Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1000-11.-1-12
MEMORANDUM To: Leslie Weisman, Chair Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals From: Mark Terry, Principal Planner LWRP Coordinator Date: August 18, 2011 Re: Coastal Consistency Review for ZBA File Ref. WILLIAM L BOSWELL #6494 SCTM#1000-11-1-12 WILLIAM L. BOSWELL #6494 - Request for Variances from Art. XXll Section 280-116A(1 ), Art. XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's July 5, 2011 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit to relocate a dwelling, at; 1 ) less than 100 foot setback from top of bluff, 2) less than the minimum code required front yard setback of 50 feet, located at: Off East End Road Fishers Island, NY. SCTM#1000-11-1-12 A site inspection was made on August 10, 2011. The proposed action has been reviewed to Chapter 268, Waterfront Consistency Review of the Town of Southold Town Code and the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) Policy Standards. Based upon the information provided on the LWRP Consistency Assessment Form submitted to this department, as well as the records available to me, it is my recommendation that the proposed action is CONSISTENT with the denoted following Policy Standards and therefore is CONSISTENT with the LWRP. Policy Standards 4. f Minimize losses of human life and structures from flooding and erosion hazards. The following management measures to minimize losses of human life and structures from flooding and erosion hazards are suggested: A. Minimize potential loss and damage by locating development and structures away from flooding and erosion hazards. 3. Move existing development and structures as far away from flooding and erosion hazards as practical The structure is located landward of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area (Figure 1). The relocation would maximize the distance from the "hazard area" and minimize the potential of future structural loss to the greatest extent practicable. Figure 1. Subject parcel with Coastal Erosion Hazard Line shown in red. In the event that the action is approved and to further Policies 4.2 Protect and Restore Natural Protective Features and Policy 5: Protect and Improve Water Quality in the Town of Southold; the following Best Management Practices are recommended to address the increase in bluff erosion. Require that the applicant submit a re-vegetation plan for the face of the bluff void of vegetation outlining species type, density and survivorship parameters. Due to the slope of the bluff face, terracing to stabilize the soils could be applied. (See figures 2 and 3). 2. Require subsurface drainage structures to be located landward of the relocated structure to the greatest extent practicable. Figure 2. Subject parcel showing bluff area and extent of erosion (2006). Figure 3. Subject parcel showing an increase of erosion in the west of the parcel (2010). Pursuant to Chapter 268, the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals shall consider this recommendation in preparing its written determination regarding the consistency of the proposed action. Cc: Jennifer Andaloro, Assistant Town Attorney Office Location: Town Annex/First Floon North Fork Bank 54375 Main Road (at Youngs Avenue) Southold. NY 11971 http://southoldtown.northfork.net USPS Mailing Address: 53095 Main Road RO. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Tel. (631) 765-1809 Fax (631) 765-9064 '_~-~',~ C_ ~- July 11, 2011 Mark Terry, Principal Planner LWRP Coordinator Planning Board Office Town of Southold Town Hall Annex Southold, NY 11971 Re: ZBA File Ref. No. # 6494 BOSWELL, William L. & Others Dear Mark: We have received an a, pplication for relocation of a dwel ~ the Building Inspector s Notice of Disapproval under Ct -L.---, ~' survey map, project description form, are attached for yom [ x .~ Your written evaluation with recommendations for this Code procedures of LWRP Section 268-5D is requested letter. Thank you. Ends. JUL 1 2 2011 1000-1l.-1-12 Very ti Les¥/ Cha;~~ By: ~/¥ TOWN OF SOUTHOLD NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL TO: Patrieia Moore for W. Boswell 51020 Main Road Southold., NY 11971 DATE: July 5,2011 Please take notice that your application dated June 21,2011 For permit for relocation of a dwelling at Location of property Old Mallory Road, Fishers Is., NY CountyTax Map No.'1000 - Section 11 Block I t.ot 12 Is returned herewith and disapproved on the tbllowing grounds: The construction is not permitted pumuant to Article XXII Section 280-116A(I), which states: "All buildings or structures located on lnts adiacent to sounds and upon which there exists a bluffer bank landward of the shore or beach shall be set hack not fewer than 100' fi'om thc tot) of such bluff or bank." The site plan indicates fl~e orolzq_s_~e,~_ d._w, e~_l, lj3g_~at 46' from the top of the bluff. Also, the proposed construction on this 1,27 acre lot,. in the R120 District is not permitted p. ursuant to Article XXIII Section 280-124 which states; "This section is intended to provide minimum standards for granting of a building permit for the principal buildings of lots which are recognized by the town under 280-9, are nonconforming & have not merged pursuant to 280-10," For lots between 40,000 & $9,999 sq, ft., the required front yard setback is 50'. The p_reposed construction indicates a front y_a__r__d___s.e_e_t_b..a._9_k..9_f...2..O.'_:' Author/zed Signature 2 007 "~' I1-- ~-' /I '7- b-/o 7-- SECTION NO 0~[ APPLICATION TO THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS House No. Street Old Mallory Road Hamlet__Fishers Island SCTM 1000 Section 1~1 BIock~l Lot(s) 12 Lot Size 1.27 acres Zone R-120 I (WE) APPEAL THE WRITTEN DETERMINATION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DATED July 5, 2011 BASED ON MAP dated June 17, 2011 Applicant(s)/Owner(s): Wm. L. Boswell on behalf of the following co-owners: Alexander Harvey, II, Robert DH Harvey, Rose H. Finkenstaedt, Wm. L. Boswell, Rose L. McLean, Ellen W. Boswell, P. Wilson Boswell, David P. Boswell Mailing Address: $815 Graves Lake Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45243 Telephone: c/o Pat 765-4980 Fax #: Email:pcmoorel(~optonline.net NOTE: In addition to the above, please complete below if application is signed by applicant's attorney, agent, architect, builder, contract vendee, etc. and name of person who agent represents: Name of Representative: Patricia C. Moore Esq. for ( X ) Owner (s), or ( ) Other: _ Agents Address: 51020 Main Road, Southold NY 11971 Telephone 765-4330 Fax #: 765-4643 Email: pcmoorel(~optonline.net Please check box to specify who you wish correspondence to be mailed to, from the above names: ~ Applicant/Owner(s),or X Authorized Representative, or ~ Other Name/Address below: WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR REVIEWED MAP DATED June 17, 2011 prepared byCME Associates & Engineers and DENIED AN APPLICATION DATED June 21, 2011 FOR: Provision of the Zoning Ordinance Appealed. (Indicate Article, Section, Subsection of Zoning Ordinance by numbers. Do not quote the code.) Article XXII Section 280-116 A (1) setback from top of bluff (46') and Article XXII1 Section 280-124 front yard setback (20') Type of Appeal. An Appeal is made for: X A Variance to the Zoning Code or Zoning Map. y A Variance due to lack of access required by New York Town Law-Section 280-A. y Interpretation of the Town Code, Article Section y Reversal or Other A prior appeal has, X has not been made at any time with respect to this property, UNDER Appeal No. Year_ (Please be sure to research before completing this question or call our office for assistance.) None Name of Owner: Boswell and others REASONS FOR APPEAL (additional sheets may be used with preparer's signature): AREA VARL4NCE REASONS: (1) An undesirable change will not be produced in the CHARACTER of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties if granted, because: The house was constructed in 1929 as one of the first "split level" homes in the country. Prior to the 1938 hurricane, the back yard was 100 feet to the top of the bluff. In 1990's the bluff face was beginning to sluff. In 1995 the family planted grasses on the slope in order to stabilize the bluff. The bluff remained stable for 10 years, until the Patriot Day storm (May 2007) the bluff eroded to it's current condition. The family began to consult experts on how to protect their property and the conclusion was to move the house away from the top of the bluff (see Woods Hole Group reports). Other properties along Block Island House have been relocated away from the top of the bluff. FIDCO, the owner of the road, has been consulted and supports relocation of the house towards the road. A new sanitary system must be installed between the house and the road (what is left of the sanitary system is on the waterfront side ofthe house) and dry wells are proposed to meet the Town's drainage code. The homes along this private road are pre-existing nonconforming and do not meet the 120 Zoning setbacks. Across the road, a cousin's (F.B.Harvey, Jr.)house is affected by the house relocation. Great effort has been taken by the owners to limit the impact on the house across the street but maximize the distance from the house to the bluff. We have consulted with FIDCO, as owner of the private road, they support our application to relocate the house towards the road. (2) The benefit sought by the applicant CANNOT be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance, because: The existing house is located only 8 feet from the top of the bluff along Block Island Sound. Experts at Woods Hole Group have advised the owners to move the house away from the top of the bluff. A report was commissioned on July 11, 2007 and May 14, 2008. The condition has deteriorated and an updated report was issued on July 23, 2010, again recommending the relocation of the house towards the road. The appeal is to move the house towards the road, to the maximum extent approved by the Zoning Board. This variance is required in order to mitigate the existing conditions. Due to environmental restrictions on reclaiming the lost property seaward of the top of the bluff, moving the house is the only method feasible to protect this house. Moreover, the extensive sea walls required to protect the house in it's current location, at 8' from the top of the bluff, is financially prohibitive and not assured of success. (3) The amount of relief requested is not substantial because: The relief is substantial in AC 120 zoning; however, this property pre-dates 3 acre zoning and pursuant to 280-9 & 10 require a 50' front yard setback. The setback to the road is reduced to increase the existing setback to the top of the bluff. (4) The variance will NOT have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district because: Great effort is being undertaken to react to storm damage and environmental conditions. The house mover has been consulted with proposes limited activity on the seaward side of the existing house. (5) Has the alleged difficulty been self-created? ( )Yes, or ( x )No The house was once 100 feet from the top of the bank. The house relocation is proposed to save the house from certain loss. Are there Covenants and Restrictions concerning this land: X No. Yes (please furnish copF). This is the MINIMUM that is necessary and adequate, and at the same time preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety, and welfare of the community. Check this box ( ) IFA USE VARIANCE IS BEING REQUESTED, AND PLEASE COMPLETE THE ATTACHED USE VARIANCE SHEET: (Please be sure to consult your attorney.) Signature of Appellant or Authorized Agent Swo~n t before me this BETSY A. PERKINS Notary Public, State of New York No, 01PE6130636 Qualified in Suffolk Countyc.~ Commission Expires July 18, ~ APPLICANT'S PROJECT DESCRIPTION (For ZBA Reference) Applicant: Boswell and others Date Prepared:July 6, 2011 I. For Demolition of Existing Building Areas Please describe areas being removed: move existing building away from top of bluff II. New Construction Areas (New Dwelling or New Additions/Extensions): Not Applicable Dimensions of first floor extension: Dimensions of new second floor: Dimensions of floor above second level: none Height (from finished ground to top of ridge): same- no change Is basement or lowest floor area being constructed? New crawl space for existing house If yes, please provide height (above grotmd) measured from natural existing grade to first floor: varies due to existing topography (steps built to match existing grade) III. Proposed Alterations or Interior Structural Changes without enlargement/extension (attach extra sheet if necessary) - Please describe building areas: Number of Floors and General Characteristics BEFORE Alterations: none Number of Floors and Changes WITH Alterations: none IV. Calculations of building areas and lot coverage (from surveyor): Existing square footage of buildings on your property: 3,500 sq.ft. Proposed increase of building coverage: none. Square footage of your lot: to CEH Line 27,090 sq.ft. Percentage of coverage of your lot by building area: 13% (from surveyor)_ existing house 3,500 sq.ft. (Same house moved towards the street}~ V. Purpose of New Construction Requested: move house away from top of bluff VI. Please describe the land contours (flat, slope %, etc.) as exist and how it relates to the difficulty in meeting the code requirement(s): Propert~ is located on Block Island Sound and the existing house is located only 8 feet from the top of the bluff. Proposed house to relocate away from top of bluff and 20' from road. Coastal Experts have recommended the house relocation. Please submit seven (7) photos, labeled to show all yard areas of proposed construction after staking comers for new construction), or photos of existing building area to be altered (area of requested changes). 7/2002; 2/2005; 1/2006 QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FILING WITH YOUR ZBA APPLICATION Is the subject premises listed on the real estate market for sale? __Yes ~-, No Are there any proposals to change or alter land contours? ~ No __ Yes please explain on attached sheet. 1 .) Are there areas that contain sand or wetland grasses? 2.) Are those areas shown on the survey submitted with this application? 3.) Is the property bulk headed between the wetlands area and the upland building area? 4.) If your property contains wetlands or pond areas, have you contacted the Office of the Town trustees for its determination of jurisdiction? -Vt>'D Please confirm status of your inquiry or application with the Trustees: and if issued, please attach copies of permit with conditions and approved survey. Is there a depression or sloping elevation near the area of proposed construction at or below five feet above mean sea level? 't3 ~ v('4- - Are there any patios, concrete barriers, bulkheads or fences that exist that are not shown on the survey that you are submitting?_ ~c Please show area of the structures on a diagram if any exist or state none on the above line. Do you have any construction taking place at this time concerning your premises? hid yes, please submit a copy of your building permit and survey as approved by the Building Department and please describe: If Please attach all pre-certificates of occupancy and certificates of occupancy for the subject premises. If any are lacking, please apply to the Building Department to either obtain them or to obtain an Amended Notice of Disapproval. Do you or any co-owner also own other land adjoining or close to this parcel? If yes, please label the proximity of your lands on your survey. Please list present use or operations conducted at this parcel .~4t>u~r- use t-tou:~ ~ · (ex: existing single family, proposed: same with and the I)roposed 7-6 garage, pool or other) Authortzed signature and Date zo ar o 'Tow or, sommo D .plan ap~rogO4 't~e v~riltn~,..or ~ubdivision approval on prope~ wi}hih ~ a~ d~ O~ within · .500 feet Of a~ 0~ ~r~d ~ '~r~Mtur~ ~r~ ~ ~p~o~. ~qt~ng ~ S~ent ~ bt r~fe~rd~ ~ th~ Su~. ~un~ D~me~ of P~n~g gn ~o~e ~ sed~ons 239~ 4) Afl~s of ~'O~L~ ..... · ' ' 9) N~e md ~ 'of my om~s)'of l~d ~ ~o a~au~l .~s~t ~min{ng 'aoOve · e To~ ~som Offide,.T~ H~I l~fl~ (765-1937) o~. ~om ~y public ~om~ at ~o Tom' Hh~ . loeafl~s by. ~g ~ pa[6ol nmb~ on ~, Tom of Sou~old RmJ Prop~ T~ S~te~ · ' ' · 2.' 'i .,. -... . 4:.' · - ~:. " :-: . ' . ~lmse u se ~ck side o~p~ ifm~ ~ s~ p~pe ~ o~ ~ i~ed). . . ~e lot n~bem mgy.~ ob~ ~ admee, wh~ ~d~.~m ~he O~c~ of ~e PI~g Board.at t938 ~ ~ ~oa~ Of~ ~t 765-180~. ' ~a~ of~i~t ' . ~Da~ ' '. ' ~ ~ir ~ o~gm 8olid~oa ~[1 be ~.~ ~pl~ a copy of tMs m~[ ., , 2.' C~ r~Vm~ ~ ~ 1o~ bo~ ~H.~ ~ ~m *omidb~ ~ p~ orgy* o~l ~iew of ~s ~. ~e eler~ to tim lo~ b~rd is r~blb foe s~ng e~i~ of ~*. ~1~ ~a~ Dm Sm~t to ~* pro~ omea id~fifi~ ~ove. ~ ~ for m~ling sh~l bo paid by ~e ~pplim~ at ~, ~, ~ ~pplieation Is alb~a~ for review. ~ailum to pay at ~ tim6 ~ ~x~ applic~on ia no~ ~mp[et~ ~d ~ot ~ aet~ ~ by the b~d I 6t7.20 PROJECT ID NUMBER APPENDIX C STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM for UNLISTED ACTIONS Only PART t - PROJECT INFORMATION ( To be completed by Applicant or Project Sponsor) 1.APPLICANT/SPONSOR 2. PROJECT NAME 3,PROJECT LOCATION: ~.~ [C~ SEQR PRECISE LOCATION: Sln~et Addess and Road Intersacllons. prominent landmarks etc -or !~ovide mai) IS PROPOSED ACTION: [] New DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY: 7. AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED: India~ly /, Z-*~ acres U~timately /. ~-1 aorea 8. W1LL PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER RESTRICTIONS? 9. WHAT IS PRESENT LAND USE tN VICINITY OF PROJECT? (Choose as many as apply.) 10. DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL, OR FUNDING, NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY (Federal, State or bacel) ~Z]Yes [] No If yes. list agency name and permit/ approval: ,-~ 11. DOES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID PERMIT OR APPROVAL? ]Yes r~No If yes. list agency name and permit / approval: i1~:~2A ~UN~LT OF PROPOSED ACTION WILL EXISTING PERMIT/ APPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATION? I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Applicant / Sponsor Date: If the action Is a Costal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment PART II - IMPACT ASSESSMENT I[To be completed by Lead Agency) I A. DOES ACTION EXCEED ANY TYPE I THRESHOLD IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617.47 If yes, coordinate the review proce~, and use the FULL FAF. B. WILL ACTION RECEIVE COORDINATED REVIEW AS PROVIDED FOR UNLISTED ACTIONS iN 6 NYCRR, PART 617.6? If NO, a negative declaration may be superseded by another Involved agency. E]Yes r-INa C. COULD ACTION RESULT IN ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FOLLOWING.' (Answers may be handwrlUen, If legible) C1. Exlegng air qualify, aul~ace or grcondwatar quality or quantity, natse levels, existing tmlfic pattsm, solid waste production or disposal, pefon~al for ero~on, drainage or 6coding problems? Explain bdegy; CZ Aesthetic, ~kgric~gural, amtme~oglcel, hlallerlc, or other naluml or ~utiuml raucoraus; m' community or nsiglf~orhcad character? Explain briefly: C3. Vegetsgon er fauna, fl~h, shellfish or ~lldll fe ~I~IN:~eS, significant habitats, or itvaabmed or endangered species? Explain bifof]~. C4. A ~omrnunlly's exi~ng plans or gceb as officfla~y adOPted, or a change tn,~'$~ or Intesiily of uSe of I~ o~ o~h~: nal~al resources? ' C5. Gr~q.~th, subsequent development, or mlatsd aofrvige, ikei~ fo,be ,~dr ~med by'the i:,rofx~sed action? Explain briefly: c6. Long te~n, sixxt term. aumUlaflw, or ofhar elfaute nof Idel~ffed in 01-C57 Explain hdegy: l D. WILL THE PROJECT HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS THAT CAUSED THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A cRITIcAL ENVIRONMENTAl. AREA(CEA)? (Ii yes, ex, lain bdefl)': E. I$ THERE, OR IS THERE LIKELy TO ~Ei CONTROVERSy RELATED TO POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS? ff ),au ~r~p~!~: PART III - DETERMINATION OF 81~INIFICANCE (To be completed by AgenuT) INSTRUCTIONS: Fei' each adverse effect identified above, determine whether it Is substantial, large, imlxxtant or otbem~ise significant. Each effect should be assessed in connection with Its (a) setting (i.e, urban or rural); (b) probability of occurring; (c) duralion: (d) irrever$ibility; (e) geographic scope; and (f) magnitude. If necessary, add attachments or reference supporting materials. Ensure that explanation, s contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse impacts have been Elentified and adequately addressed. If question d of part ii was checked yes, the determination of significance must evaluate the potential impact of the proposed aotion on the environmental characteristics of the CEA. Check this box if you have Idengffed one or mom potentially la,ge or significant adverse Impacts which MAY Dc=ur. Than pmceed dire cby to the FI. ILl EAF and/or prepare a positive declaration. Check this box If you have determined, based on the Information and analysis above and any supporting documentation, that the proposed scrim WILL NOT result In any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide, cn attachments as necessary, the reasons supporting thb determination. Name of Lead Agency Tlffed Responsible Officer Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Responsible Officer In Lead Agency Signature of Preparer (if different from responsibIn of fleer) Alexander Harvey, Il, Robret DH Harvey Rose H. Finkenstaedt, Wm. L. Boswell Rose L. McLean, Ellen W. Boswell P. Wilson Boswell, David P. Boswell C/O Wm. L. Boswell 5815 Graves Lake Drive Cincinnati, OH 45243 June 7, 201l Patricia C. Moore, Esq. 51020 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Dear Ms. Moore: We, Alexander Harvey, II, Robert DH Harvey, Rose H. Finkenstaedt, Wm. L. Boswell, Rose L. McLean, Ellen W. Boswell, P. Wilson Boswell, and David P. Boswell, authorize you to make any and all applications and appear on my behalf to the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals, Southold Town Board of Trustees, Southold Town Building Department, NYS Dec, and any other necessary agencies on our behalf regarding properties located at East End Road (a/ka/Old Mallory Road), Fishers Island, New York (sctm: 1000-1 I-1-12) Wm. L. Boswell, on behalf of the Owners of the above. APPLICANT TRANSACTIONAL DISCLOSURE FORM (FOR SUBMISSION BY OWNER and OWNER'S AGENT) The Town of Southold's Code of Ethics prohibits conflicts of interest on the part of Town officers and employees. The purpose of this form is to provide information, which can alert the Town of possible conflicts of interest and allow it to take whatever action is necessary to avoid same. YOUR NAME: __Patricia C. Moore Esq.__and Alexander Harvey, II, Robert DH Harvey, Rose H. Finkenstaedt, Wm. L. Boswell, Rose L. McLean, Ellen W. Boswell, P.Wilson Boswell, David P. Boswell (Last name, first name, middle initial, unless you are applying in the name of someone else or other entity, such as a company. If so, indicate the other person or company name.) NATURE OF APPLICATION: (Check all that apply.) Tax Grievance Variance X Special Exception If "Other", name the activity: Change of Zone Approval of Plat Exemption from Plat or Official Map Other Trustees Do you personally, (or through your company, spouse, sibling, parent, or child) have a relationship with any officer or employee of the Town of Southold? "Relationship" incIudes by blood, marriage, or business interest. "Business interest" means a business, including a partnership, in which the Town officer or employee has even a partial ownership of (or employment by) a corporation in which the Town officer or employee owns more than 5% of the shares. YES NO Complete the balance of this form and date and sign below where indicated. Name of person employed by the Town of Southold: Title or position of that person: Describe that relationship between yourself (the applicant) and the Town officer or employee. Either check the appropriate line A through D (below) and/or describe the relationship in the space provided. The Town officer or employee or his or her spouse, sibling, parent, or child is (check all that apply): A) the owner of greater than 5% of the shares of the corporate stock of the applicant (when the applicant is a corporation); B) the legal or beneficial owner of any interest in a non-corporate entity (when the applicant is not a corporation); C) an officer, director, partner, or employee of the applicant; or D) the actual applicant. DESCRIPTION OF RELATIONSHIP Submitted this ~ day of Signat ure:~9,~, t Patricia C. Moor~-~-r~_~[4__ _ Print Name: AIt'xali~er Harvey, II, Robert DH Harvey, Rose H. Finkenstaedt, Wm. L. Boswell, Rose L. McLean, Ellen W. Boswell, P.Wilson Boswell, David P. Boswel Town of Southold LWRP CONSISTENCY ASSESSMENT FORM A. INSTRUCTIONS All applicants for permits* including Town of Southold agencies, shall complete this CCAF for proposed actions that are subject to the Town of Southold Waterfront Consistency Review Law. This assessment is intended to supplement other information used by a Town of Southold agency in making a determination of consistency. *Except minor exempt actions including Building Permits and other ministerial permits not located within the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area. Before answering the questions in Section C, the preparer of this form should review the exempt minor action list, policies and explanations of each policy contained in the Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. A proposed action will be evaluated as to its significant beneficial and adverse effects upon the coastal area (which includes all of Southold Town). If any question in Section C on this form is answered "yes", then the proposed action may affect the achievement of the LWRP policy standards and conditions contained in the consistency review law. Thus, the action should be analyzed in more detail and, if necessary, modified prior to making a determination that it is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the LWRP policy standards and conditions. If an action cannot be certified as consistent with the LWRP policy standards and conditions, it shall not be undertaken. A copy of the LWRP is available in the following places: online at the Town of Southold's website (southoldtown.northfork.net), the Board of Trustees Office, the Planning Department, all local libraries and the Town Clerk's office. B. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSED ACTION SCTM# AGENT: 1000- 1-1-12 Wm. L. Boswell and others Patricia C. Moore Esq. 51020 Main Road, Southold NY 11971 The Application has been submitted to (check appropriate response): Town Board [] Planning Dept. [] Building Dept. [] Board of Trustees [] Zoning Board of Appeals [23_ 1 Category of Town of Southold agency action (check appropriate response): (a) Action undertaken directly by Town agency (e.g. capital construction, planning activity, agency regulation, land transaction) [] (b) Financial assistance (e.g. grant, loan, subsidy) [] (c) Permit, approval, license, certification: [] Type: __ Town of Southold LWRP nsistency Assessment Form 1 nature and extent of action: relocate house away from top of bluff Location of action:Old Mallory Road, Fishers lsland Site acreage: 1.27 acres Present land use: existing residence Present zoning classification: R-120 2. If an application for the proposed action has been filed with the Town of Southold agency, the following information shall be provided: (a) Name of applicant: Wm. L. Boswell (b) Mailing address:5815 Graves Lake Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45243 (c) Telephone number: ( 631 ) e/o Pat 765-4330 (d) Application number, if any: __ Will the action be directly undertaken, require funding, or approval by a state or federal agency? Yes [] No X If yes, which state or federal agency: __ DEVELOPED COAST POLICY Policy 1. Foster a pattern of development in the Town of Southold that enhances community character, preserves open space, makes efficient use of infrastructure, makes beneficial use ora coastal location, and minimizes adverse effects of development. See LWRP Section lll- Policies; Page 2for evaluation criteria. Yes [] No [] Not Applicable [] Discussion (if appropriate): The property is on Block Island Sound, Fishers Island. The house was constructed in the 1920's and the bluff has been damaged by erosion, the applicants intend to move the house away from the bluffto the maximum extent feasible. Policy 2. Protect and preserve historic and archaeological resources of the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section 1II - Policies Pages 3 through 6for evaluation criteria Yes [] No [] Not Applicable [] Discussion (if appropriate): Disturbed propert3, with no historical archeologieal resources Town of Southold LWRP nsistency Assessment Form 2 Policy 3. Enhance visual quality and protect scenic resources throughout the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section II1 - Policies Pages 6 through 7for evaluation criteria Yes [] No [] Not Applicable [] Discussion (if appropriate)-' the house will not impact vistas NATURAL COAST POLICIES Policy 4. Minimize loss of life, structures, and natural resources from flooding and erosion. See LWRP Section III- Policies Pages 8 through 16for evaluation criteria Yes [] No [] Not Applicable [] Discussion (if appropriate) The relocation of the house away from the bluff has been recommended by experts at Woods Hole Group in order to protect life and property. Policy S. Protect and improve water quality and supply in the Town of Southold. See L WRP Section Ill - Policies Pages 16 through 21for evaluation criteria Yes [] No [] Not Applicable [] Discussion (if appropriate): Not applicable Policy6. Protect and restore the quality and function of the Town of Southold ecosystems including Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats and wetlands. See LWRP Section llI- Policies; Pages 22 through 32for evaluation criteria. Yes [] No [] Not Applicable [] Discussion (if appropriate): no impact on habitat or wetlands. The relocation of the house away from the top of the bluff will be performed carefully by professional house movers. The goal is to prevent impact on the bluff face. Policy Z Protect and improve air quality in the Town of Southold. See L WRP Section Ili - Policies Pages 32 through 34for evaluation criteria. See Section III- Policies Pages; 34 through 38for evaluation criteria. Yes [] No [] Not Applicable [] Discussion (if appropriate): N/A Policy 8. Minimize environmental degradation in Town of Southold~/kom solM waste and hazardous substances and wastes. See LWRP Section IlI-Policies; Pages 34 through 38for evaluation criteria. Yes [] No [] Not Applicable [] Discussion (if appropriate): existing residence creates no hazardous waste Town of Southold LWRP nsistency Assessment Fonn 3 PUBLIC COAST POLICIES Policy 9. Provide for public access to, and recreational use of, coastal waters, public lands, and public resources of the Town of Southold. See LI~RP Section 1II - Policies; Pages 38 through 46for evaluation criteria. Yes [] No [] Not Applicable [] Discussion (if appropriate): Not applicable, property along Block Island Sound. Access along sound not affected. WORKING COAST POLICIES Policy 10. Protect Southold's water-dependent uses and promote siting of new water-dependent uses in suitable locations. See LI~RP Section 111 - Policies; Pages 47 through 56for evaluation criteria. Yes [] No [] Not Applicable [] Discussion (if appropriate): residential use enhanced by views of Block Island Sound Policy 11. Promote sustainable use of living marine resources in Long Island Sound, the Peconic Estuary and Town waters. See LWRP Section II! - Policies; Pages 57 through 62for evaluation criteria. Yes [] No [] Not Applicable [] Discussion (if appropriate): N/A - no impact on marine resources along Block Island Sound. Policy IZ Protect agricultural lands in the Town of Southold. See L WRP Section III - Policies; Pages 62 through 65for evaluation criteria. Yes [] No [] Not Applicable [] Discussion (if appropriate): N/A - no agricultural lands affected Policy 13. Promote appropriate use and development of energy and mineral resources. See LWRP Section 1II - Policies; Pages 65 through 68for evaluation criteria. Yes [] No [] Not Applicable [] Discussion (if appropriate): N/A - no impact on energy or minerals *copy of Town form created on 2/11/06 Town of Soulhold LWRP nsistency Assessment Form 4 © Alexander Harvey, Ill Fishers Mand, NY o SCTM 1000~01 t-0%'I2, Photos Taken On 10/4/2010 ?hoto i Photo 2 BOSWELL ET AL OLD MALI,ORY ROAD, FISHERS iSLAND SCTM: 1000~11~1~12 Alexander Harvey, II] Fishers Island, NY~~ SCTM 1000-011-01-12, Photos Taken On 10/4/2010 ~hOto 3 Photo 4 BOSWELl. ET AL OLD MALLORY ROAD, FISHERS iSLAND SCTM: 1000-1 Alexander Harvey, I11 Fishers Island, NY · SC-[M 1000-0t 1-01-12, Photos l~ken On 10/4/2010 Photo 6 BOSWELL ET AL OLD MALLORY ROAD, FISHERS ISLAND SCTM: 1000-1 Alexander Harvey, [~[ Fishers Island, NY ~' SCTM 1000-011 ~01-12, Photos £aken On 10/4/2010 Photo 7 BOSWELL ET OLD MALLORY ROAD~ FISHERS ISLAND SCTM: t000-1 /t~-//-/-~/z TOWN OF $OUTHOLD PROPERTY RECORD CARD iMP. Io,1~o TOTAL LAND VL. FARM DATE AGE BUILDING CONDITION NEW NORMAL BELOW ABOVE FARM Acre 'JJlobie ] illable 2 illable 3 /¢odland ~,amplan'd rushlond ouse Plot oral ~ ,~e Value Per Value Acre COMM. CB. MISC. Mkt. Value REMARKS SUB. LOT ACR. J TYPE OF BUILDING DOCK FRONTAGE ON ROAD DEPTH BULKHEAD FRONTAGE ON WATER Bldg. ~xtension -=×tension :×tension ~orch ~orch 3reezeway ~'aroge >otio Total COLOR TRIM Foundation i Basement Ext. Wells Fire Place Type Roof Beth Floors Interior Finish Heat Rooms /st Floor Recreation Room Rooms 2nd Floor Driveway Dinette K. LR. F~N. B.i WOOOS ~ HOLEGROUP 81 Technology Park Dr., East Falmouth, MA 02536 Direcl Extension: (508) 495-6221 Main Telephone: (508) 540-8080 FAX: (508) 540-1001 e-mail:lw¢ishax~whgrp.com www.woodsholcgroup.com MEMORANDUM Date: 13 APRIL 2011 To: Mr. Alexander Harvey, II CC: Mr. Richard Warren, lnterScience From: Lee Weishar, Ph.D.; PWS Re: Potential Shoreline Mitigation Solutions The following memorandum provides a review of potential options for protecting your enastal bank and ultimately your house. Background The Woods Hole group has made several site visits to the Fishers Island property over the past three years. As you know, the bank is extremely high and is composed of loess (f'med grained sediment) that allows the bank face to remain near vertical. Additionally, the loess slows the erosion of the bank face because it is cohesive. However, when the bank face erodes, large sections cleave out of the bank face. This situation has provided a false sense of security at the property for many years. The erosion of the bank face has continued to deteriorate to the point where your options are severely limited. Our engineering staffhas met at least 6 tunes over the past 45 days looking at potential solutions to help protect your house. I will be very candid in that your options are limited from both an engineering and permitting perspective. The face of the coastal bank will continue to retreat and/or layback to obtain an angle of repose. Placing an engineering structure at the base of the bank will slow but not eliminate this process. Any potential mitigation option will requite obtaining a balance between securing sufficient room on the beach to construct the engineering stxucture and having the toe or base of the structure far enough away from the bank so that the bank face can be reinforced to slow down erosion at the top of the bank. Potential Mitigation Options After meeting extensively on this problem, we have developed three potential mitigation options that may be considered to slow the erosion of the bank and extend the time you and your family will have use of the house. Option I - Leave the house in place and construct a sloping rock revetment This option would leave the house in place and construct a sloping rock revetment on the face of the bank. This option would move the toe of the structure approximately 40 to 60 feet seaward of the existing bank face. The fill would extend on an approximate slope of 1H to 1V extending from the toe of the structure to near the top. The area between the structure and the bank would be filled with sand and sediment to reinforce the bank face. This option will occupy a large section of the high tide beach and potentially occupy some of the intertidal beach (Figure 1). There are several concerns with developing this option. Figure I This figure shows and approximate location of the revetment toe. Note that this is a 2007 orthophotograph from NYGIS First, constructing a structure seaward of the existing bank toe will subject the revetment to larger waves and will require larger rock and a more substantial structure. Second, permitting this option will be a challenge because under nomml circumstance reclaiming upland from the beach and intertidal area is not allowed by the permitting agencies. Option 2 - Construct a vertical seawall and move the house This option would construct a vertical seawall. The toe of the structure would be seaward of the bank toe but landward of Option 1. The house would be moved to implemem this option. The vertical wall would be constructed to protect the toe of the bank and to reduce the slope of the bank. Thc bank slope is reduced because the bank would be graded from the top of the vertical structure. This will effectively reduce the amount of area that will be lost at the top of the bank as a result of project construction. The disadvantage of this option is that first, the structure will be constructed seaward of the existing toe of the bank. Second, the bank slope will still be subjected to erosion from severe or storms of record. Third, the vertical wall most will likely not be above the 100 ft storm surge elevation. Option 3 - Conslxuct a vertical seawall along the toe of the bank and leave the house in place This option would construct a vertical seawall along the toe of the existing bank and leave the upper reaches of the bank face intact. Additionally the house would not be moved. This option has several disadvantageous. First, the vertical wall will be difficult to construct due to the boulders on the beach. The metal sheeting may have to be vibrated or pounded into the substmte. This will most likely result in some slumping of the bank due to constructing the wall. This could result in loss of additional upland between the house and the top of the bank. Second, this option still leaves the face of the bank exposed to severe storms and/or storms of record when the vertical structure is over topped. Third, the top of the bank will not be reinforced and will still have a tendency to erode. While the vertical wall will lessen or slow the erosion will still be present. Conclusion None of the three options presented above will eliminate the potential of bank erosion. There remains a possibility of losing the house as the result of severe storm even if it is moved. The simple fact is the house is vulnerable and the ability of the loess to slow down the erosion of the bank face has exacerbated the problem by providing a false sense of security. We will be happy to discuss the potential solutions with you and lnterScience after you have had a chance to read this letter and discuss it with your family. HOLEGROUP Sent Via Electronic Mail July 23, 2010 Mr. Alexander Harvey Il 7300 Brightside Road Baltimore, MD 21212 RE: Letter Report Update for Site Visit to Fishers Island New York Thc Woods Hole Group performed a site visit lo you property located on Fishers Island, New York on June 9, 2010. The intent oftbe site visit was to assess the condition of thc coastal bank and to provide you a verbal upA~ of our recommendations that were provided to Mr. Boswell in letters d~!ed July Il, 2007 and May 14, 2008. During the site visit Dr. Weishar had the opportunity to walk the beach and then discuss the condition of and potential erosion mitigation solutions for the coastal bank with you. This letter is a recapitulation of the conversations that we had during the site visit and is designed to update the two previous letter reports that are reference above. Observations During Site Visit The Fisher Island property is located along the southeast facing shoreline of Fishers Island and is directly exposed to the open waters of Block Island Sound and the Atlantic Ocean further to thc south. The property is located on a high coastal bluffthat reaches elevations of 50 fl above mcan sea level. The bluff/bank is oriented in the northeast to southwest direction however, for ease of discussion I will refer to the orientations in the east to west direction. The bluff stretches for some 0.8 miles to the west along the area known as Isabella Beach. To the east, the blufftapers down in elevation to the Iow lying barrier beach that separates Island Pond from the Sound. Many areas of the coastal bluffshow signs of erosion, including the area directly in from of the existing house (Figure I). The face of tho bluffis devoid of vegetation, suggesting recent and continued erosion, and is ext~mely steep in many places with slopes greater than the angle of repose. Figure I shows the over steepened top of the bank and ~he vegetation can be seen hanging over top of the bank. This is evidence of the top of the over-steepened bank getting ready to pull down the lip of the bank. Additionally, this photograph provides a good view oftbe unvegetated bank face that extends across your entire property. While walking the beach, 1 had the oppc~unity to observe the bank and beach along this section of coast. In general, the bank sediments that comprise the bluff are a mixture of very fine grained sand, silt, gravel, and cobbles (Figure 2). Figure I View of the Isn-vegetaled coastal bank face and over-hanging vegetation located at the 1op of the bauk Figure 2 View of the beach showing the native sediments composed ofboulder~ cobbles, and rocks The beach in front of the your bank is relatively narrow at 40 to 50 fi wide, and is composed of poorly sorled cobbles, boulders, gravel, and sand. Figure 2 shows the beach looking toward your property to the west. This photograph shows the beach sediments to be composed of primarily boulders and large cobbles. It is interesting to note that the rocks on the adjacent beaches to the east and west are wider and the rocks are larger than on the beach immediately fronting your house. As we previously stated, the bank/bluff sediments are a mixture of very fine grained sand, silt, gravel, and cobbles. Figure 3 shows that the beach in front of the bank is relatively narrow at 40 to 50 ft wide, and is composed of poorly sorted cobbles, boulders, gravel, and limited amounts of sand. The coastal banks located to the east and west are composed of sand gravel, larger rocks, and loess. The bank in front of the house (Figure 4) is devoid of rocks and sand and is composed entirely of loess. Loess is composed of fine grained sediments that is composed of silt and bound together with calcium carbonate. Thc importance of this observation is that when the banks on either side (east and west) of the house erode, the rocks and boulders are stranded on the beach and remain there. That is, they help to increase the elevation of and armor the beach. Presently, there is no source of rocks for your beach. Additionally, the fine grain sediments are immediately transported off the beach into the nearshore system and will be lost to the beach. As a result, erosion of the bank will not increase the elevation of the beach and therefore will not help to protect the bank from future erosion. The bluff shows signs of continued erosion caused primarily flora wave attack along the base that occurs during storms and periods of elevated water level. This type of erosion is typical along many of the unprotected coastal bluffs in Long Island and Block Island Sounds. During storms, waves scour away and undermine the seaward toe (base) of the bluff, which leads to instability and slumping on the upper portions of the bank. Due to the cohesive nature of bank sediments, erosion and slumping (sloughing off) typically occurs as mass failure, where large quantities slump and fall from the bank in a massive event. Because of this, coastal bluffs tend to erode episodically, holding stable for a number of years until erosion at the toe is great enough to cause mass failure and large scale collapse along the top of the bluff. This mechanism of erosion can be seen along portions of your property, where large chunks of the upper bank have collapsed and fallen onto the lower bank (Figure 5). This type of mass failure is most common in areas where the bank is over-steepened, as is yours along the western end of the subject property. After leaving the beach and returning to the top of the bank, I carefully inspected the top of the bank. Figures 5 and 6 help illustrate my observations. Figure 5 shows the relationship between the edge oftbe house and the top of the bank. At its closest location, the house is less than 5 fl from the top of the bank. Additionally, Figure 5 shows the over-hanging vegetation that is helping to pull the top lip off of the bank. This under cut will eventually shear off and slide down the face of the bank. Figure 6 shows a crack in the land immediately landward of the top of the bank. This crack is located several feet landward from the top of the bank. This is evidence of the undercutting that is occun'ing on the seaward side of the bank face. The undercut section of the bank is preparing to shear off and fall to the bottom of the bank. This will result in the immediate loss area seaward of the crack. Figure 3 Photograph showing the smaller cobbles on the beach in front of the house and the difference in bank sediment as you move from the northeast to southwest Figure 4 Photograph showing the loess bank sediments and the lack of rocks in the bank sediments Figure 5 Photograph showing over hanging vegetation and the distance between the house and the top of the bank Figure 6 Photograph showing the crack in the ground landward of the top of the bank Concln~ons After visiting the property and reviewing my notes I have the following conclusions and recommendations. Thc coastal bank will continue to erode when subjected to the incident coastal processes such as storm surge and storm gcuerated waves. As long as thc toe of thc coastal bank remains unprotected it will be at risk. During my site visit you stated that the coastal bank has been in its current configuration for a long period of time. It is most likely true that the top of thc coastal bank has not eroded for some period of years. However, thc observations at thc base of thc bank, the bank face, and the historical aerial photographs suggest that the base of thc bank has been recently ~-neked several times. During our conversations you slated that this last winter there were several severe storms that approached from the southerly direction and this resulted in an episodic erosion event at the toe of thc Imnk. Additionally, you stated thai this had not happened for many years and that you did not expect it to occur again. However, we have observed that over the past several years there has been an increase in the number and intensity of the storms traversing the New England/Northeast region. Along with the increase m thc number of storms thc weather patterns have been unstable and have resulted in an increasing number of storms approaching fi.om directions that expose previously coastlines to wave and storm surge attack. The result is that over the p~t 3 to 5 winters previously stable beaches and coastal banks have experienced erosion. Tber~fore, it is likely that your bank will be subjected to additional storm proeesses within thc next several yenrs. The following alternatives have been selected based on our experience with projects of this type, knowledge of the local coastal processes, and familiarity with the stale end local environmental regulations: Do Nothing - This alternative involves no action on your part, allowing storm waves and water levels to continue eroding the bluff. By selecting this alternative you are accepting the inevitable furore event of the house falling into the ocean, as well as the associated clean-up costs which would be significant. · Construct a ReveUnent - Installation of a shore protection structure such as a stone revetment would provide the longest lasting and most permanent erosion control solution for the upland portions of the property. A stone revetment is a coastal engineering structure designed and constructed for a sloping bluff to protect againsl erosion caused by waves and/or currents. The rough surface cre_~n,M by a revelment creates more resistance to storm waves than the natural bluff face, decreasing the energy of the wave more quickly and preventing erosion along the toe of the bluff. Important design considerations include providing appropriate height, width, and toe protection. A revetment at the subject property would need to be high enough to prevent overtopping by storm waves. To prevent flanking erosion at the ends of the structure, the revetment would need to be designed to tieback or retom into the bluff. o Move the House - Moving the house is the best alternative because it allows the bank to continue to erode naturally, provides protection to the house, and preserves your views. I understand the concerns that you have about moving a split-level house however, if you consult with a reputable house mover you will find that it is possible to move the house. Place Sand at the West End of the Property - Placing sand over the top of the bank at the west end of the property will not provide a long-term protection to the house. Unconsolidated sediment dumped over the top of the bank will not provide a sediment source for the bank or the beach. One of the main reasons for this is lhat there is extremely limited access to the bank face and as a result there is only one small area where sediment can be placed over the top of the bank. As a result, sediment can be placed only along a small section (15 or 20 t~) of bank. In general, adding sediment to the beach is a good shoreline erosion mitigation measure. Therefore, placing sediment over the bank can not hurt the erosion situation provided the sediment is placed over the bank in such a manner that the placement does not result in additional bank instability. However, this alternative will not protect your bank from erosion due to furore storms It was a pleasure meeting with you at your properly. Please do not hemitat~ to contact me with any additional questions. Sincerely, Lee Weishar, Ph.D.; PWS Senior Scientist HOLEGROUP July I 1, 2007 Luke Boswell 5815 Graves Lake Drive Cincinnati, OH 45243 Sent via US Mail and Email: aboswell~cinci.rr.eom RE: Erosion Evaluation al Fishers Island Property Dear Mr. Boswell, Woods Hole Group is pleased to present the findings of the site evaluation performed for your Fishers lsland, New York property. Per your request, Woods Hole Group has evaluated the condition of the coastal bank and beach on the subject property in terms of the existing and future potential for erosion. A site visit was performed on June 8, 2007 to evaluate the existing geologic conditions, including type and extent of resources such as beach and coastal bank, sediment characteristics, and evidence for erosion of the coastal bank. The following letter is based on information gathered during the site visit, as well as review of aerial photographs, and NY Department of Conservation (DEC) regulations that govern work in the coastal environment. While the detailed findings are described below, based on our experience the problem is severe and requires immediate attention. We have therefore presented alternatives for mitigating the impacts of erosion, and addressed possible steps that could be taken to slow this erosion. I. Site Observations and Background Information The subject property is located along the southeast facing shoreline of Fishers Island and is directly exposed to the open waters of Block Island Sound and the Atlantic Ocean further to the south. The geologic deposits that make up Fishers Island were deposited as glacial moraines, or long ridges of clay, sand, gravel, and boulders that were deposited at the leading edge of the continental glaciers. The property is located on a high coastal bluffthat reaches elevations of 50 1~ above mean sea level. The bluff stretches for some 0.8 miles to the west along the area known as Isabella Beach. To the east, the bluff tapers down in elevation to the Iow lying barrier beach that separates Island Pond from the Sound (Figure l). Many areas of the coastal bluff show signs of erosion, including the area directly in front oftbe existing house (Figure 2). The bluff is devoid of vegetation, suggesting recent and continued erosion, and is extremely steep in many places with slopes greater than the angle of repose (Figures 3-4). Sediments that comprise thc bluffare a mixture of very fine grained sand, silt, gravel, and cobbles. The beach in front of the bank is relatively narrow at 40 to 50 ft wide, and is composed of poorly sorted cobbles, boulders, gravel, and sand. -I- Figure 1. Aerial photograph from 2001 showing location of subject property. Figure 2. June 2007 photo showing eroding coastal bluff directly in front of house. Figure 3. June 2007 photo showing absence of vegetation along an approximate 180 ft long section of eroding coastal bluff. Figure 4. June 2007 photo showing oversteepened section of eroding coastal bluff along western end of subject property. -3- The bhiffat your house shows signs of erosion caused primarily from wave attack along the base during storms and periods of elevated water level. This type of erosion is typical along many of the unprotected coastal bluffs in Long Island and Block Island Sounds. During storms, waves scour away and undermine the seaward toe (base) of lhe bluff, which leads to instability and slumping within the upper portions of the bank. Due to the cohesive nature of bank sediments, erosion and slumping (sloughing off) typically occurs as mass failure, where large quantities slump and fall from the bank in a massive event. Because of this, coastal bluffs tend to erode episodically, holding stable for a number of years until erosion at the toe is great enough to cause mass failure and large scale collapse along the top of the bluff. This mechanism &erosion can be seen along portions of the subject property, where large chunks of the upper bank have collapsed and fallen onto the lower bank. This type of mass failure is most common in areas where the bank is oversteepened, as is yours along the western end of the subject propen'y. The most recent aerial photographs of the site, available for download from the NY GIS Clearinghouse, were collected in 2004 (Figure 5). These photographs show the existing house, i :1 - lawn, c°astal bluff, and beach areas at the time of the over flight. Measurements made from the photographs indicate set backs between the house and top of bluffthat range from 10 to 22 fi. Also evident in the photos are two large erosional scarps in the bluff, one on the subject property, and a second on the adjacent property to the west. Observations made during the June 2007 site visit, and illustrated in Figures 2-4, indicate that both of these erosional scarps have increased in size significantly. In the absence of more recent aerial photography from 2007 to quantify the extent of erosion, the observations and ground photographs taken during the site visit were used to approximate areas of the bluff currently affected by erosional scarping (Figure 5). Of greatest concern, but certainly not the only immediate concern, is the 180 fl long portion of the bluff along the southwestern end of the property, where the erosional scarp is within 12 to 15 feet of the house, and is extremely steep (Figure 4). Continued erosion in this and other areas of the bluff will undoubtedly occur, as the landform is oversteepened, lacks stabilizing vegetation, and contains no defense along the toe to protect from further wave activity and erosion. While it is difficult to predict a rate of bluff erosion using the available. data, it is certain that future erosion will threaten the safew of the existing house. The spectra of erosion control options for protection and stabilization of coastal bluffs ranges from the simple alternative of "doing nothing", to hard measures such as revetments and bulkheads. Between these two endpoints is a range of options that include house relocations, plantings, bank terracing, and other methods of toe protection. Descriptions of four potential alternatives that may be suited to the subject property are provided below. The alternatives have been selected based on our experience with projects of this type, knowledge of the local coastal processes, and familiarity with the state and local environmental regulations. · Do Nothing - This alternative involves no action on your part, allowing storm waves and water levels to continue eroding the bluff. By selecting this alternative you are accepting the inevitable future event of the house falling into the ocean, as well as the associated clean-up costs which would be significant. House Relocation - One alternative that would reduce the risk of damage to the house would be to move it further landward, away from the coastal bluff edge. From a practical standpoint, Woods Hole Group cannot offer advice on the feasibility of moving the house; however, the benefits of relocating further from the bluff edge would be significant. We recommend that this approach be investigated further with a company that specializes in house moving, to determine feasibility and cost. In the event that an alternate means of protecting the house is selected, especially one that involves a hard coastal engineering structure along the bank, the information learned about feasibility and cost associated with moving the house will be requi~d by the regulatory officials as part of thc permit review process. Figure 5. Aerial photograph from 2004 showing proximity of house to coastal bluff and approximate extent of erosion in 2007. Bank Terracing and Planting - Restoration of the coastal bluff using soft engineering methods such as terracing and planting would minimize the impacts of on-going erosion, although periodic maintenance would be required to correct storm-induced erosion. Terracing of the bank using a combination of landscape structures (ex., wooden retaining walls) and plants would minimize the potential for large scale failure as the upper -5- portions of the bluff would be retained and stabilized with vegetation. Planting alone without adding some sort of toe protection a!ong the base of the bluff would provide little protection, and is thus not advisable. A program of bank terracing and planting would only be successful with a design that includes protection from erosion along the toe of the bluff. A small hard structure that includes stones or driven sheet pile would provide the greatest measure of protection; however, other softer solutions could also be investigated. Planning level costs associated with construction o[ a bank terracing and planting alternative would likely range between $1,000 and $1,500 per linear foot, depending on the type of toe protection selected. For the 180 ~ section of bluff at the westem end of the property that is most critically eroded, this alternative would likely cost between $180,000 and $270,000. To protect the entire subject property (an approximate distance of 320 fi), construction costs are estimated to be $320,000 to $480,000. Either of these options would span two properties and the cost could be split accordingly. Stone Revetment - Installation of a stone revetment would provide the longest lasting and most permanent erosion control solution for the upland portions of the property. A stone revetment is a coastal engineering structure designed and constructed for a sloping bluff to protect against erosion caused by waves and/or currents. The rough surface created by a revetment creates more resistance to storm waves than the natural bluff face, decreasing the energy of the wave more quickly and preventing erosion along the toe o£ the bluff. Important design considerations include providing appropriate height, width, and toe protection. A revetment at the subject property would need to be high enough to prevent overtopping by storm waves. To prevent flanking erosion at the ends of the structure, the revetment would need to be designed to tieback or return into the bluff. Costs for revetment construction would likely range from $1,500 to $2,000 per linear foot. Assuming a structure approximately 300 ff long, it would cost between $450,000 and $600,000 to build a revetment on the subject property. Additional expenses required for engineering and permitting are typically I0 to 15% of the construction costs. The work in this area would actually span two properties, and as such the construction costs could be split accordingly. The NY Department of Conservation regulations do not prohibit hard coastal engineering structure like revetments; however, they are generally considered only as a last resort and therefore the permitting may be lengthy. Although this option represents the most costly alternative, it provides the most permanent and longest lasting form of protection. -6- Woods Hole Group is interested in providing consulting services for this project, should you decide to proceed. We are available to meet with you and other family members to discuss these options, either on site or via conference call. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any additional questions, or to discuss next steps. Sincerely, Leslie Fields Coastal Geologist -7- F. B, HARVEY, dR. BLOCK 54 - LOT 2 (MUNICIPAL WATER ON SITE SEPTIC) RESIDENCE / / ELECTRIC HAND HOLE / / WALL IYPE I proposED AREA SEE / / NEW R SERVlC£ pROVidE A CoN'nNuous UNE OF SILT FENCE. I~IROUGHOUT CONST~UC~ON SEE DETAIL SEPTIC TANK AND LEACHING WELL LOCATION PER SEWAGE DISPOSAL PLAN- FOR F. BARTON HARVEY MARCH 1955 LOCATE, PUMP AND fill W/ SAND OR / BENCHMARK-MAG NAIL L ELEVATION -4,B.E,9 ~ / ELECTRIC HAND HOLE ,/ WALL CONSTRUC~ON TYPE 2 - SEE DETNI. UNE OF~LT FENCE.~ '~IROUGHO~ CON~'tRUCI~ON N. _ z .... /7' c Io - ---., ,, ... -,.,*-* '*-' ;tdd< .. .~ ~.uo / .~CH .~ LOCATION MAP SCALE 1"=400' pROPOSED DRY WELL (4) ~ SPRUCE LEADERS TfP. SEE DETAil I SPRUCE / TOP OF I/ / / EOoE OF JOHN F. McGILLIAN (.UN~C,PAL WATER \ I / oN s~TE SEPTIC) / / / // / AND LIMITS OF EROSION / / L / / / 583 CF / 28,27 CF/VF = 20,2 VF PROPOSED ROOF LEADER USE FOUR(4) ¢ 6'¢ X ~' DEEP BEY WE~S, SLAB-ON-GRADE GRAVEl OF BANK DRIVE ~. OR4!, t~ PARKINO / "1957" '- ~D ~ PRESENT OE TELEPHONE ~SE ~ ' ~D ~ OF a~ ~ LOCATION / ~ MANHOLE % / / ... BUSH8 / CHEERY ) ~¢, ,, / t QUALI~Y CONTROL CERTIFICATION GROUP RENEWED 90 6" PVC t~fE OMERFLOW 6" PVC CUT LENGTH 6" SDR 55 PVC SLOPE AS REQUIRED MIN, 0" SOIL COVER DRYWELL BLOCKS AND CATCH BASIN GRATE TO GRADE BOTTOM DF FOOTING EL. = 4G,O FILTER /'TOP OF DEED LINE LIMITS OF EROSION APPARENT HIGHER .HIGH WATER LINE / (HHW) HEIGHT OF RLTER = 16" MIN, FDN. WALL ANCHOR BOLT TOP DF WAL EL. = ~55.5Lc I" STONE OR SCREENED GRAVEL ~TORMWATER DRYWELL DETAIL NOI- TO SCALE FINAL QRAD~ EL. = ~4,0 FIRST FLOOR EL, = 51.0 CONT, T & B KEY W/ MD]STURE BARRIER UNDISTURBED OR COMPACTED SOIL 1,) SURVEY MAP PROPOSED BLUFF STABILIZATION PREPARED FOR: ALEXANDER HARV--~ II & OTHERS BLOCK 35 LOT ~1 FISHERS ISLAND, NEW YORK DATED: SEPTEMBER 1~, 1994 REVISED THROUGH 02/23/95 SCALE: 1"=20' SHEET 1 2 BY CPK - CHANDLER, PALMER & KING. 2,) COASTAL EROSION HAZARD AREA MAP, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK, SCALE 1"=200' SHEET 39-FI OF &9 DATED 00/29/88 PREPARED BY THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CON~,ERVATION. OF A MIN, OF 6" IN GROUND WAIL CONSll~UCqlON -- ~E 1 NOT TO SCALE CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS JFINAL MAP REVIEWED BY ZB/-, j' SEE DECISION # G~q4 / DATED_~_/ ~5- / ¢0ll ,j SLAB-ON-GRADE E ANCHOR BOLT FIRST FLOOR EL, = 51.0 FINAL GRADE EL, = ~50.5~ KEY WI MOISTURE BARRIER DOWEL - Ru'L 1'-10" JNDISTURBED OR BOTTOM OF FOOTING EL. : 46.0 FDN. WALL WALL CONSTRUC'T~ON - NOT TO SCALE 1.) THIS SURVEY WAS PREPARED FOR THE PARTIES AND PURPOSE INDICATED HEREON, ANY EXTENSION OF THE USE BEYOND THE PURPOSE AGREED TO ~ETWEEN THE CLIENT AND THE SURVEYOR EXCEEDS THE SCOPE OF THE ENGAGEMENT. 2,) IT IS A VIOLATION OF THE STATE EDUCATION LAW FOR ANY PERSON, UNLESS ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTION OF A LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR, TO ALTER AN ITEM IN ANY WAY, 5.) ONLY COPIES OF THIS SURVEY MARKED WITH THE LAND SURVEYOR'S SIC. N,,,FURE AND AN ORIGINAL EMBOSSED OR INK SEAL ARE THE PRODUCT OF THE '.AND SURVEYOR, 4,) ~30RDINATE DISTANCES ARE MEASURED FRG}M U,S. COAST AND OEODERU SL)RVEY TRIANGULATION STATION "NIN", 5,) SITE IS IN THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, COUNt( OF SUFFOLK TAX MAP 1000, SECTION 011, BLOCK 1, LOT 12, 6,) TOTAL AREA = 1,27J: ACRES, 7,) BASE FOR LEVELS: NAVB B.,) PORTIONS OF THIS SITE LIE WITHIN FLOOD ZONES VE (EL,=16 & 13) AS SHOWN ON FIRM, FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP SUFFOLK COUN~r', NEW YORK COMMUNITY: TOWN OF SOUTHOLD NUMBER: 560815 PANEL 38 OF 1026 MAP SqFRX: H MAP NUMBER ~610300058H MAP REVISED SEPTEMBER 25, 2009, AREAS 'ffHERE SEED MIX APPLIES GRASSED SWALE, STORMWATER BASIN & FOREBAY SEEDIND MIXTURES BY WEIGHT CREEPING RED FESCUE REDTOP 10~ TALL FESCUE OR SMOOTH BROMEGRASS ANNUAL RYE GRASS OR PERENNIAL RYE GRASS RATE PER 1000 SQ, FT, 2 LB. 1.5 LB, SEEDING DATES APRIL 1 - JUNE 15 or APRIL I - JUNE 15 AUC. 14 - SEP. 30 MARCH 15 - JUNE 15 AUG, 15 - OCT. 15 WHERE TREES ARE TO BE RETAINEO~ THE SEED MIX~JRE SHOULD BE ADAPTED FOR SHADY CONDITIONS, DISTURBED AREASJSHOULD BE SEEDED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AFTER AC~V[TIES ARE FINISHED OR IF TREY ~LL BE L~F/ NACTIVE FOR AT LEAST SEVEN DAYS TO PREVENT EROSION, THE USE OF SED*ENT AND ER*ON EAg*D ON SLOPES IS EH*UR*ED TO HELP ESTAgL* 0000 VEGETATIVE COVER AND REDUCE EROSION, N/F NOW OR FORMERLY SF SQUARE FEET TOW TOP OF WALL ORAV. GRAVEL ----20---- EXISTING CONTOURS ~ PROPOSED CONTOURS:' ~=~x~c~x~x=o STONE WALL ~:x~c~cx=~¢~> RETAINING WALL -- X X WOOD FENCE --~-- SILT FENCE -~,~,~,....,,,',',~. BRUSH LINE TOP OF BANK - 2011 / , ~ TOP OF BANK - 1994 TOP OF BANK - 1957 .... TOP OF BANK - 1954 TOP OF BANK - 1945 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET DATE: JUNE 17, 2011 SCALE: 1" = 20' PROJECT #2011808 SHEET 1 OF2 PR( POSED EXISTING EXISTING -~--BRUSH = ~ ERODING SLOPE ~ LAWN -- ~ ~ -- RESIDENCE--- ~ ~ ERODING SLOPE-- - : ~ ~ TREE ~ / ~ ' / i x, '/ bOWE, b~Eb / ' ' ~ ~ ,,- X ~ / X X / X X , / Z ~ Z HOmZ: r'=2o' HOmZ,, ¢=20' ,OmZ~ ¢=20' SCALE: AS NOTEB PROJECT ¢2011808 QUALI~ CONTROL CERTIFICATION GROUP R~ED pAT~, SHEET ~..,~ ,~ ~/~/// 2 OF 2 TOP OF BLUFF~ 60 ~'~ BRUSH ERODING SLOPE 12" CEDAR TREE ~'~ 5O 4o 50 2° ROCKY B F~,C H ~ EXISTING ~V,/N ~ --VEGE rATED SLOPE / / / 3o \ =o \ lO 1