 2 3. F n · u · ' lotion, time lease uire t~a. mcticable minimizin hu~_~ fife. 9ther natural ~-_-_--~-~_-~ces and to pro~e,-~ Policy 6 Protect and restore the q uafity and function of the Town of Southold ecosystem 6.3 Protect and restore tidal and freshwater wetlands. Comply with statutory and regulatory requirements of the $outhoM Town Board of ~ustees laws and regulations for all Andros Patent and other lands under their jurisdiction I. Comply with Trustee regulations and recommendations as set forth in Trustee permit conditions. § 275-3 Findings; purpose; jurisdietion; setbacks. Jurisdiction: The following areas are subject to protection under Chapter 275 of the Code of Southold. (I) Any freshwater wetland, tidal wetland, beach, bluff, dune, fiat, marsh, swamp, wet meadow, bog, or vernal pool; D. ~timc~. 1) The following minimum setbacks apply to any and all operations proposed on residential property within thc jurisdiction of the Board of Trustees: (a) Wetland boundary. [1] Residence: 100 feet. ~f the Afe.nc¥, T.o. wn of Sout~-~M .B4m~d~ of Trustees m~. a contra~ ~'~'ermino*b- of consi-tenc~, the A"~n'~ shall elaborate m writing the has. Jr __ ~-~-:~---'-=-t with their recgn~=-~ ~8~W~t~r~r~'~ .Con .s?lency Review. § 268-5. Review of actions. IL. In the event the LWRP Coordinator's recommendation is that the action is inconsistent with the LWRP, and the agency mai*es 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 i~. consistent with the £WRP policy standards. Pursuant to Chapter 268, the Board of Trustees shah 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 A/bert J. Krupski,'Presid~ James King, Vice-Preside]~l?' · Artie Foster Ken Poliwoda Peggy A. Dickerson '} Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-664i BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOI~D Office Use Only X Coastal Erosion Permit Application -X-Welland Permit Application Adminislrative Permit Amendment/Transfer/Extension ~Rece-~'-ved Applic~ Completed Appl~i~ ' Incomplete SEQKA Classification: Type I Type II Unlisted Coordination:(date sent) -~LWRP Consistc.cy Assessment Fo~m ~"~AC Refe~al Sent: q l~ I ti L,,Oate of Inspection: ~ ! k~l II Receipt of CAC Report: Lead Agency Detemfinafion: Technical Review: .__T~ublic ma~ing mid: q! Resolution: 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 Prope~yLocafion: North Sea Drive, approx. 1,675' east of Kenney'a 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 Ostrander Avenue, Riverhead, Now York 11901 Phone: 631-727-2303 Board of Trustees Land Area (in squm'e feet): Area Zoning: R-.40 GENEIA4L DATA' 24,879 sq. ft. or 0.6 acre Prev,ous use of property: Intended use of property: Covenants aad 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 __ lf"Yes", please provide copy of decision; Prior permits/approvals for site improvements: Agency NYS DEC Tidal Wetlands Alternate plan Date Yes X No Alternate "6Al" X No prior permits/approvals fo~tsite improveinents. Has any pennit/approval ever been revoked or suspended by a govermnental agency? X No Yes If yes, provide explm]ation: Project Description (use attachments if necessary): Construct one single family residencs and garage, pool and associated water supply and sewage disposal facilities. Board of Trustees Appli~ion WETLAND/TRUSTEE LANDS APPLICATION DATA Purpose of the proposed operations: To construct one (1) single f~mily residence, garage 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 structure and upland edge of wetlands: I98 +/- feet Does the project involve excavation or filling? No X Yes If yes, how much material will be excavated?. 200+/- cubic yards How much material will be filled? 300 +/- cubic yin'ds Depth of which material will be removed or deposited: 6 +/- feet 2% Proposed slope tln'oughout the at'ca of operations:, Mmmer i. 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 al~y, on the wctlmtds and tidal waters of thc towl~ ~hat may result by reason of such proposed operations (use attachments if apln'opriate): The proposed operations will not have an effect on the tidal waters. COASTAL EROSION APPLICATION DATA Pm'poses ofproposed activity: ~ construct one (1) single family residence, garage and A~o wetlands present witlfin 100 feet of the proposed activity7 x No Yes Does the project i~golve excavation or £dling? No x Yes If Yes, how mucll material will be excavated7 How much material will be filled? 3o0 - ' Mamler in wkich material will be removed or deposited: be used to excavate for construction of the house, garage (cubic yard~) (cubic yards) A backhoe will and pool and also used to grade the constrUction sits. Describe the nature and extent of the envh'omnental impacts reasonably atlticipated resulth~g from implementation of tho project as proposed. (Uso attacl~nents if necessary) The proposed operations will hot have. an effect on the tidal waterS. Town ~ Erosion, Sediment~tion & 8 1000 54 4 19 &,~__ SCOPE OFWOP, K . PROPOSED CONSTRIJCrlON a. What Is Ihe Total Ama of the Pmjec~ Parcels? ' 24,879 ac. the Scope of Work ~or Proposed Constnmtlon) b. Whal~theTo~A~ofLa~C~ar~g I,ZlU sq.ft. ~, ~ 0.1669 ac. ~o~. ~ ~o~ D~ON Construct single f~ily residence and associat~ ~nita~ and grading i~rove~nts. 2 3 4 7 8 9 of Southold Storm-Water Run-off A88E88MENT FORM DLLOWING AG'TIOI48 l/lAy REQUIRE THE ~m mMme_ ~m~. _ OF A 5 Wlll~lsAppflcatlo~RequlmLandDIstu~tPz~AcU~les [~ Encompassing an Ama la Exces~ of Five Thoi~and (5,000 $.F.) Sqaare Feet of Ground ~zl'ace? -- ~ Ihem a Naluml Water Course Ruining Ihro~gh ~? Is thb Project wlthl~ the Trustees Jurisdlc~on or v/~flin O~e Hundred (100') feet of a Welland or L~J -- Beach? Wdl there be Site preparation o~ F-,~stlng Grade Slopes wh]oh Exceed Fifteen (~5) feet of Ver~al ~ae to r~ ~x one Hundred (100') of Ho~onlal Distance? WiN O~eways, Paddng Areas o~ ofher Impe~lous Surfaoea be Sloped to Direct 8tmm-Wa~- Run-Off X Into afld/or In file dream of a Tm~ dg .bt..of,,.vay?.. -- W~II ~ls Pr, oJe~t Require Ihe Placement of Material, RemovalofVegetatlaeand/ortheCongmct~onofany ~ X Item WRhln Ifle Town Right. f-Way or Road Shoulder STAq~g OF NEWYORK, ~-~ __ /, COUNTY OF ....'~..d.J:~,"l~ ]~ .~,~ ........ SS q~I, Tho~s C. Wo~rt ~d~ys~m, depo~s~dsa~the/s~is~e~plic~tforPen~ ............... ~'~'~i~'~ .................... ~d ~m hd~is ~ A~ent for ~licant ........................................ -~g~;;.~:~b~:.~g ~;~ ................................................................ O~ ~or ~p~senm~e o~ ~ O~er or O~em, ~d is d~y au~o~ to p~om~ or h~ve ~ff~ed ~e ~d ~ ~d to m~e ~d ~e ~s appl~on; ~ ~i sm~ment~ cohered ~ ~s ~ppi~ca6on ~ ~e ~ ~c best of ~s ~o~ge ~d ~}ic[; ~d d~at ~e ~rk ~11 be peffo~ed ~ ~c m~ner set fo~ in ~e app~on fded helM& S~m ~ ~fore me ~; ~ ......................... , 0'z ........ ....................... . ~_ ~' ~ g....,.................. .....~ . ............... ;;......~.$.,.~ ........................ N S 5.61 / POLLUTION NOTE5 AI~JEA = 24tD%q S(2. F:T. / DI~.AINAS, E Ct~.ITER. IA 4 GALGL)LATION5 , / + 7.62 / ULJiJUN 27 2011 Southhold lown Board of Trustees Young & Young 400 Os(rander Avenue, Rivert~ead~ New York 63 ~- 727-2303 Howard W. Young, La~ Su~ Thom~ C. Wolpert ~ofes~al Bn~ Robert C. Tccs~ Architect 11901 5URVI~YOR'5 5LII~.YEY FOR I OBERT BOlvliDAI ,A At, 5our. hold, To,in o? ~ou[hold ~uFFolk Oounf,~, Nero York Counf;~ TOx Hop District mo00 Section 54 Block 04 Lot Iq 5TO~.MYIATEt~., ~F~.ADIN~, Dt~.AINA~E ~ E~ODION C.,ON'r'~OL PLAN MAP P~EPAP. ED J. JN. 22, 2011 1"=,40' 200b_Ol~2_bp_bom(~_EG 0 o B JOHN P, TAGGART, 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 jtaggar[@danowskitaw.com July 11, 2011 Board of Trustees Town of Southold 53095 Main Road, Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Attn: Lauren Standish Re: Robert G. Bombara - 1725 North Sea Drive, Southo|d SCTM #1000- 54-4- 19 Board of Trustees Meeting Scheduled for July 20, 2011 Dear Lauren: Enclosed find original Proof of Mailing of Notice, with copies of Notice to Adjacent Property Owner and Notice of Hearing attached thereto. I also enclose a copy of our Building Permit Survey - Alternate 6A1, which was also mailed to the neighbors. Very truly yours, pE E~R~SK'i,~jR. PSD:gsg Encls. cc: Robert G. Bombara Jill M. Dolmrty, President Bob Ghosio, Jr., Vice-President James F. King Dave Bergen John Brcdemeycr Town I lall, 53095 Main Rd. P.O. Box I 179 Southold, NY 11971 Telephone (631 ) 765* 1892 Fax (631 ) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTIIOLD BOARD OF TRUSTEES: TOWN OF SOUTHOLD In the Matter of the Application of ROBERT G. BOMBARA COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) STATE OF NEW YORK) AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING l, I~X ~~siding at/dba //O~ b~it'~g d~ul[~worn, depose and say: That on the~b' day off'7~-~ , 20 lt, I p,ersonally poste~ the property known as by placing the Board of Trustees official poster where it can easily be seen, and that I have checked to be sure the poster has remained in place for eight days prior to the date of the public hearing. Date of hearing noted thereon to be held Wed~ July 20~ 1011 on or about 6:00 Sworn to betbre me this ~x day otlah 20 NotaryCtJublic (signature) ..... - i,!I ,,', ,-:-, ,,,~ ~_)/~ ELIZABETH A.FALLON NMaq-Public. St~ of New No. 01FA5069367 _ .qu~lifled in Suffolk Counb,. , W F.~res Novembe~ 25~ ~ NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be hel.d by th.e SOUTHOLD BOARD OF TRUSTEES at the Town Hall, 53095 MaIn Road Southold, New York, concerning this property. ' OWNER(S) OF RECORD: SUBJECT OF PUBLIC TIME & DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: ,. I,f you hav.e, a.n. ,n. ter.est in t_h. is project, you are invited to view the Town file(s ,win.ch are, ava!lable for ?spect~on .prior to the day of the heanng during normal Dus~ness aays between the hours of 8 a.m and 4 p.m. BOARD OF TRUSTEES * TOWN OF SOUTHOLD * (631 ) 765-1892 PROOF OF MAILING OF NOTICE ATTACH CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPTS Name: Carl F. and Julie H. Scheuermann Irene C. Vitti Yuelys DN & P Irrevocable Trust John M. May and others Address: 31 Seaward Lane Stony Brook, NY 11790 P.O. Box 1337 Southold, NY 11971 349 Mountain Road Irvington, NY 10533 2080 Town Harbor Lane Southold, NY 11971 STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK Gail S. Goss , residing at Hampton Bays, NY , being duly sworn, deposes and says that on the 11 f h day of .'rn ] v' ,2011 , deponent mailed a true copy of the Notice set forth in the Board of T'tmstees Application, directed to each of the above named persons at the addresses set opposite there respective names; that the addresses set opposite the names of said persons are the address of said persons as shown on the current assessment roll of the Town of Southold; that said Notices were mailed at the United States Post Office at Riverhead, NY , that said Notices w.e, re mailed to each of said persons by CERTIFIED MAIL/RETURN RECEIPT. Gail S. Goss Sworn to before me this %'~4r-~x Day of July .,20 11 Notary Public 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: 1. That it is the intention o[ the undersigned to request a Permit from the Board of Trusteest0: Construct a single-family dwelling and garage, swimming pool and associated water supply and sewage disposal facilities. 2. Thatthepropedy whichisthesu~ec~ofEnvironmentalReviewislocated adjacenttoyourpropedyandisdescribed as ~llows: SCTM #1000 54 - 4 - 19 North Sea Drive 3. That the project which is subject to Environmental Review under Chapters 96,111 and/or 275 of the Town Code is open to public comment on: DATE: July 20, 2011 You may contact the Trustees Of[ice at 765-1892 or in writing. The above-referenced proposal is under review of the Board of Trustees o¢ the Town of Southold and does not reference any other agency that might have [o review same proposal.other than New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and Suffolk County Department of Health Services. PROPERTY OWNERS NAME: Robert G. Bombara and Margaret M. Bombara MAILING ADDRESS: 98-1 6 163rd Ave. ~ Howard Beach, NY 11 414 PHONE#:c/o Peter S. Danowski~ Jr., SEE BELOW AGENT: Peter S. Danowski, Jr., Esq. MAILING ADDRESS: 61 6 Roanoke Ave., Riverhead, NY 11 901 PHONE#: i (631) 727-4900 Eric: Copy of sketch or plan showing proposal for your convenience. NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be hel.d by the SOUTHOLD BOARD OF TRUSTEES at the Town Hall, 53095 MaIn Road, Southold, New York, concerning this property. OWNER(S) OF RECORD: SUBJECT_QF PUBLIC HEARING:"To¢~:~'~'~ TiME & bAlE OF PUBLIC HEARING: BOARD OF TRUSTEES * TOWN OF SOUTHOLD * (631) 765-1892 If yOu have an interest in this project, you are invited to view the Town file(s) whi.ch are available for inspection prior to the day of the hearing ~ bus~ness da s between the hours of 8 a.m and 4 .m. m TOTAL = 220'/ ~. FT. = ~.~% NO'rE¢ At~,EA - 24,~-/q 5(2. FT. · VE~TIC, AL DATUl,4 = N.A.V. ~ATUIVl · SEE FLOOD INSUP, ANOB RATE PANBL 5~10~OOI54 H LAST DATSD DEPT. 2D, 2COq · AF4OUNT OF FILL f~.E(~LJIRBD = 300 C.¥. -+ · FILL TO BE GLEAN I~ANt~-~IJN 5AND AND F~.OI,4 AN AppI~.OVE~ UPLAND ~ITE. · t~UIL~)IN~ FOOTPP, INT FIRCT FLOO~, AP, BA = 1,4OO ~. FT. SECOND FLOO~. At~,EA = 1~-/8 5~. FT. · ZONIN~ LI~E DI~T~C,T = /. Young & Young 400 Ostrander Avenue, Riverhead, Ne~u York ~90~ 63 ~-727-2303 Howard F. Young, L~d S~eyor Thom~ C. Wolpert, ~ofes~onal Engineer Robert C. Architect HEALTH I2EPAt~,TF4ENT U~E At ~outholcl, Tol,,In oF Doul;hold ~uFPolk C..ounty, Ne~ York. Count~ T~lx ~'~(2~p District IOOO Section 54 Block O4 Lot Iq E~JIIJ~lhle ~-L-~J41T 51,R~ - A~..~TE ~,AI AI'4ENDED [~UIL~IN¢ PEI~,t'41T DATA A~ED ~IL~IN~ PE~HIT DATA A~E~ ~ILPlN~ PE~HIT DATA A~NP~ ~IL~I~ P~HIT ~ATA A~ND~ ~IL~IN~ ~HIT ~ATA NY~EG A~HENTD A~ ~I~IN~ ~IT ~ATA A~ ~I~IN~ ~IT ~ATA L HAI~. IO, 2OII FEI~. O¢, 2OII FEB. OI, 2OII .?:,EPT. ~O, 2OIO CEt~I". 21, 2OIO AU&. 16, 2OIO NO'¢. 25, 2COq NOV. 24, 2OO~ OOt. ~0, ~EPT. 14, 2OO~ AL,~. I-/, 2OO~ 5(..,ALE: 1"--40' NO. 2006-0~20 DI,~. 2OO&_Ol¢2_l~p_bom& Postage Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) Tota~ Postage & Fees ~ ~arl F. & Julie H. Scheuerm ~ t~/~'~ ~,;~x~ ........................................................... ~:~a---'1 ~ L°_~.~.°.~°.~...N.°:_...3..1......s..e...a...w..a_.rd Lane I [ ~ony Brook. NY 11790 I m ©FF ¢ AL USE Postage Cedified Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) Total Postage & Fees Sent To or PO Box No. rtl r~ Certified Fee ~-l John i~. /4z~¥.-~n~-..~ ~ ~$~ ~}~ ~; .............................. ~ f .....2.QB.Q.-.[Q.wa_.~r~nr...La~e .......... OFF C AL USE Jd NY 1 NOTICE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER BOA.RD OF TRUSTEES, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD In the matter of applicant: Robert G. Bombara SCTM# 1000-54-4-19 YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN NOTICE: ,, I. That it is tho intention of tho undersigned to request a Permit,fi'om tho Board of Trustees to: ' . Construct one (1) zing~e f~mi!g residence, garage, and pool. 2. That tho property which is the subject of Enviromnental Review is located adjacent to your property and is described aa follows: refer to Building Permit SUr~ey Tlmt the project which ~s subject to Enwronmental Revue 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 orln writing. ' Tile above-referenced proposal is under review (~f tho Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold and does not reference any oflmr agency that nfight have to review same proposal. OV~NERSNAME: Robert G. nombara and Margaret M. MAILING ADDRESS: 98-15 163rd Avenue Howard Beach, New York 11414 PHONE #: (718) 845-4283 Bombara Enc: Copy of sketch or plma sh0wing proposal for your convenience. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL Q~JAM1, REVIEW ':SHORT'ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT· FORM ,for UNLISTED ACTION8 Only ,]!cant or pioJe.ct Sponsor) z. PROJECT NAME .. PART t - PROJECT INFORMATION (To be comldeled b~'A ~' APPLICANT I 8poNSOR Bombara .' .. · Robert G. Bbmbara and Marqare~' M,/ 3.PROJECT LOCATION: , ,.. . ' ' ' Southold, T/O Southold .' ': '" : Murddpalllr · Cou"~" suffolk 4, PRECISE LOCATIONi 8treel Adders and Reed Intaraacllona, Pmmb~anI las~matka ate-or provide n~ap Refer t:o ,Builderg Permit surlrey" S. IS pROPOSED ACTION :' [] New ' r-'l Expansion ~.DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY: ... ;. F-1Modlt!cafJon I alteration dons~ru6t one (1) single family residence, garage, and pool. Alternate No. 6Al .. 7. AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED: ' . Inlllal~/ 0.6 acres .Ulllmalely ' 0:6 BNa e WILL PROPOSED ACTION .COMPLY W1TH EXJSTINi3 ZONING OR OTHER RESTRICTIONS? [-~Yea [] No Ir ilo, deacrlbebrlefl¥: " S. VVHAT IS PRESENT I~D USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT? (ChooSe aa many aa app~.} ~-~ ReaMenflel []lnd,$M,I []Commercial. ~Agr~:Ullum [] Pa!k/FOralll open space '. [] olhar Idaa0dba). tO. ~OES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL, OR FUN[~NG, NOW OR' ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY (Federal, elsie or, LeGal) . [4~.qD]~C - Tidal Wetlands ~-]Ye., ElNa r~ ye,, .hi agenoy name and pelm!l/approval: 'SCDHS - W~ter Supply .& Sewage Dtaposal t t. DOES ANY ASPECT OF ~HE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID PERMIT OR. APPROVAL?. .: Nye, F'~No It yea.' ils! agency name ,hd. petal( / ap~bvar: ' ....... Except tidal Wetlands :pe;m,it foi~ Alternate 'Plan. .,." t~?u.,AS A ~.~ULT OF PROPOSED ACTION WILL EXISTING PERMIT/APPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATION? L/co. L_*JRo , · . ' ' · ' I CERTIFY. THA~ THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE 18 TRUE TO THE BEaT DF MY 'KNOWLEDGE Applicant I SpoRe? Name Robert G~ Bombara Marf/aret M, Bombara Dale: Ifthe action la a CoBtBI Area, and YoM are a state agency, complete the Coastal AsseeBment Form before proceeding with thll asBeaelflent PART II - IMPACT ASSESSMENT (To be completed by Lead A~lenc¥) A. DOES ACTION EXCEED ANY TYPE I THRESHOLD IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617.47 ff yes, coordinate the review process and use the FULL EAF. [~Yes [~]No B. VVlLL ACTION RECEIVE COORDINATED REVIEWAS PROVIDED FOR UNLISTED ACTIONS IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617.67 If No, a negative dedaratirm may be superseded by another involved agency. E~]TM [Z]No C. COULD ACTION RESULT IN ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FOLLOWING: (Answers may be handw~tteo, 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: I C2. Aesthetic, agflcultural, archaeological, hlatodc, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character? Explain bdefly: I Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species? Explain bdefly: I A community's existing plans or ~oals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources? Explain briefly: C3. C4. C5. C6. C7. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? Explain bdefiy: I Long term, short term. cumulative, or other effecfa not identified in C1~57 Explain briefly: i I Other impacts (includir~ chanties in use of either cluantit;/or b/pc of ene~),? Explain brfafl~/: D. WILL THE PROJECT HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS THAT CAUSED THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA/CEAI ? /If )'es, explain briefly: [~] Yes [~]No I,, E. IS THERE, OR IS THERE LIKELY TO BE, CONTROVERSY RELATED TO POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS? If ~/~s explain: F-I Yes [Z]NoI PART III - DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be completed by Agency) INSTRUCTIONS: F~reachadversee~ectidentifiedab~ve~deterr~inewhetheritissubstantia~arge~important~r~thenvisesigni~cant~ Each effect should be assessed in connection with its (a) setting (i.e. urban or rural); (b) probability of occurring; (c) duration; (d) irmversibility; (e) geographic scope; and (t) magnitude. If necessary, add attachments or referenne 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 moro potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY occur. Then proceed diroctly to the FULl EAF and/or proparo a positive declaration. Check this box if you have determined, based on the infonmatine and analysis above and any suppo~ng documentation, that the proposed actio~ WILL NOT rosuti in any significant adverse environmentsl impacts AND provide, on attachments as necessary, the reasons suppoRting thi~ de~rminalion. Board of Trustees Name of Lead Agency Date Jill M. Doherty President Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer Signaturo of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signaturo of Proparer (If different from responsible oificarl Cotalty of ~ ' State of New York M. Bombara Robert G. BomDara and Margaret/ BEiNG DULYSWOKN DEPOSES AND AFFIRMS THAT HWSHE IS THE APPLICANT FOR THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PEIkM1T(S) AND THAT ALL STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN AIU~ TRUE TO THE BEST OF H1S/I~R KNOWLEDGE AND' BELIEF, AND THAT ALL WILL BE DONE IN THE MANNER SET FORTH IN THIS APPLICATION AND AS MAY BE APPROVED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF TRUSTEES. THI~ APPLICANT AOILEES TO HOLD THE TOWN.OF SOUTHOLD AND THE TOWN TRUSTEES HARMLESS AND FREE FROM ANY AND ALI., DAMAGES AND CLAIM8 ARISING UNDER OR'BY VIRTUE OF SAID PERMIT(8)~ IF GRANTED. 1N COMPLETING THiS APPL1CATION~ 1 HEREBY'AUTHORIZE TIlE TRUSTEES, THEIR AGENT(S) OR REPRESENTATIVES(S), TO ENTER ONTO MY PROPERTY TO iNSPECT-TIlE PILEM1SES IN CONJUNCTION WITIt REVIEW OF THIS APPLICATION. Signature SWORN TO BEFOILE ME THIS pard 'of Trustees ApplicatiOll AUTHORIZATION., (where the applicant is not the owllel') Margaret M. Bombara l,L Robert G. Bo~ara and / l:esidhlga[ (print owner of property) 98-16 163rd Avenue, (mailiog address) Howard Beach, NY 11414 do hereby aufl~orize Young & Young (Agent) A~TN: Tho~s C. Wolpert, P.E. and/or the Law office of .to apply roi' permit(s) from the Peter S. Danowski ,~ Southold Board of Town Trustees Oil my behalf, COw~ler'ssigllatttt'e) Robert G. Bombar~ '~0wn~r~ s s~g/%a4fure) Margaret M. BombaRA APPLICANT/AGENT/REPRESENTATIVE TRANSACTIONAL DISCLOSURE FORM YoURNAME: 13:~c~'n~a; R~"~3'~ and ~ombara, Maroaret M. (~[ imme, first pome, middle iuitinl, units you ate applying in the ~m.~ of som~no else or other eottl~, such ~ e cmnpe.y, l~so, indicia tho other NAMH OF APPLICATION: (Check ell that apply.) Tax [~rievince Building Approval of plat Mooring Exemption Imm pi? or ollicial map Planning Oilier (If"0fl~er",munelheactivity,) TOWI1 mr~-ee_= Do you pereooally (or Ibmugh your company, spouse, sibliu~ par~l~ or child) bare a relatiooship wilh any o~cer or employee ofthe Town of Soulbold? "Relallollship" Includes by blood, Ina~i~g~, or busings interest. "Busi.~s iutcmst" means a busioess, including a pmluership, la wblcll lbo Iown om~r or employee h~ evel~ a paflial ownership of (or employmcal by) a co~oralion In which the town offi~r or employee owns more limo 5% of lh~ slmres, NO If you a.swered "~", complete file bale.ce of ~i~ form slid date mid sign wuem iudicaled, Name of pe~ou employed by Ibc Town of 8outhold Title or position otthat parse. Describe fl~e relationship between yourself (Ihe applicauVagenVreprescolaflve) and ibc Iow. officer or employee, Eilhcr check Ihe appmprlate Ilea A) through D) an~or describe m ~e space provided. The rowe officer or employee or his or her spouse, sibling, parent, or child is (check all lhal apply): __3) fl~e 0w~er of greater Ihau 5% of lira shm~s of fire corporate stock oflhe applicaut (wbcn the ~ppli~ut I~ a corooralim0; _.B) lhe legal or beoeflcial owocr ofm~y In~r~1111 a oon-coworale entily (when thc applicmd is riel a co~ralioo);' DESCIUVI'ION OF RI~LATIONSItlP Form TS I Submitted lids ~37~' day of t~llf/, L~-- 20~/._. Signature , ~~~ Print~ame Robert ~ ~ra M~rgar~ Bombara Town of Southold LWRP CONSISTENCY ASSESSMENT FORM INSTRUCTIONS 1. All applicants for poi'mils* 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 httended to supplement other information used by a Tovnl of Southold agency in V¢ ' making a detemfination of consistclacy, Except turner exempt actions including Building Permits wtd other ministenal pernuts not located wtthttl the Coastal Et asto, Hazatd At ea Before answering rite questions iii Section C, the preparer of this form should review the exempt minor action llst, policies and explatmfiot~q of each policy contained in rite 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 sour]old Town). If any question ill Section C on this form is' answet~xl *'yes", then the proposed action may affect the achievement of the LWRP policy stattdards and conditions contained in thc consistancy review law. Tiros, the action should be analyzed in mote detail and, if necessary, inodified prior to making a detemfination that it is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the LWRP policy standards and conditions. If an action .caimot be ccrrifled as consistent with the LWRP policy standards and conditions, ~- A copy of the LWRP is a~;ailable in the following places: online at the'Town of Southold's ' t website (southoldtown.northfork,ne0, th6 Board of Truste, e~Offi~ Ptamung Departmen, all local libraries and the Town Clerk's office. ; ~I l~; ~': ~/~ ~'~ ..... ' B. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSED ACTION . ~ [i' JUN 20 2011 SCTM# ~ooo Sa 4 ' 19 ,' *rite Application has been submitted to (check appropriate response). TownBoard ~ PlannlngDept. ~ Bu!ldlngDepL [] BoardofTrustees [] Category of Town of Southold agency action (check appropriate response): (a) Action m~dertaken directly by Town agency (e.g. capital ~ construction, plamting activity, agency regulation, land transaction) [-~ (b) Fhtanclal assistance (e.g. grmat, loma, subsidy) (c) Permit, approval, license, certification: ~ Nature andextantofaction: ConStruct one (1) single family residence~ garage, pool and associated water supply and sewage disposalfacilities.~ North Sea Drive, approx. 1,675' east of Kenney's Road (adjacent Local. ionofaction: tO LIL Fui~ ~14) Siteac~eage: 24,879 sq. ft. or 0.6 acre pfeseni land use: vacant R-40 Pl~ent zomng classification. If an application for file proposed action has been filed with file Town of Soutimld agency, ti~e following infmmation shall be provided: (a) Name of applicant: Robert G. sombara (b) Mailing ad&ess: 98-16 163rd Avenue Howard B~ch, New York 11414 (c) Telephone number: Area Code ( ) 71 p,_,qaq-aoaa (d) Application number, if any:. Will fire action bo directly undetlaken, require finiding, of approval by a state or federal agency? Yes [] No [] If yes, which slate or fedel-al agency? NgSDgC - Tidal Wetlandn Permit DEVELOPED cOAST POLICY Policy 1. Foster a pattern of development in the Town of Southold that eshances community character, preserves open space, makes efficient ase of lnfrastructare, makes beneficial use of a coastal location, and minimizes adverse effects of development. See LWRP Section III a Polities; Page 2 for evaluation criteria. [-~Yes [] No [-] (Not Applicable- please explain) Ail proposed enn-truction is situated more than 198' landward of the landward limit with FF~MA reautr~m~ntS. Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 2. Protect and presexve historic and ardraeological resources of the Tmvn of Southold. See LWRP Section III - Policies Pages 3 through 6 for evaluation criteria ~ Yes ~'~ No [] (Not applicable- please explain) Attavh addltlomd sheets Policy 3, Enimnc~ Visual quality :and protect scenic resom'ces throughout tho Town of Soutbold. See LWRP Section HI - policies'Page~ 6 through 7 roi' evaluation et't/et'la Yes ~-~ NO ~ Not Applicable ~e£er to Fol~oy ! responee Attach addlUolml sheets Ifopeessnry NATURAL COAST POLICIES Policy 4,' Minimize loss of life, structures, aud natural resources fi'om flooding and erosion. See LWRP Section HI - 1 oilctes Pages 8 through 16 for evaluation criteria Refer to Poltc~/ 1 responee Attach additlolml sheets Ifneeessary Policy 5. Protect and improve water quality and supply la the'Town of Southold. See LWRP Section III - Policies Pages 16 through 21 for evaluation, erlterla Refer to Policy' 1 reo~,o,,sd; pL'ot~osed me.thod of water supply is via connection Attach addltlotml Policy 6. Protect and r~tore the quall~ and ~nctlon °f the Town of Southold ecosystems lnclud~g Si~nlflcant coastal F~h and Wildlife Hablta~'a~d wetlands~ See L~ Section ~ - Politic; Pag~ 22 through 32 for evaluation criteria..: , .~, ~ ,. · · Refer 'to Policy 1 ree.non~e Altech additional sheets if necessary Policy 7. Ps'otect and improve air quality in the Tow0 of Southold.'See LWRP Section IH - Policies Pages 32 through 34 for evaluation criteria. ~--~ Yes [] No ~ Not Applieabl~e Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 8. Minimize environmental degradation, in Town of Southold from solid waste and hazardous substances and wastes. See LWRP Sechou HI -1 ohc~es; Pages 34 through 38 for evaluation criteria. [-~ Yes ~ No ~] NotApplicnble 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 LWRP Section III - Policies; Pages 38 through 46 for evaluation c~ ires ~n. ~ Ye? No~-~ Not Applicable Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy iOi'Protect $oufltold's water-dependent uses mid promote siting of new water-dependent uses in suitable locations. See LWRP Section HI - Policies| Pages 47 through 56 for evaluation crlteria. ~-~ Yes ~-~ No [] (Not Applicable - please explain) Attach ndditimml sheets If necessary Policy 11. P:mnote sustainable use of living marine resources lit Long Islmtd Sound, the Peconic Estuary and Towll Waters, See LWRP Section ILl A Policies; pages 57 through 62 for evaluation criteria. A0nch additional sheets ifflccessary Policy 12. Protect agricultural lands ta the Town'of Southoid. See LWRP Section III - policies; Pages 62 through 65 for evaluation criteria... [-~ Yes N No ~ NO' Appflcable -~ please explain Attach additional sheets i£necezsal7 Policy 13. Promote appropriate use alld developu~ent of energy and nliaerai resources. See LWRP Section IH - Policies; Pages 65 through 68 fo:: eval~iatlon criteria. [] Yes [] No pl, iic. le- please expiata PREPARED B]~ Thomas C. Wolpert, P.E. TITLE A~ent for A~licant DATE 03/23/11 JOHN P. TAGGART, ESQ. LAW OFFICES PETER S. DANOWSKI, UR. 616 ROANOKE AVENUE RIVERHEAD, NY 11901 (631) 727-4900 FAX (631) 727-7451 E-Mail: pdanowski@danowskilaw.com jtaggart@danowskilaw.com March 29, 2011 Board of Trustees Town of Southold 5309S Main Road, Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Re: Robert F. Bombara - 1725 North Sea Drive, $outhold ~4o0 5 ~ -:al graf /5' 3 ting :lands /) L 7"' ously c PSD:gsg Encls. cc: Lori M. Hulse, Deputy Town Attorney Michael Verity, Building Dept. Robert Bombara PETER S. DANOWSKI, JR. SCOPE OFWORK. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTI~-N-- ~ (mcl~e'ro~o~F~me~l~t~hlm 0.5711 ac. the Sco~e oi' Work fo~ Pmgosed Const~c~on) 7 ~'~) b. WhatistheTo~l~maofLsm~Cl~ ,Z/U sq.ft. an~'or ~ound Di~ufoa~c~ ~o~ the i~opo~d ~.~. ~ 0.1669 ac. PROVIDE- lgll]r~ P~O~'T D]~CR]F~ON ~'m4~AmV~ddP.0~s.J,'~m,e Construct single family residence and associated sanitary and grading improvements. 4 5 6 7 8 9 Will there be Site prepar~lon o~ F-~L~lng Grade whloh Exceed FiR~n (16) f~K o~ V~c~ Rine to One Hundred (100') of Horizontal Dlstanoe? Sun'acea be 8loped to Dke~ 8tmm. Waler Run. Off 0 X into and/or In the ~'ec~on of a Town rlght.~f, way? -- WIi ~ Project Require Ihe Placemem of Material, Removal of VegelaUaa ar~/or ~he Co~sfmc~on of any r'~ X item Within ~e Town Right-al. Way ar Road Shatdder .. q"rm~l, Thomas C. Wo~rt ~d~ys~m,~po~s~dsays~the/sk~isd~e~pEc~tforPen~L ............... ~'a'~'~a~i) .................... ~d ~ h~ is ~e ~9ent for ~licant ................................. . '(~'~;?~r?~a?~'~ ~;,'~) ................................................................ m~e ad ~ ~s ~pli~6on; ~ ~l sm~menLs con.led hi g~ apph~6on ~ ~e ~ ~e best of ~ ~o~ mid ~l~ef; ~d ~at ~c work ~ be ~o~ed S~/t~fore me ~; ~ j ....... .............. ....................... N S ~E~ POLLUTION GON'rI~2L ~2F~MNA¢tE GI~ITEi~.IA ,* CALCULATION5 / \ ;/:s2 7.62 JUN 2 7 2011 Southhdd Town $ Young & Young 400 Ostrander Avenue, Riverhead, New York 11901 631 - 72 7-2303 Howard W. Young, La~d S~ey~ Thom~ C. Wolpert, ~ofes~a[ Engi~ Dougl~ E. Ada~, ~ofes~onal Engi~er Robert C. T~t, Architeot ,(2BERT IBOI,41BAIRA At Southold, Town o~ 5outholcl ~.~fFolk County, New York Count:~ tox Hop District I000 Section 54 block 04 Lot Iq EROSION GONT'~,OL PLAN HAP ..UN. 2;2, 2OII SC, ALE: 1"=,40' NO. 200b-0920 DI'~,. 200&_Ol~2_bp_bom~_EG IOFI N / / / ~E~ENT AOJA~ENT A~EA POOL = 25I 5~. FT. = I.O~ TOTAL = 2~O~ ~. PT. = ~.~ NO'I1E~ A~,tEA = 24,~-/~ 5~. FT. ® VE~'.TIC, AL ~ATUM = N.A.V. ~ATUf,4 · ~Et~ f=LOO~ IN~O~',ANOE ~,AT~ F~ANEL NUf,4E~EI~ A~OUNT O~ FILL ~I~E~ = ~OO O.~. ~ t FILL TO ~B OLEAN BAN~-~N ~AN~ AND F~OH AN APP~O~D ~PLAND 51TE. I B~ILDIN5 FOO~INT FIRST FLOO~ A~A = 1,4OO 5~. FT. 5 , Young & Young 400 Ostrander Avenue, Riverhead, New York ~90~ 63 ~- 727-2303 Howard ~. Young, Land S~eyor Thom~ C. ~olpert, ~ofes~onal Engineer Dougl~ E. Ada~, ProfesSorial Engineer Robert C. T~t, Architect HEALTH PEPAI~,I'NfENT USE HOY'*b~D iN. 'r'OUN~, ? A~ 5ou~,holcl, Tol~n oF ~ouEholcl ~uFFolk Goun~,y, Na~ ¥or'k C~OIJr'lt~ TC~x ~v~c~;2 District IO(20 Section ~" Block O~' Lot I~ I~UILDIN~ ~IT .~I~Ii~ML=¥ - A1.~11~ CAI NIAt~. IO, ;2OII I=~B. O¢, 2OII t=EI~. OI, 2OII ~PT. ~O, 2OIO 5~EF~I'. 21, 2OIO ~. I~, 2OIO ~V. 2~, 200~ NOV. 24, 2OO~ OGT. ~0, ~E~. 14, 20~ ~. I~, 20~ IOFI O JOB NO. 2OO8-OB20