The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTR-5631 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 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE # 0717C Date: December 21,2011 THIS CERTIFIES that the construction of a single-family dwelling, decks, pervious driveway, sanitary system, gutters to leaders to drgwells to contain roof run-off; a 50' Non- Disturbance Buffer which is to be maintained At 1460 Lake Drive, Southold, New York Suffolk County Tax Map # 59-1-21.6 & 21.7 Conforms to the applications for a Trustees Permit heretofore filed in this office Dated May 2, 2002 pursuant to which Trustees Wetland Permit #5631 Dated April 28, 2008 was issued and conforms to all of the requirements and conditions of the applicable provisions of law. The project for which this certificate is being issued is for the construction of a single-family dwelling, decks, pervious driveway, sanitary system, gutters to leaders to dr~ells to contain roof run-off; a 50' Non-Disturbance Buffer which is to be maintained The certificate is issued to GREGORY MAZZANOBILE owner of the aforesaid property. ~t~or~ed S~gnat~ur COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK CC #: Cll-48553 I, JUDITH A. PASCALE, Clerk of the County of Suffolk and the Court of Record thereof do hereby certify that I have compared the annexed with the original DECLARATION recorded in my office on12130120'11 under Liber D00012680 and Page 911 and, that the same is a true copy thereof, and of the whole of such original. In Testimony Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said County and Court this 1213012011 SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK JUDITH A. PASCALE SEAL SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK RECORDS OFFICE RECORDING PAGE Type of Instrument: DECLARATION Number of Pages: 7 Receipt Number : 11-0141948 District: 1000 Recorded: At: 1 /30/20ll 09:05:24 AM Page/Filing COE TP-584 Cert. Copies Received the Following Fees For Above Instrument Exempt Exempt $35.00 NO Handling $20.00 NO $5.00 NO NYS SRCHG $15.00 NO $0.00 NO Notation $0.00 NO $8.75 NO RPT $30.00 NO Fees Paid $113.75 THIS PAGE IS A PART OF THE INSTRUMENT THIS IS NOT A BILL JUDITH A. PASCALE County Clerk, Suffolk County LIBER: D00012680 PAGE: 911 Section: Block: Lot: 059.00 01.00 021.009 EXAMINED AND CHARGED AS FOLLOWS Number of pages "~' This document will be public record. Please remove all Social Security Numbers prior to recording. Deed / Mortgage Instrument 31 Page / Filing Fee Handling 20. 00 TP-584 Notation EA-52 17 (County) EA-5217 (State) R.P.T.S.A. Comm. of Ed. Affidavit Certified Copy NYS Surcharge Other Deed / Mortgage Tax Stamp FEES Sub Total 5. 00 15. 00 Sub Total Grand Total 1000 05900 0100 021009 Real Property Tax Service Agency Verification RECORDED 20ii Dec 30 09:05:24 JUDITH R. PASCgLE CLERK OF SUFFOLK COUNTV L 000012680 P 91i Recording / Filing Stamps Mortgage Amt. 1. Basic Tax 2. Additional Tax Sub Total Spec./Assit. or Spec./Add. TOT. MTG. TAX Dual Town Dual County Held for Appointment Transfer Tax Mansion Tax The property covered by this mortgage is or will be improved by a one or two family dwelling only. YES or NO If NO, see appropriate tax clause on page # __ of this instrument. 5 Community Preservation Fund Consideration Amount $ CPF Tax Due $ Satisfactions/Discharges/Releases List Property Owners Mailing Address RECORD & RETURN TO: Mail to: Judith A. Pascale, Suffolk County Clerk [C7oI 310 Center Drive, Riverhead, NY 11901 . Name www.suffolkcountyny, gov/clerk I Title # Improved Vacant Land TD TD TD Title Company Information 8 This page forms part of the attached Suffolk County Recording & Endorsement Page (SPECIFY TYPE OF IN~TRUMISNT) The premises herein is situated in SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK. TO In the TOWN of -~ ~ ~, ~t ~ .., \ '~.~..~,-\¼ ? ~ -~ ~ ,~x~ % In the VILLAGE or HAMLET of made by: BOXES 6 THRU 8 MUST BE TYPED OR PRINTED IN BLACK INK ONLY PRIOR TO RECORDING OR FILING. (over) DECLARATION OF COVENANT~5 DECLARATION made this~:7~--day of /,~,~ ~ 20//, by Gregory and Beatrice Mazzanobile, residin§ at/84 Worren Street, Apt 2; Brooklyn, NY11201, as owners as tenants by the entirety, hereinafter collectively referred to as "DECLARANT": · WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, DECLARANT has title to certain land situate, lying and being at 1300 Lake Drive, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, SCTM#1000-S9-1-21.9 said land being more particularly described in Schedule A which is attached hereto; and WHEREAS, the Property is situated in or adjacent to lands activities upon which are regulated by the Town of Southold Board of Trustees pursuant to Chapter 27S of the Town Code of the Town of Southold, as may be amended, and various activities conducted upon the property are subject to the jurisdiction, regulation and approval or disapproval of the Trustees prior to being conducted; WHEREAS, the DECLARANT has applied to the Town of Southold Board of Trustees for a Wetland Permit for approval to undertake certain regulator,/activities on the property described in Schedule A and known as SCTM#1000-59-1- 21.9, and as depicted on the plans prepared by Joseph Ingegno last dated July 7, 2004; and WHEREAS, the Town of Southold Board of Trustees, as conditions for the issuance of such Wetland Permit, required certain covenants and restrictions be placed on the property as shown on the aforesaid plans. NOW, THEREFORE, this DECLARANT witnesseth: That DECLARANT, for the purpose of carrying out the intentions expressed above does hereby make known, admit, publish, covenant and agree that the said property herein described shall hereafter be subject to the following covenants which shall run with the land and shall be binding on all purchasers and holders of said premises, their heirs, successors, and assigns to wit: 1) The grant of a Wetland Permit for the construction upon establishing a single family residence shall be conditioned upon establishing and subsequently maintaining a fifty (50) foot non-disturbance buffer as depicted in the attached survey and dated and approved by the 8oard of Trustees on April 28, 2008 and identified as SCTM#1000-59-1-21.9, within perpetuity. 2) These covenants and restrictions can be modified only at the request of the then owner of the premises with the approval of the Town of Southold 8oard of Trustees after a duly noticed public meeting. Adjoining property owners shall be entitled to the notice of such public meeting by publication or as otherwise deemed sufficient by the Board of Trustees but their consent to such modification shall not be required. 3) It is the responsibility of any party having any right, title or interest in the Property to consult Chapter 275 of the Town Code of the Town of Southold, as may be amended, and to obtain from the Town of Southold Board of Trustees review and such approvals as may be required by Chapter 275 for activities regulate therein on the Property. 4) Declarant grants the continuing right in perpetuity to the Town of Southold or any of its designated representatives to enforce the conditions and restrictions of the covenants. THE FOREGOING covenants and restrictions shall blind the DECLARANT, its heirs, successors and assigns, and any and all person or persons who shall succeed to the ownership of said premises of any part thereof by transfer or otherwise. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the owner(s) has/have duly executed this instrument thisbe_day of ~.~1~_, 20 ! ! . 0 WNER 'S S/GNA TURE SS: COUNTY OF ~/'? On the ~ ~/dday= personally appea~ed ~ evidence to be the indi~ he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their capacity, and that b~y hi~her/their signature(s) on the instrument the individual or the persons on behalf of which the individual(s~u ted the in st rument. Jblic in the year 20 ~ I , before me the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State *~ (~ , personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory ' JuJal(~) w~se name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that NO. 01WAe, lOO914 · 3 LOTS 6 & 7 CONSTANTINE p. GEOI~GIOPOULO.~ 80~0~ TOWN OF ~UTHOLD APPROVED BY BOARD OF TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD g',-~,TE Joseph A. Ingegno Land Surveyor P.~/? BOARD OF $OUTHOLD TOWN SOVI'HOLD, PERMIT NO. ~ DATE: ISS~J) TO: R O PROPERTY ADDP, E~: ~ AUTHORIZATION Pmsu~zt~o~,~pm~iamofC~:r275~/orCh~er Ill of *TownC~t~'~To',,mof m ~l~ T~.s ~d Co~ttlo~ ~ So.old T~ Wetland Permit ~ ami sanitary systcn~ as depi,~d on the ~urv~ prqm~d b July 7, 2004 ~ the folio~ Town Code-Stormwnter M~gemeu~, BUd tt~ pheement hay bales along ~ uplmld edge IN W'~$$ W~T.,K.tOF, th* zaid ~ Board B. ?,t~g, Pree~dej~ ALI.. that certain plot, piece or parcel of land, situate, lyiug and being i Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, being known and designated as Lots 6 and 7 upon a certain map entitled, "SuL-' '. · ,, omvmton Map for Constantine p. Georg,opoulos, and which map was filed in the Office of the Clerk of the County of Suftblk on January 29, 1985 as File No. 7844, said lots being more particularly bounded and d~sc,,.ibed according to said ,nap.a~ as follows: B~_,..,l IN N' ','' .... . _. '~ ~ ,.t ,t p,.)lBt 1311 clio r,u;rhwcstcrly side ut Lake l.)ri'~e, said point heine the division line between Lots 5 and 6, said point being also distant 1,,-77.69 feet southwesterly /'rom the southerly end of a curve connecting the southwesterly side of Kenny's Road with the northwesterly side of Lake Drive: RUNNING THENCE from said point or place of beginning, along the southwesterly side of Lake Drive the following tbur (4) courses and distances: (1) Soutbwesterly along an arc ufa carve bearing lbe left having a radius o1'639.14 feet, a distance o1' 15.18 feet; (2) South 31 degrees 47 minutes 30 seconds West, 50 feet: (3) Southwesterly along an arc of a curve bearing to the right having a radius of 1,371.86 feet, a distance of 98.17 feet; (4) South 35 degrees 53 minutes 30 seconds West, 176.04 feet to the division line belween Lots 7 and 8; THENCE a!ot~g said d visinn line. No, ,, - ~ t'ee£ to the southeasterly side of Centred Drive; = .... ~..at¢s .~t,. seconds We:sl. 270.6',) THENCE along the southeasterly side of Central Drive, North 45 d~grees 35 minutes 30 seconds East, 332.98 feet to the division Hue between Lots 5 and 6; THENCE along said division liue, South 44 degrees 24 minutes 30 seconds East, 205.58 lizct to the northwesterly side of Lake Drive, the point or place of BEGINNING. COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK CC#: C09-2771'1 I, JUDITH A. PASCALE, Clerk of the County of Suffolk and the Court of Record thereof do hereby certify that I have compared the annexed with the original DECLARATION recorded in my office on 071'14/2009 under Liber D00012593 and Page 464 and, that the same is a true copy thereof, and of the whole of such original. In Testimony Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said County and Court this 071'14/2009 SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK JUDITH A. PASCALE SEAL SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK RECORDS OFFICE RECORDING PAGE T~pe of Instrument: DECLARATION Number of Pages: 5 Receipt ~m~er : 09-0079133 District: 1000 Recorded: At: 07/14/2009 01:59:53 P~ Page/Filing COE TP-584 Cert. Copies LIBER: D00012593 PAGE: 464 Section: Block: Lot: 059.00 01.00 021.009 EX~MINEDAND CHARGED AS FOLLOWS Received the Following Fees For Above Instrument Exempt Exempt $25.00 NO Handling $20.00 NO $5.00 NO NYS SRCHG $15.00 NO $0.00 NO Notation $0.00 NO $6.25 NO RPT $30.00 NO Fees Paid $101.25 THIS PAGE IS A PART OF THE INSTRUMENT THIS IS NOT A BILL Judith A. Pascale County Clerk, Suffolk County record. Please remove all Social Security Numbers prior to recording. Deed / Mortgage Instrument Page / Filing Fee ~.7~ Handling 20. 00 Deed / Mortgage Tax Stamp FEES TP-584 Notation EA-52 17 (County) Sub Total EA-5217 (State) R.P.T.S .A. Comm. of Ed. Affidavit Certified Copy NYS Surcharge Other 4 [ Dist. Real Property Tax Service Agency Verification 15. 00 Grand Total / O / 'tO(~O 05900 0100 02't009 6 ;atisfactions/DischargerdReleases List Property Owners Mailing Address RECORD & RETURN TO: r.-,ooLq i 2593 464 Reco~rding / Filing Stamps Amt. II. Basic Tax 2. Additional Tax Sub Total . SpecJAssit. or Spec. 1Add. TOT. MTG. TAX . Dual Town __ Dual County__ Held for Appointment Transfer Tax Mansion Tax The property covered by this mortgage is or will be improved by a one or two family dwelling only. YES or NO If NO, see appropriate tax clause on ~age # of this instrument. 5 Community Preservation Fund Consideration Amount $ __ CPF Tax Due $ Improved. Vacant Land __ TD TD TD Title Company Information The premises herein is situated in SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK. made by: This page forms part of the attached (SPECIFY TYPE OF INSTRUMENT) Mail to: Judith A. Pascale, Suffolk County Clerk [ 7 [ 310 Center Drive, Riverhead, NY 11901 Co. Name I www.suffolkcountyny, gov/clerk [ Title # Suffolk Connty Recording & Endorsement Page If a portion of your monthly mortgage payment included your property taxes, *you will now need to contact your local Town Tax Receiver so that you may be billed directly for all future prooertv tax statements. Local property taxes are payable twice a year: on or before January 10~ and on or before May 31't. Failure to make payments in a timely fashion could result in a penalty~ Please contact your local Town Tax Receiver with any questions regarding property tax pay-,,ent. Babylon Town Receiver of Taxes 200 East Sunrise Highway North Lindenhurst, N.Y. 11757 (631) 957-3004 Brookhaven Town Receiver of Taxes One Independence Hill Farmingville, N.Y. 11738 (631) 451-9009 East Hampton Town Receiver of Taxes 300 Pantigo Place East Hampton, N.Y. 11937 (631) 324-2770 Huntington Town Receiver of Taxes 100 Main Street Huntington, N.Y. 11743 (631) 351-3217 Islip Town Receiver of Taxes 40 Nassau Avenue Islip, N.Y. 11751 (631) 224-5580 Riverhead Town Receiver of Taxes 200 Howell Avenue Riverhead, N.Y. 11901 (631) 727-3200 Shelter Island Town Receiver of Taxes Shelter Island Town Hall Shelter Island, N.Y. 11964 (631) 749-3338 Smithtown Town Receiver of Taxes 99 West Main Street Smithtown, N.Y. 11787 (631) 360-7610 Southampton Town Receiver of Taxes I 16 Hampton Road Southampton, N.Y. 11968 (631) 283-6514 Southold Town Receiver of Taxes 53095 Main Street Southold, N.Y. 11971 (631) 765-1803 Sincerely, Judith A. Pascale Suffolk County Clerk NOTICE COVENANT TO THE DEED DECLARATION THIS DECLARATION~ dated .~t. day of WITNESSETH ,200 , (hereinafter the "Declarant"), WHEREAS, the Declarant is the owner of cert~io real property located in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New York, Tax Map # District 1000, Section 59, Block 1, Lot 21.9 which real property is more particularly described in S~chedule A almexed...h _ereto (hereinafter referred to as the "Property"); and WHEKE.t~.q, the Property is situated in or adjacent to regulated freshwater wetlands SO-5 of the Southold quadrangle, which have been inventoried and mapped by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (hereinafter "Department"), pursuant to Environmental Conservation Law (hereinafter "ECL") Article 24 (also known as the "Freshwater Wetlands Act") and Part 664 ofTitie 6 of the New York Code of Rules and Regulations (hereinafter "6 NYCRR"); and WHEREAS, various activities conducted both in and adjacent to freshwater wetlands are regulated by the Department pursuant to ECL Article 24 and Part 663 of 6 NYCRR and require written authorization from the Department prior to being conducted; NOW, THFaREFORE, in recognition of the Depaxtment's jurisdiction as set forth above, it is the responsibility of a party having any right, tide, or interest in the Property, to obtain from the Department or any successor organization, a current description of all activities which are regulated pursuant to ECL Article 24 and Part 663 of 6 NYCR1L and to obtain written authorization from the Department prior to such regulated activities being conducted on the Property. Regulated activities include, but are not limited to cleating of vegetation; application of chemicals; excavation; grading and filling; and erection of any structures. By: STATE OF ~ COUNTY oF )SS.: ) ~ t Onthe ~V,~dayof ~ intheyear. 290 ,beforeme, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said state, personally appeart~d ('-,~ 1~. P~zzatob!/~ , personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the per~n ~vhose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his capacity, and that by his signature on the instrument, the person or entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument. NOTARY PUBLIC 'TI lis !NDENTI.!RE, made the 19''t' da.,,, of March, 21)09 t}[!TWEEN CONSTANTINE P. GEORGIOPOULOS and ItARRIET GEORGIOPOULOS. as tenants by the entirety, both residing at 775 Scarsdale Road 20, Tuckahoe, New York 10707, New York, party of the first part, and GREGORY F. MAZZANOBILE and BEATRICE J. MAZZANOBILE, as tenants by cntire.'.y; both residing at 184 Warren S',reet, Apartment 2, Brooklyn. N¢~ York ii20i, party of the second part, WITNESSETH, that the party of the first part, in consideration of Ten Dollars, and other valuable consideration paid by the party of the second part, does hereby grant and release unto the party of the second part, the heirs or successors and assigns of the part of the second part tbrever, ALI_. that certain plot, piece or parcel of land, situate, lying and being in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York. being known and designated as Lots 6 and 7 upon a certain map entitled, "Subdivision Map for Constantine P. Georgiopoulos," and which map was filed in the Office of the Clerk of the County of St, flblk on January 29, 1985 as File No. 7844, said lots being more particularly bounded and described according to said map& as follows: [,c.x., ,.l,,,t.G ,:t a point Gi'i tllc ItL, Itll~,,t;ol. kl|y t~aK~, l.Jll'vc, said point being the division line between Lots 5 and 6, said point being also distant 1,277.69 feet southwesterly from the southerly end of a curve connecting the southwesterly side of Kenny's Road with the northwesterly side of Lake Drive: RUNNING THENCE from said point or place of beginning, along the southwesterly side of Lake Drive the lbllowing four (4) courses and distances: (1) Southwesterly along an arc of a curve bearing lhe left having a radius of 639.14 feet, a distauce of 15.18 feet; (2) South 31 degrees 47 minutes 30 seconds West, 50 feet: (3) Southwesterly along an arc of a curve bearing to the right having a radius of 1,371.86 feet, a distance of 98.17 feet; (4) South 35 degrees 53 minutes 30 seconds West, 176.04 feet to the division line belween 1.o.~ 7 and .R: TIlENC!-; a!o~g said division line. Nert}~ 44 degrees 24 minutes 30 s,~conds West. 27,.3.60 Ii:et to lhe southeasterly side of Centred Drive; THENCE along the southeasterly side of Central Drive, North 45 degrees 35 minutes 30 seconds East, 332.98 feet to the division line between Lots 5 and 6; any streets and roads abutting the above described p,'emises to t]~e center lines thereof; TOGETHER with the appurtenances and all the estate and rights of the party of the first part in and to said premises; 'FO HAVE AND TO tlOLD the premises herein granted nnto the party of the second part, the heirs or successors and assigns of the party of the second part forever, AND the party of the first part covenants that the party of the first part has not done or suffered anything whereby the said premises have been encumbered in any way AND the party of the first part, in compliance with Section 13 of the Lien Law, covenants that the party of the first part will receive the consideration for this conveyance and will hold the right to receive such consideration as a trust fund to be applied first for the purpose of paying the cost of the improvement and will apply the same first to the payment of the cost of the improvement before nsing any part of thc total of the same for any other purpose. Thc word "party" shall be construed as it' it ,'cad "parties" whenever the sense of this indentnre so requires. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the party of the first part has duly executed this deed the da), and year first above written. Harriet Georg,o~o~.fi6s i Constantine P. Georgiopoulos 4N'PRESENCE OF: 3: ~' //,,'-"'r'7~77 ' ' ..' ,".-~' ~', .' . State ot blew ~ ork SS.: County of Westchester ) IN PR. EgF2qCE OF: On March 19, 2009 before ,ne, the undersigned, personally appeared Harriet Georgiopoulos personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the individual whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that she executed the same in her capacity and that by her signature on the instrument or the persons upon behalf of which the individual acted, executed the instrument. Ot~ March ...~.5(_(-'_ .... 2009 bc!bre mc. d'tc u;~dersigncd, personally appearzd P. G~orgiopoulos personally kno~xn to me or istoved lo me on the bas~s of sadsfhotory cvidcns:e to be lhe individual whose name is subscribed to the wilhJn instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his capachy and tha~ b5 his signature on the instrument or the persons upon behal~..~ff which tbe..h~divi~ual aclcd, executed the I1..-'"' FA7JA H. GLEI~ p¢~c, State No. 01GL6107221 [ch 22, 20~ ~' Co~i~¢on Expires Ma Quatiflecl [n Queens Coun~ · -~.,,,,.~ , ~,~. ~tap :~o.; Dis~ric! tOtlil, ~ectlon 59, Block I, Lot 21.9 Bargain and Sale Deed, with Covena,~t against Gramor's Acts _2J'_.-Z)L./Jc t( / Coltstillllhlc P. Georgiopoulos 2tl]d fei Gcorgmpoulos 40- .,regory F. Mazzanobflc alld Beatrice J. Mazzanobile L. Iorcns & Associates PC; 309 Baldwin Avenue Jersey City, NY 07306 Jill M. Doherty, President Bob Ghosio, Jr., Vice-President Jallles F. King Dave Bergen John Bredemeyer Town Hall, 53095 Main Rd. P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Telephone (63 I) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD DATE OF INSPECTION: ,/',~~/& - / / /~ Ch. 275 Ch. 111 INSPECTION SCHEDULE Pre-construction, hay bale line/silt boom/silt curtain __ 1st day of construction ~ constructed Project complete, compliance inspection. INSPECTED BY: COMMENTS: CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE: Jill M. Doherty, President James F. King, Vice-President Dave Bergen Bob Ghosio, Jr, 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 April 21, 2010 Mr. Gregory Mazzanobile 184 Warren Street, Apt. 2 Brooklyn, NY '11201 RE: 1460 LAKE DRIVE, SOUTHOLD SCTM# 59-1-21.9 Dear Mr. Mazzanobile: The following action was taken by the Southotd Town Board of Trustees at their Regular Meeting held on Wednesday, April 21, 2010: RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board of Trustees grants the last One-Year Extension to Permit #5631, as issued on April 28, 2008. This is not an approval from any other agency. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Sincerely, Jill I~1. Doherty ~ President, Board of Trustees JMD:eac James F. King, President Jill M. Doherty, Vice-President Peggy A. Dickerson Dave Bergen Bob Ghosio, Jr. Town Hall Annex 54375 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 April 22, 2009 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Mr. Gregory F. Mazzanobile 184 Warren St., Apt. 2 Brooklyn, NY 11201 RE: 1460 LAKE DR., SOUTHOLD SCTM#59-1-21.9 Dear Mr. Mazzanobile: The following action was taken by the Southold Town Board of Trustees at their Regular Meeting held on Wed., April 22, 2009: RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Board of Trustees grants a One-Year Extension to Permit #5631, as issued on April 28, 2008. This is not an approval from any other agency. Sincerely, James .K~ing ~-~ President, Board of Trustees JFK:lms James F. King, President Jill M. Doheny, Vice-President Peggy A. Dickemon Dave Bergen Bob Ghosio, Jr. Town Hall, 53095 Main Rd. P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY II971 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631 ) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD DATE OF INSPECTION: V/' Ch. 275 ©, Ch. 111 INSPECTED BY: COMMENTS: INSPECTION SCHEDULE Pre-construction, hay bale line/silt boom/silt curtain __ 1st day of construction './2 constructed Project complete, compliance inspection. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE: James F. King, President Jill M. Doherty, Vice-President Pegg~ A. Dickerson Dave Bergen Bob Ghosio, Jr. Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 April 28, 2008 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Mr. Gregory Mazzanobile 230 East 48th St., Apt. 5C New York, NY 10017 RE: 1460 LAKE DR., SOUTHOLD SCTM#59-'1-21.6&21.7 Dear Mr. Mazzonobile: In accordance with the above-referenced and the court decision rendered by the Supreme Court, enclosed herewith is your Wetland Permit issued by the Southold Town Board of Trustees. Please be advised that the permit is valid for one-year from the date of the letter. You are required to contact the office for a pre-construction hay bale line inspection and a final inspection, as described on the attached inspection schedule. Feel free to contact our office at (631) 765-1892 if you have any questions, Very truly yours, ~F, KilnS, 'Pre s~ent Board of Trustees JFK:lms Enc. BOARD OF SOUTHOLD TOWN TRUSTEES SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK PERMIT NO. 5631 DATE: APRIL 28~ 2008 ISSUED TO: GREGORY MAZZANOBILE PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1460 LAKE DR, SOUTHOLD SCTM#59-1-21.6&21.7 AUTHORIZATION Pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 275 and/or Chapter 111 of the Town Code of the Town of Southold and in consideration of application fee in the sum of $500.00 paid by Gregory to the Terms and Conditions, the Southold Town Board of Trustees authorizes and permits the following: Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling, decks, pervious driveway and sanitary system, as depicted on the survey prepared by Joseph A. Ingegno July 7, 2004 with the following conditions: a 50' non-disturbance buffer, gutters and drywells are installed to contain roof run-off and in accordance with Chapter 236 of the Town Code-Stormwater Management, and the placement of a continuous row of staked hay bales along the upland edge of the non-disturbance buffer zone prior to any construction activities. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Board of Trustees hereby causes its Corporate Seal to be affixed, and these presents to be subscribed by a majority of the said Board as of this date. ing, Pr Board of Trustees~ TERMS AND CONDITIONS The Permittee, Gregory Mazzanobile, residing at 230 East 48th St. (Apt.5C), NY, NY, as part of the consideration for the issuance of the Permit does understand and prescribe to the following: That the said Board of Trustees and the Town of Southold are released from any and all damages, or claims for damages, of suits arising directly or indirectly as a result of any operation performed pursuant to this permit, and the said Permittee will, at his or her own expense, defend any and all such suits initiated by third parties, and the said Permittee assumes full liability with respect thereto, to the complete exclusion of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold. That this Permit is valid for a period of 12 months, which is considered to be the estimated time required to complete the work involved, but should circumstances warrant, request for an extension may be made to the Board at a later date. That this Permit should be retained indefinitely, or as long as the said Permittee wishes to maintain the structure or project involved, to provide evidence to anyone concemed that authorization was originally obtained. That the work involved will be subject to the inspection and approval of the Board or its agents, and non-compliance with the provisions of the originating application may be cause for revocation of this Permit by resolution of the said Board. That there will be no unreasonable interference ~vith navigation as a result of the work herein authorized. That there shall be no interference with the right of the public to pass and repass along the beach between high and low water marks. That if future operations of the Town of Southold require the removal and/or alterations in the location of the work herein authorized, or if, in the opinion of the Board of Trustees, the work shall cause unreasonable obstruction to free navigation, the said Permittee will be required, upon due notice, to remove or alter this work project herein stated without expenses to the Town of Southold. The Permittee is required to provide evidence that a copy of this Trustee permit has been recorded with the Suffolk County Department of Real Properties Office as a notice covenant and deed restriction to the deed of the subject parcel. Such evidence shall be provided within ninety (90) calendar days of issuance of this permit. That the said Board will be notified by the Permittee of the completion of the work authorized. 10. That the Permittee will obtain all other permits and consents that may be required supplemental to this permit, which may be subject to revoke upon failure to obtain same. / S u RVEY OF CONSTANTINE ?-. GEORG!0POUL0: SOUTHOLD TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK S.C. TAX No. 1000-59--01--21.6 1000-59-0t --2! SCALE I "=50' MARCH 28, 2002 ~ULY 7, 2004 RE~qS~D PROP. SE.J~T1C ~ LOCA~ON AREA = 80~154.86 sq. ff. 1.840 ac. SEPTIC SYSTEM & RETAINING WALL DESfGN JOSEPH FISCHETTI, 1725 HOBART ROAD SOUTHOLD, NY 11971 631-765-2954 PROPOSED SEPTIC SYSTEM DETAIL SEPTIC TAN~ (1) APPROVED BY Joseph A. ingegno Land Surveyor '%, TEST HOLE DAT/, SURVEY OF LOTS 6 & 7 SSrBDMSfO~,r ~L4~ FOR CONSTANTINE P. GEORGiOPOULO~ .~fTUA TED A T SOUTHOLD TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW' YORK S.C. TAX No. 1000-59--01-2!.5 1000-59-0~ -2! .7 SCALE 1 "=50' MARCH 28, 2002 SEPTIC SYSTEM & RETAfNING FALL DESIGN BY: JOSEPH FISCHETTI, PE I725 HOBART ROAD SOUTHOLD. NY 11971 65t -765-2954 PROPOSED SEPTIC SYSTEM DETAIL SEPTIC TANK APPROVED BY BOARD OF TRUSTEES TOWN OF $OUTHOLD Joseph A. ingegno Land Surveyor New York State Departme;~. of Environmental Conservation Division of Environmental Permks Building 40 - SUNY, Stony Brook, NY 11790-2356 Telephone 1631} 444-0404 Facsimile (C31) 444-0360 Website: www.dec.state.m/,us Mr. Gregory Mazzanobile 230 East 48t~ Street (Apt. 5C) New York, NY 10017 JuJy 26, Boa,~d of Tmstees net Dear Permittee: RE: 1~4738-03032/00001 in conformance with the requirements of the State Uni£om~ Procedures Act (Article 70, ECL) and its implementing regulations (6N~CRR, Pm~t 621) we are enclosing your peri,lit. Please read ail conditions carefulls,. If you are unable to comply with m~y conditions, please contact us at the above address. Also enclosed is a permit sign which is to be conspicuously posted at the project site and protected from the weather. Sincerely EnvironmerI[al Analyst MEP/] s NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION DE'C PERMIT NUMBER 1-4738-03gL32/00001 FACILITY/PROGRAM NUMBER(S) PERMIT Under the Environmental Conservatior~ Law EFFECTIVE CATE July 26,200~ EXPIRATION DATE(S) Juiy 31, 2009 TYPE OF PERMIT ! New ~ Renewal [] Modifisation D Permit to Construct [3 Permit to Operate [] Artisie 15, Title 5: Proteation of Waters [] 6NYCRR 608: Water Quatity [] Article 27, Title 7; 6NYCRR 360: ~ Ar[icle 15, Title 15: Water Supply [] Article 15, Title 15: Water Transpod' [3 Adicle !5, Title 15: Long Island WeJls 3 Article 15, Title 27: Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers Certification E3 Article 17, Titles 7, 8: SPDES ~ Ar[isle 19: Air PolJution Control ~ Article 23, Title 27: Mined Land Reclamation [] Article 24: Freshwater Wetlands [] Article 25: Tidal Wetlands Solid Waste Management ~ Article 27, Title 9; 6NYCRR 373: Hazardous Waste Management [] Article 34: Coastal Erosion Management ~ Article 36: Fioodplain Management [] Ar[isles 1, 3, 17, 19,27, 37; 6NYCRR 380: Radiation ControJ PERMIT IS~ . Gregory Mazzanob e ADDRESS OF PERMITTEE .230 East 48~h Street, (Apt. 5C), New York, NY 10017 CONTACT PERSON FOR PBRMITFBD WORK James E. Fitzgerald, P.O. Box617, Cutchogue, NY 11935 NAME AND ADDRESS OF PROJECT/FACILITY TELEPHONE NUMBER (631)734-5800 Maz. zanobile property, 1300 & 1,4.60 Lake Drive, Southold COUNTY I TOWN WATERCOURSE NYTM COORDINATES Suffolk Southold DESCRIPTION OF AUTHORIZED ACTIVITY: Construct single family dwelling, decks and septic system. All work rnust be done in accordance with the attached survey prepared by Joseph inge~no or} 3/28102 last . rev,~.d on 7/7/04 and sta~d NYSDEC approved on 7/26/04. By acceptance of this permit, the permittee agrees that the permit is contingent upon strict compliance with the ECL, all applicable regulations, the General Conditions specified tsee page 2 & 3) and any Special Conditions included as pa~ of this permit. PERMIT ADMINISTRATOR. Roger Evans (MEP/ ALITHORIZED SIGNATBfBE ,j NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF SNVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION SPECIAL CONDITIONS I. Any work, disturbance, and storage of construction materials shall be confined to within the 'Ltm't of C earing and Ground Disturbance" as shown on the approved plan. 2. Prior to commencement of any construction activities, a continuous row of straw bales shall be staked end to end aiong the upland edcfe of the buffer zone. ~h~ bales snalJ be maintained, repaired and replaced as oftem as necessary to ensure proper function, until all disturbed areas are permanently vegetated. The average useful life of a bate is approximately 3-4 months Sediments trapped bytlqe bales shall be removed to an approved upland iocation before the bales themselves are removed. 3. Straw bales shall be recessed two to four inches into the ground. 4. Any demolition debris, excess construction materials, and/or excess excavated materials shall be immediately and completely disposed of on an approved upland site more than 100 feet from any regulated freshwater wetland. These materials shall be suitably stabilized so as not to re-enter any water body, wetland, or wetland adjacent area. 5. All fill shall consist of clean soil, sand and/or gravel that is free of the foltowmg substances: asphalt, slag, flyash, broken concrete, demolition debris, garbage, household refuse, tires, woody materials including tree or landscape debris, and metal objects. The introduction of materials toxic to aquatic life is expressly prohibited. 6. Ti~e driveway must be surfaced with a permeable material. 7 All equipment and machinery shall be stored and safely contained greater than 100 feet landward of the regulated wetland or water body at the end of each work day. This will serve to avoid the inadvertent leakage of deleterious substances into the regulated area. Fuel or other chemical storage tanks shall be contained and located at all times in an area greater than 100 feet landward of the regulated wetland or water body. If the above requirement cannot be met by the permit'tee, then the storage areas must be desinned to completely contain any and all potential leakage. Such a containment system must beaeproved ' ~ ~ · · by N/SDEC s~af, prior to equipment, machinery or tank storage within 100 feet of the regulated wetland or water body, 8. All areas of soil disturbance resulting from this project shall be seeded with an appropriate perennial grass, and mulched with straw ~mmediately upon completion of the project, within two (2) days of final grading, or by the expiration of the permit, whichever is first Mulch shall be maintained until a suitable veeetative cover is established. If seeding is impracticable due to the time of year, a temporary mulch shall be apptied ~nd final seeding shall be performed as soon as weather conditions favor germination and growth. 9. Suitable vegetative cover is defined as a minimum of 85% area vegetative cover with contiguous unvegetated areas no larger than 1 square foot in size. 10. Within ninety (90) calendar days of the effective date of this permit, Permittee shall incorporate the following language as a notice covenant and deed restriction to the deed of the subject parcel: 'Tl~s covenant shall serve as notification that tile pl-ope~ty sssoc~a,,ed will7 ;eguiated freshwater wetlands SO-5, is located on or near the properties of Gregory Mazzanobile and his heirs, assigns or successors as described in the Suffolk County Tax Map as District 1000, Section 59, Block 1, Lot 21.6, 21.7, located on Lake Drive in Southold, New t/cfi,., a nd is ti~erefore subject to cun-ent environmental conservation laws regarding the conduct of rog u~ated activities on such proparty Wlhereas, it is the responsibility of the owner of the property to obtain a current description of all regulated activities from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ("NYSDEC") or its successor organization for the purpose of determining what is considered a regulated activity. Performance of any regulated activity will require prior approval by ti~e NVSDES or its successol Whereas, the 50 foot area landward of the wetland boundary as shown on the attaci~ed survey and described as qon-d sturbance buffer, wilt be preserved and will remain undisturbed and in natural vegetation in peroetuity Tt~e folk~wIDg activiiies Ih the ~ - . preserveo a materials or debris, g, au~n9, Il ~r g, co ~strucuo ~, erectloh of any structures, and use of the area for the storage of DEC PERMIT NUMBER l-z, 7:,~-03c320/00002 NE~¢ YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION SPECIAL CONDITIONS The foregoing covenants shall run with the land and are binding on this owner and his heirs and assigns, forever." Within ninety (90) calendar days of the effective date of this Permit, the Permittee shall have said notise covenant and deed restriction recorded with t~e Clerk of Suffolk County. Within thirty (30) calendar days of the effective date of the filling with the county clerk, a copy of the notice covenant and deed restriction or other acceptable proof of record, along with the number assigned to the permit, shall be sent to: NYSDEC, Regional Manager BOH, SUNY Building 40, Stony Brook, NY 11790-2356. Any violation of these restrictions, covenants, and aareements shall cause the violatoL in addition to any fines, penalties, and/or forfeitu res prescribed by law, to pay f~)r any and all reasonable legal fees and expenses incurred by any party in enforcing the covenants, restrictions, and agreements contained herein. Failure to comply with the filing of the above covenant and restrictions may result in permit revocation and/or the assessment of financial penalties against the applicant. DEC r'ERMIT NUMBER '-473['-03032/00001 YORk ~TA i ~ D.--PARTMENm Or ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION , ADD;TIONAL GENERAL CONDITIONS FOR ARTICLES 1~; (TITLE 5), 24, 26, 34 AND 6NYCRR PART 608 ( FRESHWATSR WETLANDS ) If future operations by the State of New York require an alteration in the position of the structure or work herei,~ authorized, or if, in the opinion of the Department of Environmental Conservation it shall cause unreasonable obstruction to the free navigation of said waters or flood flows or endanger the health, safety or welfare of the people of the State, or cause loss or destruction of the natural resources of the State, the owner may be ordered by the Department to remove or alter the structural work, obstructions, or hazards caused ther:by without expanse To the State, and if, upon the expiration or revocation of this permit, the structure, fill, excavation, or other modification of the watercourse hereby authorized shalt not be completed, the owners, shall, without expense to the State, and to such extent and in such time and manner as the Department of Environmental Conservation may require, remove alt or any portion of the uncompleted structure Or fill and restore to its former condition the navigable and flood capacity of the watercourse. No claim shall be made against the State of New York on account of any such removal or alteration. The State of New York shall in no case be liable for an!/ damage or injury to the structure or work herein authorized which may be caused by or result from future operations undertaken by the State for the conservation or improvement of navigation, or for other purposes, and no claim or right to compensation shall accrue from any such damage. 3. Granting of this permit does not relieve the applicant of the responsibility of obtaining any other permission, consent or approval from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Coast Guard, New York State Office of General Services or local government which may be required. 4. All necessary precautions shall be taken to preclude contamination of any wetland or waterway by suspended solids, sediments, fuels, solvents, lubricants, epoxy coatings, paints, concrete, leachate or any other environmentally deleterious materials associated with the project. 5. Any material dredged in the conduct of the work herein permitted shall be removed evenly, without leaving large refuse piles, ridges across the bed of a waterway or floodplain or deep holes that may have a tendency to cause damage to navigable channels or to the banks of a waterway. 6. There shalt be no unreasonable interference with navigation by the work herein authorized. 7. If upon the expiration or revocation of this permit, the project hereby authorized has not been completed, the applicant shall, without expense to the State, and to such extent and in such time and manner as the Department of Environmental Conservation may require, remove alt or any portion of the uncompleted structure or fill and restore the site to its former condition. No claim shall be made aqainst the State of New York on account of any such removal or alteration. ~ if granted under 6NYCRR Part 608. the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation hereby certifies that the subject project will no'. contravene effluent limitations or oti}er limitations or standards under Sections 301,302, 303,306 and 307 of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (PL 95-217) provided that all of the conditions listed herein are met. 9 At least 48 hours prior to commencement of the prolect' the permittee and contractor shall sign and return the top portion of the enclosed notification form certifying that they are fully aware of and understand all terms and conditions of this permit. Within 30 days of completion of proiect, the bottom portion of the form must also be signed and returned, along with photographs of the completed work and, if required, a survey. 10. All activities auti~orized by this permit must be in strict conformance with the approved plans submitted by the applicant or his agent as part of the permit application. Such approved survey was prepared by Josen~h tnqe~ ~o 3/28/02 lasl revised 7/7/0z,. DEC PERMIT NUMBEF' 1-4738-03032/00001 NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION NOTIFICATION OF OTHER PERMfTTEE OE;LIGATI3NS P_rrnI~ Ac~_~.,= Legal Responsibility and Agrees to Indemnification The permit[ee expressly agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Department of Environmental Conservation of the State of New York, its representatives, employees, and agents ("DEC") for all claims, suits, actions, and damages, to the extent attributable to the permittee's sc~,s o~ omissions in connection with the permittee's unde~a~mg of activities m connection with, or operation and maintenance of, the facility or facilities authorized by the permit whether in compliance or not in compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit, This indemnification does not extend to any claims, suits, actions, or damages to the extent attributable to DEC's own negligent or intentional acts or omissions, orte any claims, suits or actions naming the DEC and arising under article 78 of the New York Civil Practice Laws and Rules or any citizen suit or civil rights provision under federal or state laws. Item B: Permittee's Contractors to Comply with Permit The permittee is responsible for informing its independent contractors, employees, agents and assigns of their responsibility to comply with this permit, including ali special conditions while acting as the permittee's agent with respect to the permitted activities, and such persons shall be subject to the same sanctions for violations of the Environmental Conservation Law as those prescribed for the permittee, Item C: Permittee Responsible for Obtaining Other Required Permits Ti~e permittee is responsible for obtaining any other permits, approvals, lands, easements and rights-of-way that may be required to carry out the activities that are authorized by this permit, Item D: No Right to Trespass or Interfere with Riparian Rights This permit does not convey to the permittee any right to trespass upon the lands or interfere with the riparian rights of others in order to perform the permitted work nor does it authorize the impairment of any rights, title, or interest in real or personal property held or vested in a person not a party to the permit. GENERAL CONDITIONS General Condition 1: Facility Inspection by the Department Tiqe permitted site or facility, including relevant records, is subject to inspection at reasonable hours and intervals by an authorized representative of the Department of Environmental Conservation (the Department) to determine whether the permittee is complying with this permit and the ECL. Such representative may order the work suspended pursuant to ECL 7t-0301 and SAPA 401(3). The permittee shalt provide a person to accompany the Department's representative during an inspection to the permit area when requested by the Department, A copy of this permit, including all referenced maps, drawings and special conditions, must be available for inspection by the Department at all times at the project site or facility Failure to produce a copy of the permit upon request by a Department representative is a violation of this permit. General Condition 2: Relationship of tl~is Permit to Oti~er Department Orders and Determinations Unless expressly provided for by the Department, issuance of this permit does not modify, supersede or rescind any order or determination previously issued by the Department or any of the terms, conditions or requirements contained in such order or determination. General Condition 3: Applications for Permit Renewals or Modifications The permittee must submit a separate written application to the Department for renewal, modification or transfer of this permit. Such application must include any forms or supplemental information the Department requires ,Any renewal, modification or transfer granted by the Department must Pe in writing The permittee must submit a renewal application at least: a) 180 days before expiration of permits for State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES), Flazardous Waste Management Facilities (HWMF) maior Air Pollution Control (APC) and Solid Waste Manaoement Facilities ~SWMr~, and - b) 30 days before expiration of all other permit types. Submission of applications for permit renewal or modification are to be submitted to: NYSDEC Regional Permit Administrator, Region 1, SUNY Bldg #40, Stony Brook, NY 117D0-2356 General Condition 4: Permit IViodifications, Suspensions and Revocations by the Depart~nent Tbs Department reserves he r ghl tn modify suspend or revoke this permil in accordance with 6 NYCRR Part 821 Tlhe grounds a) materially false or inaccurate statements in lhe permit application or suppoding papers; b) failure by the permittse to comply with any terms or conditions of the permit; c/ exceeding the scope of the projecl as described in tbs permit application; Conservation Law oJ regulations of the Department related to the permitteci activity i 1-473E)-03032/00001 PAGE 5 OF 5 r~ ~ ~.,= ~j~. L;UMMENCEMENT O: CONSTRU3T1ON RETURN THIS FORi"~ TO: CDb?LiANCE Bureau of Nabita~ NYSDEC Building 40 - SUNY ~ ~ Stony Brook, N~ 11790-2356 PERMIT NUMBER: 1-~' ' ~'-~' -' ~ - i PROJECT LOCATION/ADDRESS: FAX TO: 631-444-0272 CONTRACTOR NAME: ADDRESS: TELEPHONE; Dear Sir: Pumuant to Genera/Condition # 9 of the referenced perm t, you are hereby notified that the authorized activity shall commence on · We certify that we have read the referenced permit and approved plans and fully understand the authorized project and all permit conditions· We have inspected the proiect site and can complete the proiect as described in the permit and as depicted on the approved plans. We can do so in full compliance with all plan notes and permit conditions. The permit sign, permit and approved plans will be available at the site for inspection in accordance with general Condition Ne. 1. (Both signatures required) PERMITEE DATE CONTRACTOR DATE THIS NOTIOE MUST BE SENT TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS A T LEAST TWO DA YS PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE PROJECT AND fOR ANY ASSOCIATED REGULATED ACTIVITIES. FAILURE TO RETURN THIS NOTICE, POST THE PERMIT SIGN, OR HAVE THE PERMIT AND APPROVED PLANS A VAIl_ABLE A T THE WORK SITE FOR THE DURA TION OF THE PROJECT MA Y SUBJECT THE PERMITTEE AND/OR CONTRACTOR TO APPLIOABLE SANCTIONS AND PENAL TIES FOR NON-COMPLIANCE WITH PERMIT CONDITIONS. 3ut along this line ~< NOT CE OF COMPLET ON OF CONSTRUCTION ............................................... ~tETURN THIS FORM TO: COMPLIANCE OR FAX TO: 631-444-0272 Bureau of Habitat NYSDEC Building 40 - SUNY Stony Brook, NY 11790-2356 =ERMIT NUMBER: }ROJECT LOCATION/ADDRESS: ~OI4TRACTOR NAME: ISSUED TO: ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: )ear Sir: ~ursuant to General Condition # 9 of the referenced permit, you are hereby notified that the authorized activity was completed on . We have fully complied with the terms and conditions of the permit and approved plans. (Both eignatures required/ PERMITEE DATE CONTRACTOR DATE 'HI&' NOTICE, [4qTH PHOTOGRAPH& OF ~ H& COMF'~-E ~ cu WOe:r, ,,~vu;O¢~ A OOM,~LETED SURVEt/, AS APPROPRIATE, MUST BE ~ENT TO THE ABOVE ADDRE3S WITHIN 30 DA YS OF COMPLETION OF THE ~ROJECT New York State Department of Environmental Conservation NOTICE The Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has issued permit(s) pursuant to the Environmental Conservation Law for work being conducted at this site. For further information regarding the nature and extent of the approved work and any Department conditions applied to the approval, contact the Regional Permit Administrator listed below. Please refer to the permit number shown when contacting the DEC. Permit Number Expiration Date /Regional Permit Administrator NOTE: This notice is NOT a permit '%. TEST NOLE DATA S URWE:Y OF LOTS 6, & ? SUBDMSION ~fAP FOR ~oNSTA/q ~INE ~ GEORGiOPOULO~ SITUATED AT SOUTHOLD TOWN OF $OUTNOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK S.C. TAX No. 1000-59-0!-21.6 1 000-59-01-21.7 SCALE 1 "=50' MARCH 28, 2002 JULY lg, 2002 ADDED WETL~DS RETAINING FALL DESIGN BK' PROPOSED SEPTIC SYSTEM DETAIL . ~. ,, '~ Joseph A. ingegno Land Surveyor ,/ SURVEY OF LOTS 6 & 7 SUBDIVISION MAP FOR o, CONSTANTINE P. GEORGIOPOULOS SITUA TED A T SOUTHOLD TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK S.C. TAX No. 1000-59-01-21.6 ,o72-s?-ol-21 TEST HOLE DATA SCALE 1 e~lX~LGEt:~3~tIZ ~ ~aeu~rr 2& ~) MARCH 28, 2002 AREA = 80,154.86 SCl. fi./ ~ SE,~TiC SYS~E~ m~, RETAINING WALL DESIGN BY: JOSEPH FISCHETTI, PE 1725 HOBART ROAD SOUTHOLD, NY 11971 631-765-2954 PROPOSED SEPTIC SYSTEM DETAIL Joseph A. Ingegno Land Surveyor JAN ! 9 2005 Southold Town Board of Trustees SURVEY OF LOTS 6 & 7 SUBDMSION MAP I~0~ CONSTANTINE P. G~ORGIOPOULOS ~A~D AT SOU~O~ TOWR OF SOUTHOLO SUFFOLK COUNW, R~ YORK S.C. TAX No. 1~0-5~-01-21.6 1 ~0-59-01-2~ .~ PROPOSED SEPTIC SYSTEM ' .. --~,~. ~ " ~ ~ ,. ~ ~~., ~ ~, ,. ~ Joseph A. Ingegno Land Surveyor /~ON[ (~1)727-2010 // Fqx (6~1)~27-i727 LOT ~ T S D A SURVEY OF LOTS 6 & 7 SUBDIVISION MAP FOR CONSTANTINE P. GEORGIOPOULOS SITUATED AT SGUTHOLD TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK S.C. TAX No. 1OOO-59-01-21.6 1000-59-01-21.7 SCALE 1 "=50' MARCH 28, 2002 PROPOSED SEPTIC SYSTEM DET/ ,JAN 2 1 2004 AREA = 80,154.86 sq. ft. 1.840 ac. SEPTIC SYSTEM & RETAINING FALL DESIGN BY: JOSEPH FISCHETTh PE 1725 HOBART ROAD SOUTHOLD, NY 11971 6.31-765-2954 SEPTIC TANK Southold Town Board of Trustees Joseph A. Ingegno Land Surveyor PHONE (651)727-2090 Fax (651)727-1727 James F. King, President Jill M. Doherty, Vice-President Peggy A. Dickerson Dave Bergen Bob Ghosio, Jr. Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE OFFICE OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES 72 HOURS PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE WORK, TO MAKE AN APPOINTMENT FOR A PRE-CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION. FAILURE TO DO SO SHALL BE CONSIDERED A VIOLATION AND POSSIBLE REVOCATION OF THE PERMIT. INSPECTION SCHEDULE J Pre-construction, hay bale line 1st day of construction % constructed Project complete, compliance inspection. Kenneth E. Richter Arline Richter 625 Lake Drive PO Box 449 Southold, NY 11971 September 21, 2006 Southold Town Trustees SEP 21 2006 Southold, New York, 11971 re: Mazzanobile v. Southold Town Trustess Dear Southold Town Trustees: We respectfully request that you appeal the recent State Supreme Court decision against the Trustees in their denial of Gregory Mazzanobile's wetland permit. We believe the Trustees were working with the best interests of the Town's resources in mind, and their decision to preserve a globally rare wetland and dune area conforms to the preservation policies of the Town Board as well as the citizens of Southold. Since the Trustees' decision last year, the subject parcel as well as 10 adjacent lots has been included in the newly designated NY Dept. of State Goldsmiths Inlet and Beach significant habitat. Suffolk County has made offers of purchase to all willing owners of these lots. Also, Southold's Local Waterfront Revitalization Program was certified. Rarely has policy, law, government and community activism coincided so uniformly behind a preservation effort. It would be a privilege if our generation could share this great resource with our present and future citizens. Appealing the Court's decision is crucial to the success of that effort. Sincerely, Kenneth E. Richter Arline Richter 2001 Ortho Vertical Photograph 2002 SCTM 01/07 '05 FRI 12:55 FAX $31 REGm-r/tAR OF VITAL 9TATISTIC,8 KECOP, I~ M.A.NAOEME~T OFFICER FREEDOM OF II~ORMATION OFFICER 6145 $0UT~OLD TOWN CLERK Town Hall. 53O95 Main Read P.O, Box 1179 8mlthold, New york 11971 Fax (632) 765-6145 Telephone (632) 765-1800 southoldtown.nortlffork-uet ~OOl OFFICE OF 'r~lE TOWN CLERK ToWN OF sOUTHOLD APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC ACCESS TO RECORDS INSTRUCTIONS: Please complete Section I of this form and give to Town Clerk's Office (agency Freedom of Information Officer). One copy will be returned to you in response to your request, or as an interim response. (l~epartment Or Officer, if known, that has the information you are requ?ting:) RECORD YOU WISH TO INSPECT: (Describe the record sought. If possible, supply date, file title, tax map number, and any other pertinent information.) Mailing Address (if different from above): Telephone Number: '-~ ~'-'-J ~ ~ Date: JpaD uao, l. plOqlao~ [ ] APPROVED [ ] APPROVED WITH DELAY* [ ] DENIED* Elizabeth A, Neville Freedom of Information Officer * If delayed or denied see reverse side for explanation. H~Y. 5,2005 4:11PN HEFTER 9NGEL NO.29G P.2 ~5~£K,~, HEF'TER & ANG£L (~31) ~6~-~ 7OO M~ 5, 2005 Southold Town Trustees Town Hall 53095 Route 25, P. O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 - Via Fax 765-6641 Re: Application of Gregory Mazzanobile- Permit No. 5631 Dear Trustees: MAY - 6 2005 -- $ou~hold Board of Trustees As you know, we represent the applicant in the above-captioned matter. I understand that the application was denied at the last Trustees' meeting, and that our client h~s been requesting a copy of the transcript of the proceedings which resulted in thc denial. Please provide a copy of this Iransefipt as soon as possible. We are p~pared to pick it up immediately if you call our office. SRA:md Gregory Mazzanobile - Via Fax yours, Albert J. Krupski, President James King, Vice-President Attic Foster Ken Poliwoda Peggy A. Dickerson Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971~0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD May 18, 2005 James E. Fitzgerald P.O. Box 617 Cutchogue, NY 11935 Re: GREGORY MAZZANOBILE 1300 & 1460 LAKE DRIVE, SOUTHOLD SCTM# 59-1-21.6, 21.7 Dear Mr. Fitzgerald: Please be advised that the following resolution was presented, seconded, and passed on April 20, 2005 by the Southold Board of Town Trustees, regarding the above referenced property: "On this date, April 20, resolve that the Board of Trustees DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE the application of Gregory Mazzanobile for an Amendment to Permit #5631 to eliminate the swimming pool and move the proposed sanitary system leaching pools three feet further fi.om the wetlands line. AND THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees hereby REVOKE Permit #5631 for the house, decks, swimming pool and septic system that was issued on September 25, 2002 since the time of the issuance of that permit, the Board of Trustees has been made available of new information, not available to it at the time of the issuance of the prior permit, demonstrating that the proposed sanitary system and the house will have a significant adverse impact on an existing Cranberry Bog and surrounding habitat. Also according to Section 97-27 A (7) of the Town Code of the Town of Southold, the Board of Trustees is protecting a critically environmental area as defined in Section 97- 11. The facts and the understanding of how the project will affect the area as a whole were very important in the decision to present this resolution. The Board has discussed other alternatives to the site. The Board has visited the site numerous times and looked at alternatives as far as this application goes and as far as the previously approved permit goes, as far as location or size of the house. The Board has looked at alternatives; however, the Board felt for this project it was best to revoke the permit because of all the new information that came in after the Permit 5631 had been issued. This motion is made to deny without prejudice, which means that the applicant may resubmit for the same or a different proposal for this location at any time, and it would be reviewed from the beginning, and with all the information that had come in included in that review." Please contact this office with any further questions regarding the above referenced application. Sincerely, Heather Tetrault Environmental Technician Cc: Gregory Mazzanobile, VIA FAX E. Brownell Johnston Kieran Corcoran Albert J. Krupski, President James King, Vice-President Artie Foster Ken Poliwoda Peggy A. Dickerson Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 April 20, 2005 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD James E. Fitzgerald P.O. Box 617 Cutchogue, NY 11935 Re: GREGORY MAZZANOBILE 1300 & 1460 LAKE DRIVE, SOUTHOLD SCTM # 59-1-21.6, 21.7 Dear Mr. Fitzgerald: The Board of Trustees took the following action during its regular meeting held on Wednesday, April 20, 2005 regarding the above matter: WHEREAS, James E. Fitzgerald as agent for GREGORY MAZZANOBILE applied to the Southold Town Trustees for an amendment to a permit under the provisions of the Wetland Ordinance of the Town of Southold, application dated September 29, 2004, and WHEREAS, said application was referred to the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council for their findings and recommendations, and, WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held by the Board of Trustees with respect to said application on January 19, 2005 at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard, and, WHEREAS, the Board members have personally viewed on multiple occasions 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 application does not comply with the standards set forth in Chapter 97 of the Southold Town Code, and, WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees has requested the applicant to further amend the application in order to mitigate its effect on the critical environmental area, and, WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the project as proposed will affect the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the Town, WHEREAS, specifically, it is found that the permit that was granted on September 25, 2002 was prior to the revisions of Chapter 97, the Wetland Code for the Town, and, WHEREAS, the subject property is located in a globally ram natural plant community, a maritime freshwater interdunal wetland swale, and, WHEREAS, this interdunal swale habitat is a distinct ecosystem that is seasonally flooded, a dynamic system that is susceptible to saltwater intrusion and shifting sand formation, and, WHEREAS, an interdunal swale forms a distinct ecosystem, that occurs sporadically along the Atlantic coast and consists of seasonally flooded depressions that occur in the back dunes and contain rare plants, recharge areas for groundwater, and amphibian habitats, and, WHEREAS, the interdunal swale is a globally rare habitat, as defined by the October 8, 2004 report prepared by Greg Edinger, Program Ecologist, New York Natural Heritage Program, titled NY Natural Heritage Program Review of Natural Communities Reported at Great Pond Wetlands and Dunes, and in order to protect this unique habitat the setbacks set out in the Town Code must be followed, and, WHEREAS, listed in the purpose and goals of Chapter 97 Wetlands are lands and submerged lands commonly called bogs, containing bog mat vegetation including cranberries (Vaccinium sp.), and other fresh water wetland systems, and, WHEREAS, these wetland systems are typically found within and comprise an interdunal swale ecosystem, and, WHEREAS, the purpose of Chapter 97 is to ensure for the residents of the Town of Southold the protection and preservation of these wetlands and that their values, including protection of groundwater, flood control, and plant and wildlife habitat, shall be harmed by the development as proposed in the application, and, WHEREAS, Chapter 97. Section 12B.of the Southold Town Code mandates the prevention of the loss or degradation of critical wildlife and plant habitat, and, WHEREAS, the minimum setbacks to ensure protection of these wetlands are 100 feet for a residence and 100 feet for leaching pools, and, WHEREAS, according to past aerial photography and historical information the groundwater table experiences seasonal fluctuations and the size of the wetlands increase with the movement of groundwater, and, WHEREAS, the subject property has been identified by Eric Lamont in an independent study titled Botanical Report, August 2004, Preliminary Environmental Assessment of the "Great Ponds Wetland and Dunes" Southold, NY as a maritime freshwater interdunal swale, and, WHEREAS, the subject property contains the rare Iris prismatica, and, WHEREAS, the subject property contains maritime dunes that are designated as State Rare by the New York State Natural Heritage Program, and, WHEREAS the New York State Natural Heritage program has issued a publication in which interdunal swales are listed as priority habitats for conservation, and, WHEREAS, the standard setbacks that are normally sufficient for protecting wetland areas are not sufficient for this habitat where it is a rare community, shaped by the winds with the movement of sand and vegetation that the level of disturbance is greater from any development, and, WHEREAS, the disturbance of swales and the surrounding dunes will often lead to invasion by the common reed (European Phragmites) and Purple Loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), and the nutrient enrichment from runoff from lawns and septic systems greatly accelerate invasion by these species, and these plants are found in that area now and more impacts will support a monoculture of Phragmites and a loss of valuable wetland species, and, WHEREAS, information from the town's Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan, including Section (ii) Flooding and (iv) Areas of Special Concern, identify this location as a primary area of concern for erosion, environmental protection, and protection of habitat and wetlands, and, WHEREAS, according to Section 97-27 A (7) of the Town Code of the Town of Southold, the Board of Trustees is empowered to protect a critical environmental area as defined in Section 97-11, NOW THEREFORE BE iT RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE the application of Gregory Mazzanobile for an Amendment to Permit #5631 to eliminate the swimming pool and move the proposed sanitary system leaching pools three feet further from the wetlands line. AND THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees hereby REVOKE Permit #5631 for the house, decks, swimming pool and septic system that was issued on September 25, 2002 since the time of the issuance of that permit, the Board of Trustees has been made available of new information, not available to it at the time of the issuance of the prior permit, demonstrating that the proposed sanitary 4 system and the house will have a significant adverse impact on an existing Cranberry Bog and surrounding habitat. Also according to Section 97-27 A (7) of the Town Code of the Town of Southold, the Board of Trustees is protecting a critically environmental area as defined in Section 97- 11. The facts and the understanding of how the project will affect the area as a whole were very important in the decision to present this resolution. The Board has discussed other alternatives to the site. The Board has visited the site numerous times and looked at alternatives as far as this application goes and as far as the previously approved permit goes, as far as location or size of the house. The Board has looked at alternatives; however, the Board felt for this project it was best to revoke the permit because of all the new information that came in after the Permit 5631 had been issued. This motion is made to deny without prejudice, which means that the applicant could resubmit for the same or a different proposal for this location at any time, and it would be reviewed from the beginning, and with all the information that had come in included in that review. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this determination should not be considered a determination made for any other Department or Agency, which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. Very truly yours, Albert J. Krupski, Jr. President, Board of Trustees AJK: hct Cc," E. Brownell Johnston, Esq. Kieran Corcoran, Esq. Stephen Angel, Esq. The Suffolk Times · April 28, Wetlands permit pulled Trustees say no for parcel near pond SOUTHOLD In another big step towards preserving a rare wet- lands ecosystem, the Southold Trust- ees voted unanimously last Wednes- day to revoke a building permit is- sued in 2002 on a double lot in the Great Pond area. In its decision, the Trustees board cited new information about thc en- vironmental sensitivity of the sandy area, which recently was added to the town's land preservation wish list. Area residents who've urged the protection of the area's remain- ing open space welcomed the vote. "This is an unusual, upstanding de- cision, and we thank the trustees for all their hard work." said Lillian Ball of the Great Pond Wetland Pres- ervation Committee. a grass-roots group of Kenney's Beach residents that is working with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. state, county and town agencies, and reaching out to landowners, to preserve an area of about 12 acres. The permit for a lot bordered by Lake Drive and Leeton Drive was issued to Gregory Mazzanobile. a prospective buyer. The land is owned by a member of the Geor- gioupolis family, according to the permit records. Mr. Mazzanobile Southold land pres- ervatlon coordinator Mbllssa Splm with map of the Great Ponds wetlands area In Southold duflng a recent public hearing on the town's plan to add the acreage to Its preservation wish Ilat. Suffolk Times photo by Tim Kelly torn was available for comment this week. The preservation group plans to approach the owner to work out an agreement, said Ms. Ball. The group understands that the property own- ers are concerned about receiwng a fair price for their lots. and esti- mates it may take as much as $2 mil- lion to preserve the whole piece, she added. Two weeks ago, the Town Board approved Southold's part of a three- way deal to prevent the development of a .72 acre corner lot. The Great Pond group raised money for the purchase, which was made through the Peconic Land Trust. At the same time. the Town Board added the Great Pond acreage to Southold Community Preservation Fund. a list of about 500 parcels that priori- tizes preservation efforts. Classified as "maritime dunes." and "maritime freshwater interdunal swales," the area is a type of ecosystem listed as rare in New York by the New York Natural Heritage Program. The sec- ond categor_ y is listed as globally rare. It's home to native cranberries, insect-eating sundew plants and a rare flower, the Iris prismatica. The site is part of a wetland system, that runs between Goldsmith's Inlet and Horton Point, and acts as a filter for t3reat Pond just to the south. · --4twemlolen Gromm~k It's like a Checking Now Earn Suddenl~ checking accounts aren't what they used to be. That's because Hudson City Savings Bank has done them one better with High Value CheckingTM. [f yon maintain a minimum balance of $20,000 in your High Value Checldng Account, you'll earn one of the highest interest rates on Long Island on your money. Yon'II also get unlimited check writing, no fees, ~ on-line bill paying and free wire services. Plus you'll receive extra interest on any number ~f our featured CDs. High Value Checking is for anyone who wants the convenience of one account and is tired of low or non-interest checking accounts at other banks. Stop by or call us for more information. Hudson City Savings Bank. Where we always give you great interest in any n .upaber of ways. 'Anmual Percentage Yield (APY) as of 4/8j05. $10,000 minimum balance ~quired to open an account. Rates subject to Orange without notice. Fee may affect earnings. $20 mo~ttdy fee on baisn~es below $20,000. Current balance tiers and variable interest rat~s ~tre: $0-19,999 = 2.00% APY; $20,000+ - 3.00% AIRY. CD interest rate borms offer is limited to featured accounts and may be withdrawn at alty time. Hmm ten Bays Now Main Road, $o~old at Feather Hill Hllag~ · (631) 765-4019 MOr~-IhVa~. 9 AM-~ PM . Fri. 9 AM-6 PM * SaL 9 AM-Noon 18 East Monta~k H~a~ay, Hampton Ba~s * t631) 728-3597 Mom-Thgrs. g AM-5 PM o Fri. 9 AM-6 PM o Sat. 9 AM-1PM ~o.hudsoncfl~savingsbank. cora HUDSONGITY SAVINGS BANK Bank on Better Valuer Margaret DeLuca From: Sent: To: Subject: Margaret DeLuca Thursday, Apd114, 2005 1:00 PM 'gregory.mazzanobile@thomson.com' Application Dear Greg: Attached is a draft of a letter I intend to deliver to the Board of Trustees and the Board's counsel. Let me know if you have any comments. Sincerely, Stephen R. Angel DOCS-205755-v1-m Page 2 In the Matter of Stanley Friedenburg, etc., et al,respondents, v New York State Department of Environmental Conservation,appellant. (Index No. 95-11124) 2001-05219 SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK. APPELLATE DIVISION, SECONDDEPARTMENT 3 A.D.3d 86; 767 N.Y.S.2d 451; 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS12447 October 3, 2002, Argued November 24, 2003, Decided APR 14 NOT1CE: [***1] THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING THE RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION. SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: As Corrected March 16, 2004. PR1OR HISTORY: APPEAL by the New York State Deparuuent of Enviroitmental Conservation in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review a determination of file Commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, dated April 14, 1995, which denied the petitioners' application for a tidal wetlands permit, from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Harry E. Seidell, J.), entered January 25, 2001. in Suffolk County, wlfich, inter alia, determined that the Commissioner of the New York State Depamnent of Environmental Conservation's detenrdnation constituted the equivalen! of a taking without compensation. Friedenburg v. Nevi York ,5'tote Dep'! qf Em,il. Consem~ation, 240 A.D. 2d 407, 658 N.l%'.2d 643, 1997 N.~5 App. Div. LF~VI,¥ 5768 (N.I( App. DiK 2d Dep't, 1997) CASE SUMMARY: PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Petitioners, an estate administrator and others, sought lo lmve defendant New York State Department of Environmental Couservation's denial of a wetlands permit be regarded as a talcing of property without just compensation, and an order, pursuant to N.K Envtl. Conserv. Law .~ 25-0404, for condemnation proceedings. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County (New York), found that a taking without just compensation had occurred. The Department appealed. OVERVIEW: The decedent owned the land parcel prior to the enactment of the Tidal Wetlands Act, N.Y. Envtl. Conserv. Law art. 25, ch. 790 (1973). The appellate court held flint that the Department's denim of a penmt for a single family dwelling did not constitute a categorical or per se taking of petitioners' property because it was conceded that the property retained at least a five pement residuary value. However, petitioners demonstrated a taking, as they established beyond a reasonable doubt thal the regulation and denial of the permit destroyed all but a bare residue of the economic value of the property. The Deparunent failed to rebut the appraiser's pm-regulation value as $665,000. It was determined that file residual property value was $31,500. Thus~ there was a 95 pement reduction in value. Further, file Department's legitimate masons for regulating tidal wetlands did not prevent petitioners from succeeding on the takings claim. Nor was there a finding of reciprocity of advantage or shared benefit, as petitioners were lefl with a situation where their only viable choice was to leave the proper~ in its natural stale. OUTCOME: The judgment of the trial coutt was affirmed. 3 A.D.3d 86, *; 767 2003 N.Y. App. Div. CORE TERMS: regulation, wetland, parcel, tidal, categorical, regulatory taking, properly owner, market value, landowner, water, catwalk, dock, economically beneficial, economic impact, regulated, beyond a reasonable doubt, installation, appraiser, landward, mooring, storage, subject parcel, balmming test, single fmnily, per se role, reciprocity, tantamount, deprives. acquire, septic LexisNe,-ds(R) Headnotes Enviro~mlental Law: Natural Resources & Public Lands: Wetlands Management [HN1] The New York Legislature Ires enacted strict guidelines for file application and granting of permits to landowners who wish to conduct regulmed activities in and around inveutoried wetlands. Euviromnental Law: Natural Resources & Public Lands: Wetlands Management [HN2] Any person aggrieved by the issuance, denial, suspension, or revocation of a permit may obtain judicial review pursuant to N.Y. Event. Conserv. Law § 25- 0404. Environmental Law: Zoinng & Land Use: Eminent Domain Proceedings Enviromnental Law: Natural Resources & Public Lands: Wetlands Mmlagement [HN3] See N.Y. Event. Conserv. Law ~ 25-0404. Environmental Law: Zoning & Land Use: Eminen! Domain Proceedings [HN4] Where mgulatary actions restrict the ability of a landowner to enjoy its property, judicial review follows a two-step process. If the court finds that file pemfit denial is supported by substantial evidence, then a second determination is made in the same proceeding to determine whether the restriction constitutes an unconstitutional taking requiriug compensation. Environmental Law: Zoniug & Land Use: Eminen! Domain Proceedings [HNS] A landowner who claims that land regulation has effected a taking of his property, bears the heavy, burden of overcoming the presumption of constituliomdity thai attaches to the regulation and proving every element of his claim beyond a reasonable donbt. Environmental Law: Zoning & Land Use: Eminen! Domain Proceedings [HN6] Although regulatory rakings jurisprodence has traditionally eschewed any se! formula preferring to engage in essentially ad hoc, lhctmtl inquiries, there are at least two "categories" of regulatory action that require Page 3 N.Y.S.2d 451, **' LEXIS 12447, *** compensation without case-specific inquiry advanced in support of the restraint. Tile first category is a physical invasion of the properly. The second category is where regulation denies all economically beneficial or productive use of land. When the owner of real property has been called upon to sacrifice all economically beneficial uses in the name of the common good, that is, to leave Ihs (or her) property economically idle, he (or she) has suffered a taking. In such a situation, a categorical taking is found without regard to file government's justifications for the regulation. Environmental Law: Zoning & Land Use: Eminent Domain Proceedings [HN7] The United States Supreme Court has clarified the distinction between a physical taking and a regulatory taking, and limited a Lucas analysis to extraordinary circarnstmlces in wltich the government deprives a property owner of all economic uses. The basis for this distinction is found in the text of file Fiffi~ Amendment. lts plain lm~gnage requires the payment of compensation whenever the government acquires private property for a public purpose, whether the acquisition is the result of a condenmation proceeding or a physical appropriation. But the Uaited States Constitution contains no comparable reference to regulations thai prohibit a property owner from making certain uses of his or her private property. Constitutional Law: Procedural Due Process: Eminent Domain & Takings Environmental Law: Zoning & Land Use: Eminent Domain Proceedings [HNS] In determining whether govermnent action ,affecting property is an unconstitutional deprivation of ownerslhp rights under the Just Compensation Clause, a court must interpret file word "taken." When the government condemns or physically appropriates the properly, the fact of a baking is typically obvious and undisputed. When, however, the owner contends a taking lms occurred because a law or regulation imposes restrictions so severe tllat they are tantamoum to a condemnation or appropriation, the predicate of a taking is not self-evident and the analysis is more complex. Constitutional Law: Procedural Due Process: Eminent Domain & Takings Environmental Law: Zoning & Land Use: Eminent Domain Proceedings [HN9I Physical takings are as "old as the Republic" mid, for the most part, involve file straightforward application of per se rules. Regtflatory takings jurisprodeuce, in contrast, is of more recent vintage and is characterized by essentially ad hoc, factual inquiries designed to allow careful examination and weighing of 3 A.D.3d 86, *; 767 N.Y.S.2d 451, **' 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12447, *** Page 4 all the relevant circumstances. It is inappropriate to treat cases involving physical takings as controlling precedents for the evaluation of a claim that there has been a regulatory taking; and vice versa. desigued to bar the government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens wltich, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole. Enviromnental Law: Zoning & Land Use: Eminent Donmin Proceedings [I-INI0] The categorical rule in Lucas was carved out for the "extmordina~ case" in wltich a regulation permanently deprives properly of all value; the default nde remains tlvat, in the regulatory, taking context, a court requires a more fact specific inquiry. Enviromnental Law: Zoning & Land Use: Eminent Domain Proceedings [HN11 ] An analysis of a regulmory taking spans both ends of a spectrum. At one end is a regulation that merely dimiulshes the value of the land requiring no compensation. At the other extreme is the regulation that results in a total deprivation in value, tantamount to a physical taking demanding just compensation. Environmental Law: Zoning & Land Use: Eminent Domain Proceedings [HNI2] When there is no per se taking, the courts are required to engage in ad hoc, factual inquiries. Where a per se taking is nol demonstrated, whether a taking has occurred may be detenniued by an examination of various factom such as those set forth in the Penn Central case: the economic impact of the regulation, the extetu to which the regulation has interfered with reasonable investment-backed expectations, and the character of the govermnental action. Environmental Law: Zoulng & Land Use: Eminent Domain Proceedings [HNI3] Regarding a taking, the value of the property ,'tiler the regulation depends on what remaining uses are available to the property owuers. In tnaking such a determinufion~ the court nmy look to the uses specified in the Spears leUer. However, a petitioner uray rebut the proposed list of uses. A landowner tuay be able to further limit the after-regulation uses proposed in a Spears lettur by proving that there is no reasonable probability that the local municipality would approve those uses. An owner is required to prove that relief from the zoning restrictian is not reasonably to be expected. Constitntioual Law: Procedural Dne Process: Eminent Domain & Takings [HNI4] The legitimacy of a governmental re~,mlation does not lead to the resull thai the governmetu has no obligation to pay compensation as a result of tha! regulation. The Fifth Amendment's guarantee is Constitutional Law: Procedural Due Process: Eminent Domain & Takings [HNI5] When there is reciprocity of advantage then the claim that the government has taken private property has little force: the claimant has in a sense been compensated by the public progrmn adjusting the benefits and burdens of economic life to promote the cmmnon good. Thus, shared economic impacts restflting from certain types of land use controls have been held to be non-compensable. Constitutional Law: Procedural Due Process: Eminent Domain & Takings [HNI6] That file purpose mid function of a regulatmy imposition is relevant to drawing the line between mere diminution and partial taking should not be read to suggest that when the goverurnent acts in pursuit of an important public purpose, its actions ,are excused from liability. To so hold would eviscerate the plain language of the Takings Clause, mid would be inconsistent with United States Supreme Court guidance. It is necessary that the govermnent act in a good cause, but it is not sufficient. The Takings Clause already assumes the government is acting in the public interest. Constitutional Law: Procedural Dne Process: Elrdnent Dmnaln & Takings [HNI7] See U.S. Const. mnend. V. Constitutional Law: Procedural Due Process: Eminent Domain & Takings [HN 18] As to a demonstration of loss of economic use to the property owner as a result of a regulatory impositioo, tim trial court must consider: whether there are direct compensating benefits accruing to the properly, and others similarly situaled~ flowing from the regulatory environment; whether there are any benefits, general and widely shared through the community and the society, while the costs are focused on a few; and whether alternative permitted activities ecooomically realistic in light of the setting and circumstances, and realistically available. In short, whether the government acted in a responsible way, limiting the constraints on properly ownership to those necessary to achieve the public purpose~ and not allocating to some manber of individuals, less than all. a burden that should be borne by all. Constitutional Law: Procedural Due Process: Eminent Domain & Takings 3 A.D.3d 86, *; 767 N.Y.S.2d 451, **' 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12447, *** Page 5 IHN19] When the impact ora regulation on a property owner is severe, it is less realistic to indulge the usual assumption that the legislature is simply adjusting the benefits and burdens of econmnic life in a manner that secures m~ average reciprocity of advantage to everyone concerned. COUNSEL: Eliot Spitzer, Attorney-General, New York, N.Y. (Gregory. J. Nolan. Marion R. Buchbinder, and Norman Spiegel of counsel), for appellm~t. Esseks, Hefter & ga~gel, Riverhead, N.Y. (Stephen R. Angel, Anthony C. Pasca, and Nica B. Strunk of counsel), for respondents. JUDGES: SONDRA MILLER, J.P., GABPI~L M. KRAUSMAN, GLORiA GOLDSTEIN, REINALDO E. RIVERA. JJ. KRAUSMAN, GOLDSTEIN and PIX/ERA, JJ., concur. OPINIONBY: SONDRA MILLER owned by her estate, under the control of the petitioners who are the executors thereof. It is generally acknowledged that at the time of purchase, the wetland areas on the property could legally have been filled in, and there were essentially no restrictions to prohibit the construction of a single family home. In 1973, New York State adopted tl~e Tidal Wetlands Act (Environmental Conservation Law Article 25, L 1973, ch 790). Pursuant thereto, the DEC determined flint virtually all of tile subject parcel should be designated as tidal wetlands. In or about 1987, the petitioners applied for a tidal wetlands pernut for the construction of a single family residence. After exlensive athninistrative proceedings, the DEC denied the application via a written decision dated April 14. 1995, because, inter alia, the septic system of the pmposed project would cause the release of sewage effluent containing pathogenic bacteria and viruses into the waters of Shiunecock Bay and into file nearby wetlands. OPINION: [*87] [**453] OPINION & ORDER S. MILLER, J. I**'2] P. This appeal presents us with the opportunity to address issues arising from the application of New York State wetlands regulations, as athninistered by the appellant, the New York State Department of Envimnmental Conservation (heroinafter the DEC), which have virtually eliminated the ability of the petitioners to utilize waterfront real property. The ultimate question to be answered is wbether the application of these regulations rises to the level of a taking, thereby requiring the payment of monetary. compensation. Under the circumstances of this case, we agree with the Snprelue Court that a taking has occurred. The parcel of real preperty al the center of file instant controversy is approximately 2.5 acres in area, located on the north side of Meadow Laoe in the Village of Southmnptoo. The property is situated within a residential zone, pursuant to the zoning ordinance of the Village of Southmnpton. The lot fronts upon the south shore of the Shim~ecock Bay and is immediately east of tile adjacent Southmnpton helicopter landing pad. All bula small upland portion of the parcel has been classified as tidal wetlands. 1'88] Insofar as relevant to this appeal, the property was purclmsed [***3]in 1962 by the late Gwendolyn Londino, who died on October 12, 1983. It is now Concomitantly, in October of 1989, the Village of Southampton adopted wetlands regulations as part of its zoning code[***4] in Article III(A) entitled "Wetlands." The wetlands code is administered by the Village's Zoning Board of Appeals (hereinafter the ZBA). Contemporaneous with the proceedings for a wetlands permit before the DEC, the petitioners applied for a Village wetlands permit. The ZBA denied die application without prejudice, on the ~ound that tile DEC's denial of the application for a State wetlm~ds permit precluded the ZBA from grauting approval for a Village permit (see ECL 25-030211]). II The petitioners thus commenced this pmceeding in 1995 for all order mmulling file DEC's April 14, 1995, delermtimtion m~d directing the issuance of the State wetlands permit. In the altenmtlve, the petitioners prayed~ inter alia, tlmt the DEC's action be regarded as a taking of property without just compensation, m~d thal pursuant to ECL 25-0404, the DEC be ordered to commence condemnation proceedings. The DEC moved to dis~niss the proceeding; the motion was denied by order of the Supreme Court dated February 1. 1996. [**454] For procedural reasons, this court modified the order ill (Matter ofFriedenburg v New Yorl; ,5'late Dept. qfl Em,ti. Conservation, 240 A.D.2d 407, 658 N. IL~.2d 643),}**'5] to the extent of dismissing file petitioner's[*89] cause of action seeking to amml the April 14, 1995, determination. However, this courl sustained the remainder of the petition, Page 6 3 A.D.3d 86, *; 767 N.Y.S.2d 451, **' 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12447, *** including the taking claims, finding that those clailns slated valid causes of action. On July 11, 1997, the DEC issued a letter pursuant to (Spears v Berle, 48 ~!~2d 254, 422 N.K,5k2d 636, 397 3~E. 2d 1304), according to which the DEC indicated it would permit the following activities on the property: "1. The uses listed in 6 NYCRR 66].5 as a use not requiring a permit (NPN) for a particular tidal wetland zone or adjacent area provided such activity does not iuvolve a regulated activity (see 6 NYCRR 66]. 7[a J); April 14, 1995, was $665,000, and after enforcement there was either no market value or the value was nominal. Haberman indicated that in determining the post-enfomement value, he considered the uses euumerated in the Spears letter but could find no competitive market for property with those limitations. Edward Deyermond, the Tax Assessor of the Town of Southampton, applying the equalization rate to the assessment in the Village of Southampton's memorandum of taxes, testified that the market value of the parcel was $802,208 in 1993, $674,396 in 1994, aud $664,761 in 1995. "2. Installation of a four foot wide catwalk and associated pier with a 6 X 20 foot floating dock for water/boat access to the waters of Shinnecock Bay subject to the submission of depth soundings to calculate where 3 foot mean low water is located * * * A floating dock and rmup can be used for mooring and docking up to tluree boats. The catwalk can extend approximately 380 feet from the tidal wetlands boundary to navigable water;I***6] "3. Installation of a 1,000 square foot pervious parking area parallel to Dune Road located 75 feet landward from the most landward edge of the tidal wetland; "4. Installation ora 225 square foot structure such as a deck. garage, gazebo or storage shed for storage of boating equipment and oilier items 75 feet landward from the most landward edge of the tidal wetlands boundary; "5. Permanent or seasonal mooring of a single family house boat at the dock described in # 2 above provided there is sufficient water depth and provided them is a demonstrated memos for handling septic and waste water via a commercial marina pumpoul facility or on-site portable pumpout; "6. Use as a parking or storage facility for the Village of Southampton's helicopter landing pad, subject to the conditions set forth iii Nos. 3 and 4 above." [*901 On Jm~uary i8. 2000. the Supreme Court denied the DEC's subsequem summary judgment motion. III A hearing was held on the petition iu the Supreme Court on April 3, 4, 6, and 7, 2000. Roeald Haberman, a licensed real estate appraiser testifying for the petitioners, stated that using a comparable sales approach the market value of the properly prior to etfforcement[***71 of the tidal wetlands regulations on Jotm Holden, a professional engineer, confirnled that a septic system to serve a home could be built on the property under pre- and post~1995 Suffolk County Health[**455] regulations. Anthony Tohill and Gilbert Flanagan, attorneys, testified that there was a great likelihood that local zoding approval to construct a house would be given to the petitioners ff the DEC issued a permit. Stanley Friedenberg, sued herein as Stanley Friedenburg, one of the executors for the estate of Gwendolyn Loudino, testified that during the time lie had been involved with the property, no one had approached him for file purpose of [***8]acquiring file property for any purpose associated with the helicopter landing pad. Scott Strough, President of the Board of Trustees of the Freeholders and Conunonulity of the Town of Soutltampton (hereinafter the Trustees), testified that DEC approval would not preclude the need for the petitioners to seek a permit from the Trustees for the combimntion catwalk, ramp, floating dock, and houseboat referred to in the Spears letter as uses 2 mid 5. He further testified that the Trustees denied a similar application by the owner of the property immediatoly to the east of the subjec! parcel (herein,'ffter the Newmm~ parcel). He opined tlmt the Trustees would deny the catwalk, ramp, mul dock as referred to in use 2, and stated that approval for a smaller version of this project would be unlikely. Strough testified that the Trustees would not approve the mooring of a single-family[*91] houseboal referred to in use 5. Strough stated that he spoke with his fellow board membem about this and they shared Ihs opinion as to the likelihood of permitting the proposals in the Spears letter. Roy Haje, m~ environmental consultant, testified tha! use I in the Spears letter consisted merely of those[***9] uses for which no permit was necessary pursu,'mt to tile tidal wetlmul regulations. He further lestified that il was very unlikely thai the ZBA would Page 7 3 A.D.3d 86, *; 767 N.Y.S.2d 451, **' 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12447, *** approve the parking area in use 3 or the 225 square-foot structure in use 4 of the Spears letter. Patrick Given, a licensed real estate appraiser, testified for the DEC that. using the sales comparison method, file market value of the petitioners' property never exceeded $50,000. The basis for tlfis conclusion was his determination that the proper~y was a wetlands parcel that could not be developed. Given's opinion was that file property's highest and best uses were for recreational purposes such as the water access uses referred to in the Spears letter. Given testified tlmt the potential purchasers for such a parceI consisted primarily of ueighbors. Given also referred to a comparable sale in 1993 of the 3.9-acre Newman parcel. Tltis parcel, which consisted ahunst entirely of all or nearly all wetlands, was sold for $35,000. George Stadnik testified that he was employed by the DEC as a Marine Resource Specialist One whose duties inchided reviewing tidal wetlands applications. He recommended to Peter Corwith, a Southmnpton Town[***10] Trustee, that installation of a dock be approved for bari the petitioners' property and the Newman parcel. Stadnik informed Corwith that there were several ways to obtain a permit to dock a vessel on these properties. Patricia Zielenski testified thal she was the Regional Supervisor of file DEC's real property office in Stony Brook. Zielenski testified tlmt in August of 1999~ the DEC offered $77,500 for file Newman parcel, but file sale uever took place. IV II-/N1] The Legislature has enacted strict guidelines for the application and granting of permits to landowners who wish to conduct regulated activities in and around inventoried wetlands (see Matter pfGazza v New 3'ork State Dep ?. of Envtl. Conservation, 89 3~ 152d 603, 612, 657 N.Y.S. 2d 555, 679 N.E. 2d 1035, cen: denied 522 U.S. 813, 139 L. Ed. 2d 22, 118 S. Ct. 58; ECL 25-0402, 25-0403). [H2N2] Any person aggrieved by file issuance, denial, suspension, or revocation of a permit may obtain judicial review pursuant to ECL 25- 0404. Among the available relief: [HN3] "In the event that file court may find tlmt the determination of the comnUssioner constitutes file equivalent of a taking without compensation, and the land so regulated otherwise meets the interest and objectives of this act, it may, at the election of the commissioner, either set aside the order or require the commissioner to acquire the tidal wetlands or such rights in them as lmve been taken, proceeding under[*** 12] the power of eminent domain" (ECL 25-0404). [HN4] Where regulatory actions restrict the ability of a landowner to enjoy its property, judicial review follows a two-step process. "ff the courl finds that the permit denial is supported by substantial evidence, then a second determination is made in the same proceeding to determine whether the restriction constitutes unconstitutional taking requiring compensation" (de Aubin v Flacke, 68 N.Y. 2d 66, 70, 505 N.Y.,5~2d 859, 496 A(E. 2d 879). In the instant matter, the petitioners do not argue that file denial of the permit was nol supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, file issue before this court is whether file restriction constitutes a taking requiring the payment of just compensation. In its decision afier tile hearing, the Supreme Court concluded tirol the petitioners had established flint the 1995 pre-regulation value of their properly was $665,000. Moreover, notwithstanding that the petitioners demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a strong[**456] probability that most, if no! all, of file recreational uses 2 through 6 in the Spears letter would ultimately not be approve& the DEC had demonstrated that file property had a residual market value of $31,500 if it was used[*921 as a means of gaining access to the waters of Shiunecock Bay. Nevertheless, the courl found that a return of only $31,500 represented a diminishmetu of the market value of the petitioners' properly of over 95% tu~d constituted a[***ll] compensable tnking The DEC now appeals from a judgment entered Jannary 25. 2001. upon tile foregoing decisiou. We affirm. V [HN5] "A landowner who claims that land regulation has effected a taking of his properly bears the heavy burden of overeoming the presumption of constitutionalily that attaches to the regulation and proving every element of his claim beyond a reasonable doubt" ( de St. Aubin v Flacke, supra at 76). In ( Lucas v ,South Carolina Coastal Council, 50.5 U.,S~ 1003, 120 L. Ed. 2d 798, 112 ,[~ CL 2886),[***13] a factually analogous matter dealing with coastal buildnig restrictions, the United States Supreme Cottrt stated that [HN6] although regulatory[*93] takings jurisprudence has traditionally "eschewed any set formula * * * preferring to engage in essentially ad hoc, factual inquiries," there are at least two "categories" of regulatory action thal require compensation "without case-specific inquiry edvanced ia support of the restraint" (Lucas v ,qbuth Carolina Coastal Council, supra at ]0]5). The first category, a physical invasion o£ the properly, is not applicable to this situation (id.). Page 8 3 A.D.3d 86, *; 767 N.Y.S.2d 451, **; 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12447, *** The second category "is where regulation denies ail economically beneficial or productive use of lmul" (id. at 1015). The Court stated that "when tile owner of real property has been called upon to sacrifice ail economically beneficial uses in tbe name of the common good, that is, to leave his [or her] property economically[**457] idle, he lot she] lms suffered a taking" (Lucas v South Carolina Coastal Council, supra at ]019; see also Gazza v New York State Dep't of Envtl. Conservation, supra at 6]6). In such a situation, a categorical taking [**'14] is found without regard to the govermnent's justifications for tbe regulation (see Lucas v ,~'outh Carolina Coastal Council, sltpra at 1026). Contrary to the petitioners' contentions, the effect of rile wetlands regulations on its property is not a per se taking. In . (Tahoe-Sierra Presern,. Coun. v Tahoe Regional Planning Agcy, 535 U.S. 302, 152 L. Ed. 2d 517, 122 S. Ct. 1465), dealing with the issue of whether a temporary building moratorimn constituted a taking, [HN7] fl~e United States Supreme Court clarified the distinction between a physical taking and a regulatory taking, and limited a Lucas analysis to extraordinary ciremnstances in which the govennnent deprives a property owner of all economic uses. The basis for this distinction, the Court declared, is found in the text of the F~/?h Amendment. Its plain language requires the payment of compensation whenever rile government acquires private property for a public purpose, whether the acquisition is the result of a condemnation proceeding or a physical appropriation. But the United States Constitution contains no comparable reference to regulations that prohibit a property owner from making certain uses[***15] of his or her private property. (see Tahoe-,q'ierra Preseru. Coun. v Tahoe Regional Planning Agqy., supra at 33 ] -332). In a footnote, tile Court provided guidance on how to identify the distinction, lltNS] In determining wbether government action affecting properly is m~ unconstitutional deprivation of ownership rights under the Just Compensation Clause, a court musl interpret the word "taken." When the govenmlent condemns or physically appropriales the properly, the fac! of a taking is typically[*94] obvious mid undisputed. When, however, tile owner contends a taking has occurred because a law or regulation imposes restrictions so severe flint they are !antamount to a condemnation or appropriation, the predicate of a taking is not self- evident mul the aualysis is more complex (id. at 322 n 17). [HNg] Physical takings, according to Tahoe-Sierra, are as "old as the Republic" (id at 322) and, for the most part, involve the straightforward application of per se rules. The Supreme Court observed that its "regulatory takings jurisprudence, in contrast, is of more recent vintage mid is characterized by 'essentially ad hoc, factual inquiries'" (id at 322, [***16]quoting Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v City of New York, 438 U.S. 104, 124, 57 L. Ed. 2d 631, 98 S. Ct. 2646) designed to allow "'careful examination and weighing of all file relevant circumstances TM (Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Coun. v Tahoe Regional Planning Agcy., supra at 539-540, quoting Palazzolo v Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606, 636, 150 L. Ed. 2d592, 121 ,S~ Ct. 2448 [O'Connor, J. concurring]). The Court went on to i~tstruct that it is "inappropriate to treat cases involving physical takings as controlling precedents for the evaluation of a claim that there been a regulatory taking; and vice versa" (Tahoe-Sierra Preserve. Coun. v Tahoe Regional Planning Agcy., supra at 324). The basis for this fundamental distinction is beeause "land-use regulations are ubiquitous and most of them impact property values in some tangential way - often in completely unanticipated ways. Treating them all as per se takings would transform government regulation into a luxury few governments could afford" (id at 324). [**458] However, several years earlier in Lueas, the Supreme Court applied a categorical or per se rule in a regulatory[***17] taking. In Tahoe Sierra, rile Court used the opportunity to clarify the holding in Lucas and narrow the exception in which a categorical or per se nde applies to a regulatory taking. "The categorical rule that we applied in Lucus states that compensation is required when a regulation deprives an owner of 'all economically beneficial uses' of his land" (Tahoe-Sierra Preserv. Court. v Tahoe Regional Planning Agcy., supra at 330 [emphusis in original], quoting Lucas v ,South Carolina Coastal Council, supra at 1019). The Court reiterated that tile "statute [in Lucus] that wholly eliminated the value [of the property interest] clearly qualified as a taking," but rile holding in Lucas was "limited to 'the extraordinary circumstm~ces when no productive or economically beneficial use of land is permitted"' (Tahoe-Sierra Preserv. Coun. v Tahoe Regional Planning Agq~,., [*95] supra at 330 [emphasis in original], quoting Lucas v South Carolina Coastal Council, supra at 1017). To emphasize the word "no" relative to produchve use, the Court pointed to a foomote in Lucas wtfich explained that the[***lS] categorical nile would not apply ff rile diminution in value were 95% instead of 100%. Anything less thml a "complete elimination of value" or a "total loss," the Court ackmowledged, would require the kind of analysis applied in Pelto Central (Tahoe-Sierra Present. Coun. v Tahoe Regional Planning Agc. v., ~cupra at 330, quoting Lucax v South Carolina Coastal Council, supra, at Page 9 3 A.D.3d 86,*;767 N.Y.S.2d 451,**; 2003N.Y. App. DN. LEXIS 12447, *** 10]9, n 8). In sum, fire Court held that it is "clear that [HNI0] the categorical role in Lucas was carved out for fire 'extraordinary case' in which a regulation permanently deprives property of all value; the default rule remains that, in the regulatory taking context, we require a more fact specific inquiry" ( Tahoe-Sierra v Preserv. Court. v Tahoe Regional Planning Agcy., supra at 332). Thus, [HNII] an analysis ora regulatory taking spans both ends of a spectrum. At one end is a regulation that merely diruinishes file value of the land requiring no compensation. At the other extreme is the regulation that results in a total deprivation in value, tantmnount to a physical taking demanding just compensation (see Lucas v South Carolina Coastal Council, supra). In the instant[***19] case, it is conceded that fire petitioners' property retains at least a 5% residuary value. In light of Tahoe-Sierra, a categorical or per se role on a regulatory taking as applied in Lucas is not applicable here. Accordingly, we hold that the DEC's denial of a permit for a single family dwelling does not constitute a categorical or per se taking of the petitioners' property. Notwithstanding timt tire petitioners have not established a per se taking, they have demonstrated a taking using the balancing test of Penn (gent. Transp. Co. v City pfNew York, 438 U.S. 104, 57 L. Ed. 2d 631, 98 ~'. Ct. 2646, a test used prior to and after the Lucas decision. [HNi2] When there is no per se taking, the courts are required to engage in ad hoc, factual inquiries (see Penn Cent. Tramp. Co. v City qf New York, supra at 123-]24). "Where a per se taking is not demonstrated, whether a taking has occurred may be detormined by an exalniuation of various factors such as those set forth in the Penn Central case: the economic impact of the regulation, rte extent to which the regulation has interfered with reasonable investment- backed expectations, and the[***20] [*96]character of the governmental action" (Matter of Gazza v New York f**459],%'tate Dep~l. qf Envt]. Consem~ation., supra at 617: Lucas v South Carolina Coastal Council, supra at 1019-1020: Penn Cent. Tramp. (.'o. v supra at 124). There was siguificmlt testimony regarding the economic impact the regulation had on the subject property. The regmlation left only a residual value. The court found that the property' was reduced in value by 95% from its non-regulated value. Even ff not considered a total destruction in value, there has been a near total or substantial decrease in value. The DEC contends that the economic impact factor weighs in favor of finding nn taking under the Penn Central case. First, it argues that tile regulation of file property, "while reducing the value of the subject lot, did not have sufficient economic impact so as to work a taking." The DEC contends that the trial court improperly valued the property at $31,500 based on an incorrect assmnption that the uses listed in tile Spears letter were not likely to be approved. Instead, the DEC argues that the court should have accepted its after- regulation[***21] value of $50,000. The petitioners adduced the testimony of Ronald Haberman, an appraiser, who valued the property prior to the enactment of the wetlands regulations. Based on an analysis of comparable sales of vacant waterfront property, Haberman determined flint file pre-regulation value of the properly as of April 14, 1995 (the date of the DEC's decision), was $665,000. The DEC did not provide any pre-regulation assessment of the value of the properly. As the DEC failed to rebut this finding, and the assessment was supported by credible evidence, this finding of fact by the hearing court should not be disturbed. ll]Ni3] The value of the property after the regulation depends on what remaining uses are available to the property owners. In making such a determination, file court may look to file uses specified in file Spears letter. However, a petitioner may rebut the proposed list of uses. In de St. Aubin v Flacke (supra), the Court of Appeals stated thal a landowner may be able to further limit file after-regulation uses proposed in a Spears letter by proving that "fllere is no reasonable probability" that the local municipality would approve those uses ( de St. Aubin v Flacke, supra at 78).[**'22} A~l ovaler is required to "prove that relief from the zoning restriction is not reasonably to be expected" (id. at 76). Here, file hearing court foarul dial the petitioners proved, beyond a reasolmble doubt, that there existed a "strong prohability[*97] that most, if not all, of the recreational uses 2 through 6 in the Spears letter would not nltimately be approved." Haberman testified diat he could not find a competitive market for the passive uses listed under tile first point in the Spears letter, that is, uses allowed wiflmut a wetlands permit under 6 NYCRR 661.5. As to use 2, a catwalk, pier, or dock, Stmugh testified tim! the Southampton Trustees had denied a similar application and would likely deny the one proposed in the Spears letter. With respect to uses 3 and 4, a 1,000 square-foot pervious parking area and a 225 square-foot deck, garage, gazebo, or storage shed, Roy Haje testified fl~at it was very m~likely that those slructures would be approved by file Sonthampton P~elO 3 A.D.3d 86, *; 767 N.Y.S.2d 451~ **; 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12447, *** Zomng Board of Appeals. Strough further testified that use 5, a mooring of a single-fmuily houseboat, would not be approved by the Trustees. Finally, Haje testified[***23] ttmt it would be unlikely that use 6, parking or storage for the helipad, would be approved by the Village. Friedenberg testified that no one had approached[**460] him in connection with acquiring the property for that use. Based on these findings, the court detenulned that fl~e residual property value was $31,500, which was an adjusted comparable sale mnount for a similar nearby parcel as reported by the DEC's appraiser, Patrick Given. Even if we were to accept the DEC's arguments and credit its proposed after value of $50,000, the result would not change. The change in value would be the difference between a overall loss of 95% as opposed to a loss of 92.5% using the $50,000 value. In either case there is a significant reduction in the value of the property. This court in (Chase Manhattan Bank v State of New York, 103 A~D.2d 211, 479 N.Y.S. 2d 983), held that an 86% reduction in value could support a finding that the property's economic value had been destroyed. This court found that with respect to a constitutional talcing claim, die property owner would have, at least, a reasonable probability of success in court (ia( at 223- 224). It warrants emphasis[***24] that the facts of the instant case are significantly different from those of g/ratter of Gazza v New York 8'tate Dept. of Envtl. Consem,ation (supra), where the landowner acquired file waterfront parcels after the enactment of the wetlands regulations, and at prices reflecting die dintiuished values of the parcels as regulated. Thus, the denial of the application of the property owner in Gazza for setback variances was not tantamount to a taking, because thai property owner did not lose a development right: il had already been restricted prior to his purchase of the land. In stark contrast, in the instant case, [*98] Gwendotyn Londino's acquisitiou of the subject parcel in 1962 pm-dated the enactment of wetlands regulations. The rights she obtained, which am now administered by the petitioners on behalf of her estate, included development rights flint were subsequently lost as a result of the enactment of wetlands regulations. Thus, the holding of Gazza does not conlrol the inst,'mt matter. For these reasons, the petitioners establishe& beyond a reasonable doubt, thal the regulation and denial of the permit destroyed all but a bare residae of the economic value[***25] of the properly (see g/fatter of Ward v Bennett, 214 A.D.2d 741, 625 N.l(,q'.2d 609). VII The DEC argues that it has legitimate reasons for regulating tidal wetlands, which prevent the petitioners from succeeding on a takings claim. This contention is without merit. [HN14] The legitimacy of a governmental regulation does not lead to the result that the govermnent has no obligation to pay compensation as a result of that regulation. "[The] Fifth Amendment's guarantee * * * [is] designed to bar Government from foming some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole" (Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v City of New York, supra at 123-]24, quoting Armstrong v [~3ited States, 364 U.S. 40, 49, 4 L. Ed. 2d 1554, 80 S. Ct. 1563). The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit explained this element of the baiancing test as follows: IHN15] "When them is reciprocity of advantage * * * then the claim that the Government has taken private property has little force: file claimant lms in a sense been compensated by the public progrmn "adjusting the benefits and burdens of economic life to[**'26] promote the common good" (Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v City of New York, supra at 124). Thus shared economic impacts resulting from certain types of land use controls[**461] have been held to be non-compensable (Agins v City of Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255, 262-263, 65 L. Ed 2d 106, 100 ,5~ Ct. 2138). [HNI6] "That the purpose and fnncfion of rite regulatory imposition is relevant to drawing the line between mere diminution and partial raking should not be read to suggest tlmt when Government acts in pursuit of an important public purpose, its actions are excused from liability. To so hold would eviscerate the plain language of the Takings Clause, [*99] and would be inconsistent with Supreme Court guidance. It is necessary that the Government act in a good cause, but it is not smfficiant. The takings clause already assumes the Govermnent is acting in the public interest: [HNI7] "nor shall private properly be taken for public use without just compensation." "In addition, then, [HN18] to a demonstration of loss of economic use to the property owner as a result of the mgnlatory imposition * * * the trial court must consider: are them direcl compensating benefits accruing to the property, [***27] and others similarly situated, flowing from file regulatory environment? Or are benefits, if any, general and widely shared through the commnnity and the society, while the costs am focused on a few? Are alternative penultted activities economically realistic in lighi of the setting and cimumstauces, and Page 11 3 A.D.3d 86, *: 767 N.Y.S.2d 451, **' 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12447, *** are they realistically available? In short, has the Government acted in a responsible way, linfitthg the constraints on property ownership to those necessary to achieve the pubhc purpose, and not allocating to some number of individuals, less thm~ all, a burden that should be borne by all?" Because the impact is so severe in this case, it is clear that a taking has taken place as the petitioners are bearing the brunt of the burden. Therefore, it is apparent that the petitioners have established a tatting pursuant to tile pre-Lucas balancing test. (Florida Rock Indus. v United States, ]8 ~3d 1560, 1570-J571, cert denied 523 U.X ]]09, 130 L. Ed. 2d 783, 115,5'. (?t. 898). Here, the balance does not favor a finding of reciprocity of advantage or shared benefit. The petitioners have been left with a situation where their only viable choice is to leave the property in its natural state. The regulation has caused an almost total loss of the value of the property. The petitioners are thus bearing all the burden of the regulation. The Suprmne Court stated in Lucas that [HN19] when the impact of the reg~tlation[***28] on a property owner is severe, it is less realistic to "indulge our usual assumption that the legislature is simply adjusting the benefits and burdens of econotnic life * * * in a manner that secures an average reciprocity of advantage to everyone concerned" (Lucas v South Carolina Coastal Council, supra at 1017-]018). [*100]VIII The DEC contends that ff this court should uphold tile finding that a taking has occurred, file Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the claim for damages as such a determination must be iuade in the Court of Claims. This is a correct statement of law (see Court of Claims Act o$ 9[2]). Accordingly, ff the DEC chooses to acquire the pmperi3, under the exercise of its powers of eminent domain, Milch is its only option other than granting the petitioners' permit application (see ECL 25- 0404), any ftather proceedings[***29] to determine the compensation to be[*'462] paid to rite petitioner will be conducted in the Court of Claims. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed, wilh costs. KRAUSMAN, GOLDSTEIN and RIVERA, JJ., concur. ORDERED that the.iudgment is affirmed, with costs. Page 14 Town of Orangetown, Appellant, v. Jolm F. Magee et al.,Respondeuts. No. 76 COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK PRIOR HISTORY: 88 N.Y.2d 41; 665 N.E.2d 1061; 643 N.Y.S.2d 21; 1996 N.Y.LEXIS 674 March 19, 1996, Argued ~1 April 30, 1996, Decided ~____~77..: ,~_,~.: : _.____j[ Order affirmed, wtm-4;oce,~--maz'-e~rtmed questmn answered in the affirmative. Appeal, by pernfission of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial DeparUnent, from an order of that Court, entered May 8, 1995, as amended upon reargument, which (1) affirmed a judgment of the Supreme Court (Robert J. Stolarik, J. [see, ]56 Misc 2d 88]]), entered in Rockiand County after a nonjury trial on defendants' counterclaims, (a) adjudging that defendants sustained their burden of proving that a certain building permit and extension thereof were legally issued, that defendants made substantial impmvmnents and expended significant sums of money in reliance thereon, and that the permit and extension were illegally revoked, Co) adjudging that defendants have established file existence of a vested right in the permit and its extension, (c) directing plaintiff to reinstate defendants' building permit and the extension thereof and to allow the subject construction to be completed, (d) awarding dmnages to defendants, pursuant to a formula specified in the court's decision, in the sum of $5,137,126, and (e) adjudging that defendants are entitled to legal fees, costs, disbursements and expenses to be determined, and (2) modified, and. as modified, ~ff'mned a judgmenl of that Supreme Court (Robert J. Stolarik, J.), entered in Rockland County, awarding interim attorneys' fees in the amounl of $263~608.20 and expenses iu the sum of $318.919.74. The medification consisted ofdeleting the award of interim attorneys' fees and remitting to Supreme Court for recalculation thereof. The following question was certified by the Appellate Division: "Was the decision and order of tiffs court daled May 8, 1995, as mnended, properly made?" 7bw, q/' OrmTgetown v Ma. gee, 215 AD2d 469, as amended 218 AD2d 343, affirmed. CASE SUMMARY: PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff town appealed from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Deparmlent (New York), which affirmed the trial court's judgment for defendant developers on their counterclaims for an order compelling reinstatement of a building permit and dmnages pursuant to 42 U.S.C.X ~ 1983. OVERVIEW: After developers began working on a site, the building inspector, at the town supervisor's direction, revoked their building permit. Town then sued to compel the removal of a building on tile site. On review, the court held that developers were entitled to reins~mtemen! of the permit because riley had a vested right in the plmmed construction, as the permit was legally issued. The record supported the trial court's conclusion that developers had sufficiently committed the land to the use anthorized by the perutit prior to revocation. Thus, the revocation resulted in ms unconstitutional deprivation of developers' property. rights. The court thus held that developers stated a cause of action for damages under 42 U,q~ (ZS. ~ 1983 because the acts of town in revoking developers' permit denied them substantive due process of taw. Developers had established a protectable property interest m the building permit. Due process assured them the right to be free from arbitrary municipal actions destructive of this interest. The record supported tlte conclusion that the building inspector's revocation of the permit was solely for political reasons and thus arbitrary and capricious. OUTCOME: The court affirmed the order review. DISPOSITION: Page 15 88 N.Y.2d 41, *; 665 N.E.2d 1061, **' 643 N.Y.S.2d 21, ***; 1996 N.Y. LEXIS 674 CORE TERMS: revocation, landowner, arbitrary and capricious, regulation, formula, building perrmt, judicial review, municipality, municipal, propert3, interest, revoke, countemlalm, ripe, deprivation, ordinance, revoked, final decision, protectable, real property, implementing, ripeness, irrational, compute, vested, zoning, spent, adininistrative remedies, market rate. revoking, iIffiicts LexisNexis(R) Headnotes Governmants: Local Governments: Licenses Constitutional Law: Substantive Due Process: Scope of Protection IHN1] hi New York, a vested right can be acquired when, pursuant to a legally issued permit, the landowner demonstrates a commitment to the purpose for which the permit was granted by effecting substantial clmnges and incurring substantial expenses to fuffiler the development. Neither the issuance of a penuit nor the landowner's substantial improvements mid expenditures, standing alone, will establish the right. The landowner's actions relying on a valid permit must be so substantial that the municipal action results in serious loss rendering the improvements essentially valueless. Constitutional Law: Civil Rights Enforcement: Civil Rights Act of 1871: Coverage [HN2] See 42 t'I. 5,~ C,~'. ,,~ 1983. Constitutional Law: Civil Rights Enforcement: hurnumty: Local Governments Constitutional Law: Civil Rights Eifforcement: Civil Rights Acl of I g71: Coverage [HN3] Mmticipalities are persons subject to suit under 42 b(5,'.C.S. 3q 1983 for the deprivation of constitutionally protected rights caused by actions which implement or execute a policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision officially adopted and promulgated by its officers. The manicipality may not be held vicariously liable under lhe doctrine of respondeat superior for employing a careless tmlfeasor, however: the it!jury must arise from acts of mmticipal officers or employees in the course of executing muuicipa] policy or custom. Liability may even be imposed for a single act, as long as it is the act of an official anthorized to decide policy in thai area. Constitutional Law: Procedural Due Process: Entinent Domaiu & Takings Constitutional Law: Civil Rights Enforcement: hnmuuity: Local Governments Constitutional Law: Civil Rights Enfomement: Civil Rights Acl of 1871: Coverage [HN4] In the context of land use, 42 U.,5'.C.S. ~ 1983 provides protection against municipal actions which violate a landowner's rights under the Just Compensation Clause of the Fiffil Amendinent or the Due Process Clauses of the Fiffil and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Under file former, the claimant must establish that the governmental action amounts to a raking without just compensation. The United States Supreme Court also identifies, although not yet recognizes, a substantive due process claim under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments based upon a regulator3, taking, i.e., regulation of property that goes so far it has effectively destroyed the economic value of the property. Constitutional Law: Civil Rights Enfommnent: Inununity: Local Governments Civil Procedure: Justiciability: Ripeness Constitutional Law: Civil Rights Enforcement: Civil Rights Act of 1871: Coverage [HN5] Civil rights claims are not justiciable until the municipality has arrived at a definitive position on the issue that inflicts an actual, concrete injury. This requirement reflects the reluctance of the courts to impose liability upon a muuicipality antess tile liability arises from acts wltich the municipality has officially sanctioned or ordered. Constitutional Law: Procedural Due Process: Eminent Domain & Takings Constitutional Law: Substantive Due Process: Scope of Protection [HN6] The ripeness requirements for just compensation and regulatory "takings" claims differ from claims based upon arbitrary and capricious conduct. Under takings claims the contention is thal the state lms taken the property for a governmental purpose or thal it has gone "1oo far" in exercising its police power to regulate property, tbus depriviug mi owner of all econoinically beneficial use of the property. Such claims are not ripe for judicial review until: (1) the governmental entity charged with implementing the regtflations has rendered a final decision regarding file application of the regulations m the properly, and (2) the landowner has availed itself of the procedures provided by state law to obtain .just compensation. Under this type of claim, a decision does not become ripe for review unless alternative uses of the property am considered mid rejected and it is thus established that file landowner was deprived of its properly. Until tlmt has been done~ il is no! clear that a taking has occurred or how "far" file regulation goes. Constitutional Law: Civil Rights Enforcement: Immunity: Local Governments Page 16 88 N.Y.2d 41, *; 665 N.E.2d 1061, **' 643 N.Y.S.2d 21, ***; 1996 N.Y. LEXIS 674 Constitutional Law: Substantive Due Process: Scope of Protection [lq~7] A substantive due process claim by a lm~downer based on the state's arbitrary and capricious conduct is subject only to a final decision requirement. The decision must be final to be reviewable (else how could arbitrariness be judged), but it is uunecessary that the landowner pursue administrative remedies to determine how the regulation in question applies to the property or avail itself of state procedures for detenuiuing compensation. If file action of file municipality is arbitrary and capricious, the remedy for a violation is invalidation of fl~e regulation and actual dmuages. GoverIunents: Local Governments: Licenses Real & Personal Properly Law: Zonuig & Land Use: Land Use Plamting [HNS] Under the ordiuances of the Town of Orangelown, the building inspector has file statutory authority to effect a revocation of a building permit. Orangetown, N. Y., Zoning Code, ch 43, § 8.222 (19691. Constitutional Law: Civil Rights Enforcement: Civil Rights Act of 1871: Coverage IHN9] To succeed on a claim for dmnages pursuant to 42 U.S.C.S. ~ ]983, a party must establish (11 file deprivation of a protectable property interest (2) by one acting under the anthority of law. Constitutional Law: Substantive Due Process: Scope of Protection [HNI0] The hallmark of property is an individual entitlement grounded in state law, which cannot be removed except for cause. Governments: Local Governments: Licenses Real & Personal Property Law: Zoning & Land Use: Zoning Generally [HNI 11 The municipality's authority to regulate zoning rests upon the valid exercise of its police power and a decision regulating a landowner's use of its properly offends due process when the govermnent acts with no legitixuate roasou for its decision. COUNSEL: Patrick J. Rohan, Orangeburg, and Jolm P. Healy for appellant. I. By reason of their failure to appeal the revocation of their building permit to the Zoning Board of Appeals, defendants-respondents fail to state a cans~e of actiou under 42 USC 3~ 1983 based upon a denial of snbstautive due process. ( Williamson Planning Commn. v Hamilton Bank, 473 U,%' 172; Taylor lin,. v Upper Daffy Twp., 983 F2d 1285; ,¥outhview Assocs. v Bongartz, 980 F2d 84; MacDonald, Sommer & Frates v Yolo County, 477 US 340, 478 U,S' 1035; Reserve, Ltd v Town of Longboat Key, 17 F3d 1374; Acierno v Mitchell, 6 F3d 970; Bender v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 38 NY2d 662; HecJder v Community Health Servs., 467 US 51; de St. Aubin v Flacke, 68 NY2d 66.) II. The Town is not liable under section 1983 because defendants-respondents have failed to establish that the building permit was revoked by an official witl~ "final policymaldng authority" uader State or local law. ( Monell v New York Ci~ Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U8 658; Pembaur v Cincinnati, 475 US 469; St. Louis v Prapromik, 485 US l 12; Jettv Dallas ]nd School Dist., 49] US 701; Worsham v City of Pasadena, 881 F2d 1336; Cart v Town of Dewey Beach, 730 F ,q'upp 591; Matter of Town of (Tlay v Helsby, 45 AD2d 292; Eversole v Steele, 59 F3d 710,) III. The developers did not vest their rights in the limited building permit because after five years they had not poured concrete and their accumulated expenditures were in furtherance of a fill removal business and an anticipated development of the entire 34-acre parcel with multiple buildings. ( Matter qf Bayswater Health Related Facility v Karagheuzoff, 37 NY2d 408; Matter of Temkin v Karagheuzoff, 34 NY2d 324.) IV. Because rite developers were not entitled as a matter of right to file special penuit or use variance required for tile building in question, they lack any property interest protectable under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteendi /unendinent. ( RR/' Realty Corp. v ]ncorporated l/il. qf ,~bu&ampton, 870 F2d 911.) V. The court made numerous errors in the damage portion of the trial and the Court below failed to scrutinize the damage award on tile lnistaken belief that the Town lind stipulated to the amount thereof. ( Gentile v County of,Suffolk, 926 F2d ]42; Corn v City of Lauderdale Lakes, 997 F2d 1369; Wheeler v City of Pleasant Grove, 833 F2d 267; Greenbriar Ltd. v City of Alabaster, 881 F2d 1570, 893 F2d 346; Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v New York City, 438 U.¥ ]04, 439 U,¥ 883; Ix'irby Forest indus, v United ,5'lates, 467 IfS ]; Front Rqval & Warren County Indus. Pork Corp. v Town of Front Royal, 749 F Supp 1439, 945 F2d 760, reinstated sub nom. McLaughlin v Town qf Front Royal, 810 F Supp 725, 21 F3d 423; Nemmers v City of Dubuque, 764 F2d 502.) VI. In its judgment ordering reinstatement of a building permit for the completion of building No. 15, the court imprepefly relieved Bradley of its obligations to comply with the Town's Zouing Code. Dorfman Lynch & Knoebel, Nyack (Dennis E. A. Lynch and Burton I. Doffman of counsel), for respondents. 1. All facts found by the courts below are noureviewable and any questions must be resolved in tl~e Magee# favor. ( Rosemont Enters. v Irving, 41 NY2d 829: Meenan v Meenan, ! Atl't2d 269 Hilton Watch Co. v Page 17 88 N.Y.2d 41, *; 665 N.E.2d 1061, **; 643 N.Y.S.2d 21, ***; 1996 N.Y. LEXIS 674 Benrus Watch Co., ] N]~2d 271; Barclay's ]ce Cream Co. v Local No. 7.57, 41 NY2d 269, 436 US' 925; A/fenscher v Uhesley, 297 NY 94,) II. The Magees vested their fights to construct building No. 15 and reinstatement of their building permit to complete building under Zoning Code in effect at time of unlawful revocation was proper. ( Matter of Bqyswater Health Related Facility v Karagheuzoff, 37 NJ2d 408; A/fatter of Temkin v Karagheuzqff, 34 N]'2d 324: Faymor Dev. Co, v Board of Stds. & Appeals, 45 NY2d 560; Platter of Magee v Rocco, ]58 AD2d 53,) III. Appellant was "equitably estopped" from raising "ripeness" claim for tile first time on appeal and "ripeness" case law relied upon by appellant bears no relation to the egregious "final detenniuations" of appellant. ( Merrill v Albany A/ted Ctr. Hosp., 7] ]VT2d 990; Bender v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 38 NY2d 662; Matter of Ward v Bennett, 79 NY2d 394; Williamson Planning Commn. v Hamilton Bank, 473 US ]72; Church of St. Paul & 3?. Andrew v Barwick, 67 NY2d 510; de St. Aubin v Flacke, 68 NY2d 66; Southview Assocs. v Bongartz, 980 F2d 84; Lucas v ,5'auth Carolina Coastal Council, 50.5 US 1003; Loretto v Teleprompter Manhattan CATI/Corp., 458 US 419; lb'heeler v City of Pleasant Grove, 883 F2d 267, 896 F2d ]347.) IV. The determination that respondents' civil rights pumuant to 42 USC 3~ 1983 were violated should be affirmed. ( Parratt v Taylor, 451 US 527; Logan v Zi~nmerman Brush Co., 455 tLS' 422; Memphis Light, Gas & Water Div. v Crqfl, 436 US ]; Goss v Lopez, 419 U,'q 56.5; Board of Regents v Rot& 408 UX 564; Faymor Dev. Co. v Board qf Stds. cq~ AppeaU 4.5 NY2d 560; Matter qf Temkin v Karagheuzoff 34 AO'2d 324; Matter qf Ba. wwater Health Related Facility v Karagheuzoff 37 NY2d 408; Yale Auto Parts v Johnson, 7.58 F2d 54; ,¥ullivan v Town qfSalem, 80.5 F2d 81.) V. The award of compensatory damages based upon the Wheeler formula and stipulation should be affirmed. ( Mitchell v New York Hosp., 6] NY2d 208; Abramovich v Board qf Educ., 46 Nl'2d 450, 444 U,q' 845; Carey v Piphus, 435 U,q' 247; O,n~en v Ci(y qf ]ndependence, 445 U,S' 622; First Lutheran Church v Los Angeles Coun(v, 482 UX 304; t]ernandez v City of Lqfqvette, 643 F2d 1188, 455 U,S' 907; Front Royal & Warren County Indus. Park Corp. v Town qfFront Royal, 708 F Supp 1477, 749 F Nupp 1439, 945 F2d 760: Nemmers v City qf Dubuque, 764 F2d 502.) JUDGES: Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur. [***23] Simons, Tiffs appeal involves a zoning dispute in which tbe courts below have fotmd that plaintiff Town of Orangetown wrongfully revoked defendants' permit to develop real property in the Town. Defendants lmve obtained injmlctive relief restoring the building permit and an award of substantial damages on a 42 USC ~ ]983 cause of action. We now affirm. [**10641 [***24] I Defendant Bradley Industrial Park, Inc. is the owner of 34 acres of land located in the Town of Omngetown. It acquired file property in 1979 to construct a 184,000 square foot industrial building al an estimated cost of $3 ~nillion. Defendants John and Patrick Magee are file shareholders of the corporation. In 1980 defendants' plans for the improvement were approved and the Building Inspector issued a permit. Defendants began cleating and developing the site shortly thereafter. The trial court found that defendants spent over $4 million on file improvements for the land and building before work was halted by file Town. nl .................. Footuotes .............. nl In addition to the estimated cost of site and building improvements, the trial court found that defendants spent $250,000 on the purchase of the original site, approximately $123,000 purchasing additional acreage to satisfy Town requirements for access to public roads; tlmt in response to community complaints about highway congestion, defendants spent appmximataly $250,000 developing an alternate mute over a railroad crossing; defendants spent $100,000 for water and sewage lines; and in certain easement negotiations with the water company, defendant gave up rights in a self-contained water system on the property worth approximately $1 milliou. ................. End Foomotes ............ OPINIONBY: SIMONS OPINION: [*46] [*'1063] Althongh tbe permil was linffted to "land cleariug, footings and foundations," tile courts below datennined that the perldil entitled defendants to construct the Page 18 88 N.Y.2d 41, *; 665 N.E.2d 1061, **' 643 N.Y.S.2d 21, ***; 1996 N.Y. LEXIS 674 entire building ~ long as the subsequent plans for the walls, ceilings and electrical wiring comported with file plans for the building already approved by the Town% Building Inspector. In their first counterclaim defendants sought reinstatement of their building permit, alleging they had a "vested right" in the planned construction. As the work on the project progressed, organized resistance to it developed within the commUmty. Ultimately, the opposition became so intense that file Town Snpervisor directed the Building Inspector to revoke the defendants' permit and on July 25, 1985 he did so. The Town snbsequently amended its Zoning Code to preclude construction of commercial buildings [*47] on defendants' land. n2 At trial, the Town offered a number of masons for the revocation. The court concluded that most were not authorized by the Town's ordinances and nolle were supported by the evidence. It found that the permit was revoked solely to satisfy political concerns. ................. -FooUlotes .............. n2 The facts aN set out fidly in the decisiml of Justice Stolarik reported at 156 Misc 2d 881. ................ -End Footnotes ............ Defendants had erected a temporary building for use during fl~e preliminary, stages of construction and after the permit was revoked, the Town instituted this action to obtain an order compelling its removal. Defendants countemlaimed seeking (1) an order compelling reinstatement of the penmt, and (2) damages pursuant to 42 U,q'C ~ ]983. After a bifurcated trial Supreme Court dismissed the comphfint mid entered a judgment ill favor of defendants on their counterclaims ordering reinstatement of the building permit and awarding damages of $5,137,126, costs and attorney's fees. The Appellate Division modified the judgment by remitting the question of attorney's fees and otherwise affirmed. It subsequently granted the Town leave to appeal to this Court. Our review is controlled in large part by factnal findings of the trial court, affirmed by the Appellate Division. Ii [HN1] In New York, a vested right can be acquired when, pursuant to a legally issued permit, the landowner demonstrates a commitment to the purpose for which the permit was granted by effecting substantial clmnges and incurring subslantial expenses to further the development (see, Matter of Pumam Armonk v Town of ,Southeast, 52 AD2d JO, 14-15; see also, People ex tel. Ortenberg v Bales, 250 NY 598, affg 224 App Div 87; City qf Buffalo v Chadea~vne, 134 NJ' ]63, 165; ivJatter of Caponi v Walsh, 228 App Div 86, 89). Neither the issuance of a permit (see, Matter of Sibarco Stas. v Town Bd, 24 NY2d 900; Rice v Van f&anken, 132 Misc 82, [*'1065] [***25] arid 225 App Div 179, affd 255 NY 541; People ex tel. Ortenberg v Bales, supr¢ nor the landowner's substantial improvements and expenditures, standing alone, will establish the right. The landowner's actions relying on a [*48] valid permit must be so substantial that file municipal action results in serious loss rendering file improvements essentially valueless (see, People v Miller, 304 NY 105, 109). There is no dispute that defendants' permit was legally issued. Wheflier defendants lind sufficiently committed the land to the use authorized by file penuit prior to revocation is a question of fact and file determination of file courts below tha! they had is supported by evidence in the record (see, Matter of Caponi v Walsh, supra; see generally, I Audarson, New York Zoning Law and Practice § 6.18, at 231 [3d ed]). Inasmuch as the permit was revoked for unlawful reasons, file revocation msuited in an unconsfitutioual deprivation of defendants' property, rights (see, People v iv. tiller, supra). Accordingly. defendants are entitled to reinstatement of file building permit in colffonuity with the zoaing ordinances in effect at the time of the revocation. III The Civil Rights Claim Defendants' second counterclaim asserted a cause of action under 42 USC ~ ]983 for damages suffered as a result of the Town's acfimu. Defendmtts claimed that plaintiffs actions resulted in an unconstitutional taking of their properly and tlmt the Town denied them substantive ,'md procedural due process guaranteed by the United Stales Constitation. The CPLR Article 78 Claim Section 1983 provides: Page 19 88 N.Y.2d 41, *; 665 N.E.2d 1061, **; 643 N.Y.S.2d 21, ***; 1996 N.Y. LEXIS 674 "[HN2] Every person who, raider color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any Stale .... subjects, or canses to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or olher person within the .jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any x/gliB, privileges, or tiranunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress". [HN3] Mmxicipalities are "persons" subject to suit m~der section 1983 for the deprivation of constitutimmlly protected rights caused by actions which "implement[] or execute[] a policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision officially adopted mid promulgated by [its] officers" ( Martell v New Fork Ci(y Dept. pf Socia! Servs., 436 U); 658, 690; ?ernbaur v Cincinnati, 475 US 469, 479-480). The municipality raay not be held vicariously [*49] liable raider the doctrine of respondeat superior for employing a careless torffeasor, however: the injury must arise from acts of municipal officers or employees in the course of executing municipal policy or custom (id.). Liability may even be imposed for a single act, as long as it is the act of mi official anthorized to decide policy in that area ( Pembaur, supra, at 480, 482-483; St. Louis v ?raprotnik, 485 U,~; ]]2, ]23-]24; see also, Comer, Municipal Liabilit3, Under Section 1983: The Rationale Underlying the Final Authority Doctrine~ 44 l/and L Rev 34] [1991]). nom. Southview Assocs. v Individual Members of Izt. Envtl. Bd., 507 U,5' 987 [1993]; Brady v Town pf Colchester, 863 F2d 205, 2]5 [2d Cir 1988]; Wheeler v City of Pleasant Grove, 664 F2d 99/Sill Cir 1981]; see generally, Stein, Regulatory Takings and Ripeness in the Federal Courts, 48 Vand L Rev 1, 80 [1995]). n3 This type of claim challenges a particular land-use decision--here, the revocation of plaintiffs building permit--as a single decision witli its own consequences, rather than as one in a series of action--resulting in a taking (see, Harris v Coun~ of Riverside, 904 F2d 497, 501, supra). The key factor in such cases is not whether the State was justified in depriving the individual /*50)of his or her property, but rather whether the State obeyed the strictures of the Constitution in doing so (see, Weissman v Fruchtman, 700 F Supp 746, 756 [SD NY]). ................. -Footnotes .............. n3 Some Federal courts mmlyze such claims as matters of procedural due process (see, Nasierowski Bra& Inv. Co. v Ciiy of Sterling Hgts., 949 F2d 890, 894 /6th Cir 1991]; Harris v Coun.ty of Riverside, 904 F2d 497 [9111 Cir 1990]; Landmark Land Co. v Buchanan, 874 F2d 717, 723/10th Cir 1989]). IHN4] in the cotuext of land use, section 1983 provides protection against municipal actions wltich violate a landowner's rights raider the Just Compensation Clause of the Fffih Amendmen! or the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Uuder the former, the claimant musl establish thai the govermnental action mnounts to a taking without jusl cmnpensation. The Supreme Courl has also identified, although not yet recognized, a substantive due process claim uuder the Fiffll and Fourteenth Amendments based upon a regulatory taking, i.e,, regulation of properly that goes so far it lms effectively destroyed the econmnic value of the properly. (see, Williamson Planning Commn. v Hamilton Ban/c, 473 U?; 172, 185, 197-200). The trial courl rested ils decision on a third ground-- that the acts of the Town in revoking defendimts' permit denied them [*'1066] [***26] substantive due process of law because lhe revocation and sabsequent zoning change were arbitrary and capricious (156 lvlisc 2d 88], 893-895, supra; and see, ,¥outhview Assocs. v Bongartz, 980 F2d 84, 96, 102 12d Cir 1992], cert denied sub ................. End Footnoles ............ A Plaintiffs Ripeness Defense In contesting the trial court's determination, the Town first contends that the revocation was not "final" and therefore not ripe for judicial review, until reviewed by the Orangetoval Zoning Board of Appe,-fls. Defendants, on the other hmid, assert that the Building Inspector constitutes a Town official with fiual policy-malcuig authority and tha! requiring an appeal to the Town Zoning Board of Appeals would impose an impemlissible exhaustion of remedies requirement on their section 1983 claim. [HN5] Civil righls claims are not justiciable antil the municipality has "arrived at a definitive position on the issue that inflicts an actual, concrete injury" ( Williamson, supra, at 193: ]Platter of Ward v Bennett, 79 Page 20 88 N.Y.2d 41, *: 665 N.E.2d 1061, **; 643 N.Y.S.2d 21, ***: 1996 N.Y. LEXIS 674 NY2d 394, 400). This mqnirement reflects the reluctance of file courts to impose liability upon a municipality unless the liability arises from "acts which the mmficipality has officially sanctioned or ordered" ( Pembaur, supra, at 480; Monell, a~tpra, at 691; de St. Aubin v Flacke, 68 NY2d 66, 7.5). [HN6] The ripeness requirements for just compensation m~d regulatory "takings" claims differ from claims based upon arbitrary and capricious conduct. Under takings claims the contention is that the State has taken the property for a governmental purpose or that it has gone "too far" in exemising its police power to regulate property and thus deprived ,'tn owner of all economically beneficial use of the property ( ?enn~ylvania Coal Co. v Mahon, 260 US 393, 415; see, Northern Westchester Prpfessional Park A ssocs, v Town pf Bec~ford, 60 NY2d 492; French .Investing Co. v City of New York, 39 NY2d 587, cert denied 429 U~q' 990). Such claims are not ripe for judicial review until (I) the governmental entity charged with implementing the regulations has rendered a final decision regarding the application of tile regulations to tile property, and (2) the landowner has availed itself of die procedures provided by State law to obtain just compensation ( Williamson, supra, at 194, 200; Southview supra, at 96). Under this type of claim, a decision does not become ripe for review unless alternative uses of the property have been considered and rejected and it is thus [*51] established thal the landowner has been deprived of its properly. Until that has been done, it is not clear that a taking has occurred or how "far" tile regulation goes. However, [HN7] a substantive due process claim based on arbitrary and capricious conduct is subject odiy to the final decision [*'1067] l***27)requirement of the Williamson test. The decision must be final to be reviewable (else how could arbitrariness be judged), but it is unnecessary ttmt the landowner pursue administrative remedies to determine how the regulation in question applies to the property or avail itself of State procedures for determining compensation (see~ ,~,buthview Assocs. v Boagartz, supra, at 96-97). If the action of lhe municipality is arbitrary and capricious, the remedy for a violation is invalidation of the regulation mid actual damages (see, Williamson. ~mpra, at 197). There should be no cmff~sion about file requirement that adiuinistrative remedies must be exhausted in some cases before judicial review is available and the requirement that an action must be £raal before it is ripe for judicial review. The finality requiremenl is concerned with whether an official authorized to make the determination has arrived at a decision that inflicts injury. The requirement that administrative review must be exhausted in some cases relates to the procedure by which a party injured by a decision may seek review and obtain a remedy if the decision is found to be unlawful ( Williamson, supra, at 192-193; see also, Church erst. Paul & 5't. Andrew v Barwick, 67 NT2d 510, 5213. If tile Building Inspector had the authority to make a final decision revoking defendants' permit, requiring defendants to seek administrative review of his action by taking an appeal to the Zoning Board would impose an exhaustion requirement on their section 1983 action, a condition which is generally impermissible (see. Pat~v v Florida Bd of Regents, 457 U,S' 496; Williamson, supra, at ]94, n ]3; see generally, Stein, Regulatory Takings and Ripeness in the Federal Courts, op. cit., at 15; I Schwartz and Kirklin, Section 1983 Litigation: Claims, Defenses, and Fees § 3.13, at 204- 205 [2d ed]). Whether the Building Inspector's revocation constituted a "fi~ml decision" of the Town of Orangetown is a matter to be determined by examining the relevant local laws. States have broad discretion to determine the form of local govenmlent and the distribution of power in one locality may be quite different from that of another. Whether an official has final anthority to take municipal action in a given case is not a question of fact, but a question of State law ( &. Louis v Praprotnik, [*52] ,~upra, at 124; Pembaur, supra, at 483; see generally, Stein, op. cit., at 82). [HN8] Under the ordinances of tile Town of Orangetown, the Building Inspector had the statutory authority to effect a revocation of defendants' building permit (Orangetown, N. Y., Zouing Code, ch 43, § 8.222 [1969]). He was the "iuitial decisiomnaker" vested by law with the exclusive and unfettered anthority to decide the question of revocation (see, Williamson, supra, at 1933 und he clearly had done so when he revoked defendants' penmt and lmlted work on the project. The Zoning Board was not audiorized to revoke a permit or even participate in the Inspector's decision to revoke, its power was restricted to tile review of the Inspector's fi~kql decision. Thus, a determination by the Board was not necessary and defendants' counterclaim for section 1983 relief is ripe for judicial review. Defendants' Section 1983 Claim [HN91 To succeed on their claim for damages pursuant to 42 U,%'C ~ 1983, defendants must establish (13 the deprivation of a protectable property interest (2) Page 21 88 N.¥.2d 41, *; 665 N.E.2d 1061, **' 643 N.Y.S.2d 2i, ***; 1996 N.Y. LEXIS 674 by one acting under the authority of law ( Parratt v Taylor, 451 U,q'527, 535). [ItN10] The hallmark of property "is an individual entitlement grounded in state law, which cannot be removed except 'for cause'" ( Logan v Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 US 422, 430; Parratt v Taylor, supra; Matter of Deas v Levltt, 73 Nl~d 525, 53], cert denied 493 U,q' 933). In order to establish a protectable properly interest in the building pernfit, defendants must show more thml a mere expectation or hope to retain the permit and continue tl~eir [*'1068] [***28]improvements; they must show that pursuant to State or local law, they had a "legitimate claim of entiflement" to continue construction ( Board of Regents v Roth, 408 U8 564, 577; ,Sullivan v Town of Salem, 805 F2d 81, 84-85 [2d Cir 19861; Yale Auto Parts v Johnson, 758 F2d 54, 59 [2d Cir 1985]). Defendants did so in this case by establishing that file rights to develop their land had become vested under State law. Moreover, as the courts below l'ound, they unquestionably would have received the limited future authorizations necessary to complete the project. On tlds evidence, the Town had "engendered a clear expectation of continued enjoyment" of the permit stffficient to constitute a protectable property interest [*53] for purposes of a section 1983 claim ( Barry v Barchi, 443 US 55, 64, a ] I); there was a "certainty or a very strong likelihood" that defendants would have completed the project absent the deprivation of due process (see, Yale Auto Parta; supra, at 59). Having acquired a cognizable property interest, due process assures the defendants tile right lo be free from arbitrary or irrational municipal actions destructive of this interest (see, Arlington Hgts. v Metropolitan Hous. Corp., 429 US 252, 267; ),buthview Assoc,% supra, at 96; Brad~v v Town pf Colchester, supra, at 2]5). IHN11] The municipality's authority to regulate zoning rests upon fl~e valid exercise of its police power mid a decision regulating a landowner's use of its property offends due process when the govermnent acts with "no legithnate reason for its decisiou" ( Shelton v CiO; qf ('all. ,qYa., 780 F2d 475, 483 [5th Cir], cert denied 479 U,g 822; see. Euclid v Ambler Co., 272 US' 365, 395). The evidence in the record supports the trial court's conclusion tlla! the Building Inspector's revocation of defendimts' permit was arbitrary and capricious in tiffs case because it was without legal .justification motivated entirely by political concerns. The only remaining question is whether his actions may be imputed to the Town of Orangetown. The Town Zoning Code, wltich necessarily reflects Town policy, vests the Building Inspector, alone, with the authority to revoke building permits (Town of Orangetowu Code, ch 43, ~ 8.222). The Building Inspector therefore implements Town policy and the Town, by enacting the legislation, accepted the possibility that he would exercise tltis authority in an arbitrary, and capricious maimer. While the municipality might not be liable if fl~e Building Inspector acted in a good faith or mistaken understanding of the law (see, Brady v Town p~' Colchester, supra, at 2]6) or if his act was a random act of personal ill will not authorized by the Town (see, Martell, supra; Pembaur, supra), tirol clearly was not the case here. He exercised his legal authority for political reasons at file direction of the Town Supervisor. Accordingly, defendants successfully established a claim for damages pursuant to 42 USC 3~ 1983, based on the Building Inspector's arbitrary and irrational revocation of their building perntit. [*54] IV Damages Finally, the plaintiff maintains fl~at the damages were incorrectly computed and the award excessive. Plaintiffs experts conceded during trial that defendants had sustained substantial dmnages. Moreover, they agreed flint file damages could be measured by implementing the so-called Wheeler fonnuta (see, Wheeler v Ci(v pf Pleasant Grove, 833 F2d 267, 271 Illth Cir 1987] [Wheeler III]; see also, 664 F2d 99 [Wheeler I], supra; 746 F2d 1437 [Wheeler II]; 896 F2d 1347, 1351 [Wheeler IV]). In fact, the parties stipulated to a number of figures that could be nsed to compute the damages ander that formula. In Wheeler, a case remarkably similar to Ohs on the facts, the court established a method for determining the damages sustained by temporary govemmenlal interference with a landowner's beneficial use of property. It held that the loss takes the form of an injury to fl~e property's potential for producing income or an expected profit. [*'1069] [***29] The compensable iuterest is the return on the portion of fair market valae that is lost as a result of the govemmant's actiou. Accordingly, the landowner should be awarded the markel rote of return computed over the period of the taking on the difference between the property's fair value without tile restriction and its fair market value with the restriction (see. 833 F2d 267, 271, supra). 88 N.Y.2d 41, *; 665 N.E.2d 1061, **- 643 N.Y.S.2d 21, ***; 1996 N.Y. LEXIS 674 The parties to a civil dispute are free to chart their own course and, unless public policy is affronted, the3, may fashion the way a controversy is to be resolved or how damages are to be computed without interference by the courts ( Mitchell v Ne~v York ttosp., 61 NY2d 20& Matter of Abramovich v Board of Educ., 46 N¥2d 450, cert dethed 444 US 845). While we express no view on tile appropriateness of the Wheeler formula to measure damages in cases such as tlds, its use does not affront public policy and it was witlfin the court's discretion to compute the dmnages on the basis of file formula as the parties agreed it should. Implementing that formula, tile Town stipulated to values for the building and file land before and after taking, the difference between the two numbers, the Page 22 equity ratio and the market rote of return. Tile court determined other values based upon file evidence and directed the parties to compute the damages using the Wheeler formula and submit their determination. It based its final award on those submissions. Inasmuch [*55] as the figures used were either supported by evidence or agreed upon by the parties, there is no basis to interfere with the award. Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Divisiou should be affirmed, with costs, and file certified question answered in the affirmative. Clfief Judge Kaye and Judges Titoue, Bellacosa, s~mth, Levine and Ciparick concur. Order affirmed, etc. JANE ANN R. KRATZ JOHN M. WAGNER CARMELA M, DI TALIA WJLLIAM M. DUFFY ESSEK$, H£FTeR & ANGel CounselOrS AT LAW IO8 EAST MAin STREET P. O. Box 279 RIVERHEAD, N.Y. 11901-0;~79 (631) 369-1700 TELECOPIER NUMBER (631) 369 2065 Albert J. Krupski, Jr., President and Members of the Board of Town Trustees Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P. O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 - HAND DELIVERED P. O. Box 570 WATER MILL, N.Y, 11976 (631) 726-6633 Aprill4,2005 APR 14 LuuSS° ~:,:::d of Trust~s Re: Application of Gregory, Mazzanobile Permit No. 5631 Dear President Krupski and Members of the Board of Town Trustees: As you know, we are the attorneys for the applicant in the above-captioned matter, and the owners of the property under contract to the applicant. It has recently come to my attention that a recommendation was made to the Board to revoke the valid wetlands building permit currently held by Mr. Mazzanobile. In this regard, I refer you to the report prepared for you by Heather Tetrault, dated January 27, 2005. I am writing to express my views that such revocation would be illegal and unwarranted. Moreover, the Board should approve the minor amendments to the permit sought by Mr. Mazzanobile since they are nothing more than a request to do less than what you previously approved. I. Revocation is Not Appropriate This Board issued Mr. Ma77anobile a permit to construct a single family home, pool, deck and septic system in September of 2002. That permit was valid, by its terms, for two years. In July of 2004, after the Town of Southold amended Chapter 97 of the Code, the Board granted a one year extension of the September 2002 permit. Therefore, Mr. Mazzanobile still holds a valid permit from you, issued under the amended provisions of Chapter 97 of the Southold Code. EsseKs, HEFtER ~ Angel COUNSELOR~ aT Law The permit issued to Mr. Mazzanobile delineates two grounds for revocation of the Permit: (1) "non-compliance with the provisions &the originating application" and (2) failure to "obtain all other permits and consents that may be required" in addition to the Trustee permit. (Terms and Conditions, ¶¶4 and 9). In addition, Chapter 97 of the Southold Code sets forth one provision for revocation of a permit. Specifically, Section 97-25F provides that a permit may be revoked if the grantee fails to obtain other required approvals for the project. In this case, Mr. Mazzanobile has obtained the required permits to complete the project from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ("DEC") and from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. However, as you know, the DEC would only approve a project smaller in scale than that approved by you. The DEC required Mr. Mazzanobile to eliminate the proposed swimming pool (approved by you), to eliminate portions of the deck (approved by you) and to move the septic system further from the wetlands than the distance previously approved by you. In other words, Mr. Mazzanobile obtained the other required approvals for his project, but the approvals (at least by the DEC) contain conditions more stringent than those imposed by you. Neither the permit issued by you to Mr. Mazzanobile nor the Southold Code allows for revocation of the permit in these circumstances. Indeed, revoking the permit would be completely contrary to the Code and permit provisions allowing for revocation since Mr. Mazzanobile did, in fact, obtain the other required approvals and now is simply trying to conform the permit issued by you to the approvals granted by the other agencies. II. The Amendments Requested Should be Approved The Southold Code states that all amendments/modifications to "existing permits" must be reviewed in accordance with the standards for issuing permits. § 97-23F. By its terms, this provision provides for review of only the amendments proposed to existing permits, not for a new review of the entire previously approved project. Here, the Board previously determined that Mr. Mazzanobile's project satisfied the standards for issuance of the permit. It makes little sense to conclude that a project lesser in scope than that previously approved does not satisfy the standards for issuance of a permit. Indeed, refusal to grant the requested modifications to the permit -- which would result in less of an impact on the environment in that the proposed plan provides for the elimination &the pool and deck, and the proposal to move the septic system further away from the wetlands - would be arbitrary and capricious. Such arbitrary and capricious denial of the requested amendments would support an action for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Courts have concluded that where a developer has a clear expectation of continued enjoyment of a permit sufficient to constitute a protectable property interest, as is the case here, there is no legal justification for the revocation of the permit. Town qf ESSEkS, HEfTeR ~ ANgel COUNSELORS AT LAW Orangetown v. Magee, 88 N.Y.2d 41,643 N.Y.S.2d 21 (1996). A copy is annexed for your convenience. In Magee, the Court of Appeals affirmed an award of approximately $5 million in damages against the Town of Orangetown because the developer had established a deprivation of a protectable property interest (the revocation of a validly issued permit), by one acting under color of law (the Town building inspector). Here, the refusal to modify the conditions of the permit essentially results in revocation of the permit since Mr. Ma~Tanobile cannot proceed with the project until the permit issued by you is modified to agree with the approvals by the other agencies with jurisdiction over this project. Mr. Mazzanobile acquired a cognizable property interest when the Board issued a valid wetlands permit for the proposed project. There is no legal justification for revoking the existing permit nor is there justification for the refusal to modify the permit to bring it into accord with the DEC approval of the project. III. Revocation of the Valid Permit and/or Refusal to Grant the Requested Modifications Would Result in a Compensable "Taking" The project could go forward but for the Trustee's refusal, to date, to amend the existing permit to bring it into conformity with what the DEC and the Department of Health Services has already approved. The contemplated revocation and the failure to authorize the requested modifications of the previously issued, valid permit, would support a claim that the Town has taken the property without just compensation since the result of such actions would be the destruction of the economic value of the property. See, Matter ofFriedenburg v. New York State Dept. of Environ. Conservation, 3 A.D.3d 86, 767 N.Y.S.2d 451 (2d Dep't 2003), copy annexed. The Board should realize that to deny the requested amendment, which is a de facto revocation, or to revoke the existing permit will result in substantial damages to Mr. MaTzanobile and the property owners. On behalf of applicant, I respectfully submit that no valid grounds for revocation of the permit exist. Moreover, as set forth above, the Board should approve the requested modifications of the previously issued permit since such modifications comply with the standards for permit issuance in the Code and would result in a project lesser in scope than that previously approved by you. Enc. Respectfully yours, STEPHEN R. ANGEL ESSEKS, HEFTeR <~ ANGel COUNSELORS AT LAW CC: Gregory Mazzanobile Constantine P. Georgiopoulos James Fitzgerald E. Brownell Johnston MAR.23.2005 I:41PM HEFTER ANGEL M0.019 P.2 F'$$£KE4 H£FTER ~- ANGIEL RIVE:RHEA, O, N.Y. I March 23, 2005 P. O. Box Albert 3. Krupskl~ 3r., President and ~mbers of the Board of Town TnJstees Town Hall 53095 P. oute 25 P. o. Box ~.179 Southold, NY 1197! - Via Fax 765-664! Re: Application of GregOW Mazzanobile Dear President Krupski and Members of~e Board Of Town Trustees: As you know, we are the attorneys for the applicant in the above-captioned matter, I understand that them is a meeting scheduled tonight, and that the I~)ard could act on the above-capUoned applicaUon. I also understand that you may not have a full Board tonight. On behalf of applicant, ! respectfully request no action be taken on the above-captioned application unless a full Board is present. FpH~.lly yours, Gregory Mazzanobile - Via Fax 203 539-75'/7 Constantine P. Georgiopoulos - 914. 793-6149 .lames Fitzgerald - Via Fax 73~k7463 MAR.23.2005 i:41PM HEFTER ANGEL N0.019 P.1 (631) 369-1700 Date: To: Fax No.: To; Fax No.: To: Fax No,: To: Fax No.: From: Re: Esseks, Heifer & Angel Attorneys at Law 108 East Main Street P. O. Box 279 Riverhead, New York 11901 (631) 369-2065-Fax No. FAX COVER SHEET March 23, 200,5 Albert Krupski, Jr., PresidentJSouthold Town Trustees Attn: Lauren Standish 765-6641 Gregory Mazzanobile 203 639-7577 Constantine P, Georgiopoulos 914 793-6149 James Fitzgerald 734-7463 Stephen R. Angel, Esq. Application of Gregory Mazzanobile Total pages: 2 Comments; _ J CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE The documents aocompanying this telecopy tmnsmissian contain information whi=h is ~onfidentlel and/or legally privileged. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named on this transmission sheet. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, dis~b~on or the taking of any e~on In relianco on ~e contents of this telecopied information is sffictly prohibited, and that the documents should be returned to this firm immediately. In this regard, if you have receiVed this telecopy in error, please notify us by telephone immediately. DATE SENT: March 23, 2005. TIME SENT: INITIALS: MD EI'.T?~,B~ A. NEV~ TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS · MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS.MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC ACCESS TO RECORDS INSTRUCTIONS: Please complete Section I of this form and give to Town Clerk*s Office (agency Freedom of information Officer). One copy will be returned to you in response to your request, or as an interim response. SECTION I. TO: Town Trustees (Department or Officer, if known, that has the information you are requesting.) RECORD YOU WISH TO INSPECT: (Describe the record sought. If possible, supply date, file title, tax map number, and any other pertinent information.) Report, or the like, prepared as a summary of the activity concerning the ~azzanobile application (SCT~ //1000-59-1-21.6 & 21.7), by Heather Tetrault. Please provide a copy. Signature of Applicant: ~~ ~'"'~/~ ~,//" '/ // Printed Name JAME~E. FITZGERAL/D, JR. Address 385 HAYWATERS DRIVE, CUTCHOGUE Mailing Address PO BOX 617, CUTCHOGUE NY 11935 Telephone Number 631-734-5800 Date: March 21, 2005 [ ] APPROVED , L~Jb [ ] APPROVED WITH DELAY* [ ] DENIED* I~',,~ ~ ~' ''i~1~'5 El~abeth A. Neville Freedom 'of Information Officer Date * If delayed or denied see reverse side for explanation. Telephone (631) 765-1892 Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O, Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL TOWN OF SOUTHOLD At the meeting of the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council held Mon., February 14, 2005, the following recommendation was made: GREGORY MAZZANOBILE to Amend Permit #5631 to eliminate the swimming pool and move the proposed sanitary system leaching pools 3' further from the wetlands line. Located: 1300 & 1460 Lake Dr., Southold. SCTM#59-1-21.6&21.7 The CAC recommends the Board of Trustees postpone the application until the applicant submits a report prepared by an expert describing how the proposed project will not have adverse effect on the environment. The CAC further requests clarification with regard to the ownership and future plans of Central Ave. Albert J. Krupski, President James King, Vice-President Artie Foster Ken Poliwoda Peggy A. Dickerson Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-1366 TO: FROM: DATE: RE: BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Elizabeth A. Neville, Town Clerk Board of Trustees February 7, 2005 Foil Request of James Fitzgerald, Jr. The file of Gregory Mazzanobile is available in the Trustees office for review between the hours of 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM. ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS - MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS.MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 OFFICE OF THE TOWN CI.ERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD APPLICATION FOR PU~BLIC ACCESS TO RECORDS INSTRUCTIONS: Please complete Section I of this form and give to Town Clerk's Office (agency Freedom of Information Officer). One copy will be returned to you in response to your request, or as an interim response. SECTION I. TO: Board of Town Trustees (Department or Officer, if known, that has the information you are requesting.) RECORD YOU WISH TO INSPECT: (Describe the record sought. If possible, supply date, file title, tax map number, and any other pertinent in~rmation.) Minutes of the public hearing on January 19, 2005, Concerning the application of Gregory Ma~zanobile for approval of an amendment to Trustees' Permit No. 5631.. :irgi~ r: Z A P P ' 'ca n tj A~ E~/~L~¢'" Address 386 HAYWATERS DRIVE, CUTCHOGUE Mailing Address PO BOX 617, CUTCHOGUE NY 11935 Telephone Number 631-734-5800 Date: February 2, 2OO5 APPROVED APPROVED WITH DELAY* [ ] Elizabeth A. Neville Freedom 'of In~rmation Officer DENIED* * If delayed or denied see reverse side for explanation. RECEIVED FE~ 3 zuu5 Date ET J7~BETH A. TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS i MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS.MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD APPLICATION FOR PU~BLIC ACCESS TO RECORDS INSTRUCTIONS: Please complete Section I of this form and give to Town Clerk's Office (agency Freedom of Information Officer). One copy will be returned to you in response to your request, or as an interim response. SECTION I. TO: Board of Town Trustees (Department or Officer, if known, that has the information you are requesting.) RECORD YOU WISH TO INSPECT: (Describe the record sought. If possible, supply date, file title, tax map number, and any other pertinent information.) Written information provided by consultant Larry Penny as requested by the Board a~ the 1/19/05 public hearing on the application of Gregory Mazzanobi!e. Signature of Applicant: ~/~?'~~~~. Printed Name JAMES. FITZGERAM~/~/~R. Address 386 HAYWATERS DRIVE, CUTCHOGUE Mailing Address PO BOX 617, CUTCHOGUE NY 11935 Telephone Number 631-734-5800 Date: February 3, 200.5 [ ] APPROVED RECEIVED [ ] APPROVED WITH DELAY* [ ] DENIED* Fr, eedom 'of Information Officer $outho~ * If delayed or denied see reverse side for explanation. ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 southoldtown.northfork.net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Board of Trustees Linda J. Cooper, Deputy Town Clerk February 3, 2005 Foil Request of James Fitzgerald, Jr. Transmitted herewith is a FOIL request of James Fitzgerald Jr. Please respond to this office within five (5) business days. Thank you. IgLIT~BETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS · MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS.MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD APPLICATION FOR PU~BLIC ACCESS TO RECORDS INSTRUCTIONS: Please complete Section I of this form and give to Town Clerk's Office (agency Freedom of Information Officer). One copy will be returned to you in response to your request, or as an interim response. SECTION I. TO: Board of Town Trustees (Department or Officer, if known, that has the information you are requesting.) RECORD YOU WISH TO INSPECT: (Describe the record sought. If possible, supply date, file title, tax map number, and any other pertinent information.) Written information provided by consultant Larry Penny as requested by the Board at the 1/19/05 public hearing on the application of Gregory Mazzanobi!e. p ' ' __ ~ j / rinted Name JAMES. FITZGERALI~,(~R. Address Mailing Address Telephone Number 385 HAYWATERS DRIVE, CUTCHOGUE PO BOX 617, CUTCHOGUE NY 11935 631-734-5800 Date: February 3, 2005 [ ] APPROVED [ ] APPROVED WITH DELAY* [ ] DENIED* Freedom 'of Information Officer * If delayed or denied see reverse side for explanation. RECEIVED Date Southo~d Town ELIZABETH A. NE'v~ TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS · MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS, MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD APPLICATION FOR PU~BLIC ACCESS TO RECORDS INSTRUCTIONS: Please complete Section I of this form and give to Town Clerk's Office (agency Freedom of Information Officer). One copy will be returned to you in response to your request, or as an interim response. SECTION I. TO: Board of Town Trustees (Depai:tment or Officer, if known, that has the information you are requesting.) RECORD YOU WISH TO INSPECT: (Describe the record sought. If possible, supply date, file title, tax map number, and any other pertinent in~rmation.) Minutes of the public hearing on January 19. 2005, concerning the application of Gregory Ma~zanobile for approval of an amendment to Trustees' Permit No. 5631.. Address 386 HAYWATERS DRIVE, CUTCHOGUE Mailing Address PO BOX 617, CUTCHOGUE NY 11935 Telephone Number 631-734-5800 Date: February 2, 2005 [ ] APPROVED RECEIVED [ ] APPROVED WITH DELAY* [ ] DENIED* ville Date Freedom 'of Information Officer $out],~'~,~ e T,~'~q~ f~n~ * If delayed ar denied see reverse side for explanation. SOUTHOLD TOWN CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL February 4, 2005 Ref: Gregory Mazzanobile Permit Application. Due to the short period allowed for review, not all members have had an opportunity to report on their findings. However those reporting have agreed that this application should be put on hold until independent expert advice can be obtained regarding the environmental impact of this construction if approved. Approval without this level of expertise may result in irreparable harm to this area. If the expert cannot be obtained, then the previous recommendation of the committee should be considered final. D. E. Wilder, Chairman E$$eks, HeFTER & ANgel COUNSELORS AT LAW i08 EAST ~V~AIN STREET P. O. BOX 279 R~VERHEAD, N.Y. 11901-0279 (631) 369-1700 February 2, 2005 Albert _1. Krupski, President and Members of the Board of Town Trustees Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P. O. Box 1179 Southold, NY ~.~.97:L Re: Amendment - Gregory Mazzanobile WATER ~vllLL Off,ce iV10 NTAU K HighWAy P. O. Box 570 WATER MILL, N.Y. 11976 (631) 726 6633 Dear President Krupski and Members of the Board of Town Trustees: As you know, we are the attorneys for Gregory Mazzanobile, who seeks an amendment to his existing permit. ! appeared before you in support of Mr. Mazzanobile's amendment on January ~.9, 2005. Mr. Mazzanobile has a permit to construct a single family home, pool, deck and septic system from the Trustees. The purpose of the amendment is to remove the pool, a major portion of the decking, and increase the distance of the septic system from the wetlands. Mr. Mazzanobile's permit was issued after a public hearing and was extended by your Board this past year. As mitigated, Mr. Mazzanobile's proposal to use the property has been approved by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ("DEC"), and the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. lin light of the above, it is our position that a refusal to grant the amendment would be arbitrary and capricious. The only changes sought are mitigation from an existing valid permit. Case law supports our position. Where a building permit has been properly issued and is valid, a right to proceed under it exists. See Matter of Faymor Dev. Co., ]nc. v. Board of Standards and Appeals of the C/ty of New York, 57 A.D.2d 928, 394 N.Y.S.2d 732 (2d Dept. 1977)('~[he right to proceed pursuant to a valid building permit, no less than any other civil right," was not lost because protesting neighbors took to the street and prevented construction which would have allowed owner to claim vested rights in the valid permit); Matter of Moore v. Burchel/, 14 A.D.2d 572, 218 N.Y.S.2d 868 (2d Dept. 196].)(Town of Mamaroneck justified in refusing neighbor's request that property owner's validly issued building permit be revoked). ESSEkS, HeFTER & ANGEL COUNSELORS AT LAW I request that you grant the amendment. SRA:md cc: Gregory Mazzanobile ]ames Fitzpatrick R?~-tfully yours, S~EPH~N R. ANGEL 02/02/2005 15:01 3613241, PLANNING PAGE 01/84 Larry Penny 3662 Noyac Rd. Sag Harbor, N.¥.11963 FEe - Z 005 Seuthold Town Board of Trustees February 2, 2005 Southold Town Trustees $outhold, N.Y. sUBJECT: Manzzanobile Wetlands Permit Application And Modification Dear Trustees Here is a short sur~ary of my oral presentation given to you on January 19, 2005 regards the proposal to build on the north side of Lake Drive north of Great Pond and south of Leeton Drive and the Long Island Sound in the Town of Southold. rely/~ Attach. 02/02/2005 15:0~ 381324! PLANNING PAGE 02/04 N~nzsanobilo Parcel And Its S~atus With Respect To T~e Ra~e Communities In Whi0h It Is Situated, Lake Drive, Southold Town, Long Island, New York New York State's Department of State has characterized the area in which the Manzzanobile residence would be located as a "globally rare interdunal swale", five of which have been documented on Long Island, four of them in East Hampton Town where I have worked as the Environmental Protection Director for 20 years. I am very familiar with these interdunal swales and their unusual and rare plant come, unities as part of my duties in East Hampton have to do with protecting them. In the last four years East Hampton has purchased about 75 acres of interdunal swale land associated with the Walking Dunes and Napsague Dunes interdunal swale complexes with Community Fund Preservation money. Interestingly, the East Hampton Trustees own more than 50 acres of the Promised Land interdunal swale complex which they have held for hundreds of years. As enunciated in the Eric Lamont, NYS DOS and State Natural Heritage reports these interdunal swales contain rare plant native species such as the state listed Iris prismatica, slender blue flag, found by Eric Lamont in the Great Pond interdunal swale in Southold. Interdunal swales are often associated with water table ponds because they are water table systems, themselves, located near large bodies of marine waters where the water table resides at the surface or very near to it. The groundwater column rises and falls depending upon the amount of precipitation available in any given year, but is also tied to sea level because the fresh groundwater is less dense than the saline sea water which underlies it and thus "floats" on top of it. Thus, with the sea level rise that we are presently experiencing on Long Island, interdunal swales will expand rather than shrink and we can expect the subject one, as well as the five documented Long Island ones, to increase in size over the next fifty years. Consequently, standard setbacks that provide protective buffers from wetlands in more inland areas where the line between "wetland" and "upland" is generally quite sharp, don't offer as much protection in interdunal swale areas adjacent to seas. They can be compromised by storm driven flood waters, high winds which reshape their component 02/02/2005 15:01 3~132411 PLANNING DEPARTI~ PAGE 83/84 dunes, salting by aerosols from the sea as we experienced during Hurricane Gloria in 1985, and developmental events such as those that are now being experienced in the subject interdunal swale area. Developmental events produce short- term and long-term chronic disturbances such as changes in wind flow patterns, infiltration of septic and surface chemicals, exotic vegetation introductions and the like. The nature of the natural area before development is subtly or dramatically changed, and the change is progressive and deleterious to the natural system. As we speak, the Promised Land interdunal swale area in the hamlet of Amagansett in East Hampton is being subjected to such pressures. As the photomap given to the Trustees during my presentation clearly shows, the sea (Napeague Bay) is encroaching onto the land at more than a foot a year, houses built before there were town wetland laws (passed in 1984) are creating zones of disturbance that include the spread of phragmites and the progressive sanding of wetland bogs around them. Fortunately, the Community Preservation Fund was established just in time to provide moneys to buy parcels in and around such ecologically significant habitats threatened by development. Likewise, the Town of East Hampton and Suffolk County have combined efforts to save ecologically rare lands in a very provident and timely manner. The permitting of the one house and adjunts under consideration, notwithstanding that the usual standards and setbacks will be applied to the parcel under question, will make it difficult to preserve other critical parcels having similarly high ecological values nearby that are in the same predicament. Therefore, my recommendation to the Trustees is to deny the permit modification and to do everything in their power to acquire said parcel. I would expect that the Southold Town Board, Suffolk County, local homeowners, and land preservation organizations (e.g., Peconic Land Trust, Nature Conservancy) would contribute in this effort to save the one globally rare interdunal swale community in the Town of Southold and one of only six ed for Long Island. arry enny ,,/ February 2, 2005 02/02/2005 15:0! 3G13241~ PLANNING PAGE 04/04 020 Lake D: Southold, N, Jan. 28,200! FEB - 1 2OO5 ¥. 11971 $outhold Town Board of Trustees Southold Town Trustees PO Box 1179 Southold, N.Y. 11971 Dear sirs and madam: Thank you for your careful and patient consideration of the issues surrounding the development of the Mazzanobile property on Lake Drive. We are grateful to you for being thoughtful stewards of the rare and precious natural resources of the Kenney's Beach area and of our town. When outer Cape Cod was faced 40 years ago with diminishing open space, and increasing human-related pollution, the National Park Service stepped in to preserve what was let~. The remarkable interdunal swale, extending fi.om Goldsmith's to Horton's Point,is a wonderfully unique feature of Southold Town and still very much intact. You - the Trustees- are in the position, right now, of stopping further development and preserving this VERY, VERY important natural environment. The unique character of the swale, with its flow of flesh water into the Sound, keeps the three lovely beaches clean and this legendary fishing ground active and vital. When the swale is developed, it's all gone. My husband, a native of Mattituck and former commercial fisherman, and I live on the only lot on the north side of Lake Drive that is above the 100 year flood plain. We have been here year-round for the past 4 years, and we have observed the many neighborhood and town residents who use our street, in all kinds of weather, for recreation (walking/running/biking) and rejuvenation. The development of the Ma~anobile property, with its proximity to the cranberry bog and at the junction of Lake Court would alter what is now essentially a "wilderness experience"- refreshing and revitalizing- for many. The stark vegetation and endless vistas will be gone. We have personally pledged $10,000. towards the purchase of the open space properties in our neighborhood and we will work to raise more. We consider ourselves stewards of the Kenney's Beach area and we will do whatever it takes to preserve its unique character. My husband has put forward a proposition to Jim MeMann of the Town to replant the beach grasses at Kenney's with a team of volunteers. We will do whatever it takes to keep this area a vital resource for the Town. We urge you to mm down the Mazzanobile proposal. It is much more than just another second home. ~ Ve/~ truly Y9ars, , / Deborah~d Bird Gregory D. Dwyer 3961 Taft Ave, Seaford, N.Y. 11783 Home Phone (516)781-4391 January 29, 2005 Southold Town Board of Trustees P.O. Box 1179 53095 Main Road Southold, N.Y. 11971 Dear Tmstees, It has come to my attention that the Mazzanobile project on Lake Drive will soon come before you for your approval. As a second home owner on Lake Drive for almost thirty years, I urge you to deny this project. The "Lake Drive Loop" is a special area which contains an important ecosystem for the entire town. The dunes provide a natural filtering system for Sound water flowing into Great Pond. Wild cranberries can be found growing in spots. And I have personally observed turtles, whitetail deer, osprey, and wild pheasant living in the wild. A project of the magnitude contemplated would destroy these wetlands forever. The mere fact that such large amounts of landfill and grading are needed, is indicitive of the fragile condition of the area. Any floods or sewage overflows mn the risk of creating an environmental disaster. The Kenney's Beach area has undergone growth over the years and, yes, the recent public water project allows for, and encourages, more development. But ao. Ihiag in the past has disrupted and altered the natural contours of the land on this scale. The dictionapy defines a tmstee as "...someone who manages the property of others", and to my mind, there can be no higher calling. In that capacity, you have a chance to take a stand on wetland protection on Lake Drive. Based on your informational article in the Suffolk Times (1/27), the "change, alteration, or activity" proposed for this site is most definitely not in the best interest of the "estuary, shoreline or immediate bay bottom." At a time when open space, farmland preservation, and wetland protection are hot issues on the North Fork, your bold actions today will allow this unique environment to endure for future generations. Just as Govemor Andros recognized the importance of wetlands to Southold Town in 1676, I ask you in 2005, Mr. Krupski, Mr. King, Mr. Poliwoda, and Ms. Dickerson, to realize the natural forces at work on "The Loop", and deny the Mazzanobile project. Sincerely, Grego~ D. D~er 11/15/04 Field Inspection Tetrault, Heather From: Gwynn Schroeder [gdsnfec@optonline.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 01,2005 1:57 PM To: Standish, Lauren; Tetrault, Heather Subject: Comments on Mazzanobile Application February 1, 2005 A1 Krupski, President Members of the Board of Trustees Southold Town Dear Members of the Board; I am writing on behalf of North Fork Environmental Council and in support of the Great Pond Wetland Preservation Committee's position on the application of Mazzanobile, SCTM #59-1-21.6 & 21.7, for an amendment to an existing wetlands permit to construct a single family residence. After reviewing the aerial photographs and the botanical report prepared by Eric Lamont and listening to the testimony of Lan'y Penny at the January 19 hearing as to the unique ecological features of this parcel, it is evident that this is an area that simply should not be built upon. Especially poignant is Dr. Lamont's statements that the area under consideration contains ram ecosystems, not only rare locally, but globally as well. Dr. Lamont goes on to state in his evaluation that "strictest environmental laws and codes should be enforced to preserve the integrity of these delicate and sensitive ecological communities". I wholeheartedly echo his recommendation and ask that you utilize every option at your disposal to prevent this inappropriate development. A recent poll of NFEC members, not surprisingly, revealed that protection of Southold's wetlands and beaches as their number one priority. You are charged with the responsibility of protecting these wetlands and I know it is a responsibility that you do not take lightly. Lots such as the one under consideration are becoming more and more vulnerable to development as time goes on. What once was considered acceptable should not be considered acceptable today and presumably we have learned from past mistakes. Recognizing this fact, the Trustees wisely called on the Town Board to impose a moratorium on wetland permits. This permit was issued prior to the moratorium and prior to the amendments to Chapter 97 of the Southold Town Code. It was also issued at a time when the Trustees did not have the benefit of an environmental analyst on staff. You also have the expect testimony of two experts clearly circumstances have changed. Chapter 97 states that the Trustees may grant a permit only if granting the permit will not "adversely affect the wetlands of the Town" or "adversely affect the aesthetic value of the wetland and adjacent areas". I argue that allowing this development to proceed will do both. You have expert opinion as to the unique nature of this parcel and the impacts if developed. I know you will take this into account when making your decision. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, 2/1/05 11/I 5/04 Field Inspection Gwynn Schroeder Gwynn Schroeder Executive Director North Fork Environmental Council P.O. Box 799 Mattituck, New York 11952 631-298-8880 Fax: 631-298-4649 E-mail: gdsnfec~optonline.net www.nfec 1 .org 2/1/05 FEB - 2005 February 1, 2005 A1 Krupski, President Members of the Board of Trustees Southold Town Dear Members of the Board; I am writing on behalf of North Fork Environmental Council and in support of the Great Pond Wetland Preservation Committee's position on the application of Mazzanobile, SCTM #59-1-21.6 & 21.7, for an amendment to an existing wetlands permit to construct a single family residence. After reviewing the aerial photographs and the botanical report prepared by Eric Lamont and listening to the testimony of Larry Penny at the January 19 hearing as to the unique ecological features of this parcel, it is evident that this is an area that simply should not be built upon. Especially poignant is Dr. Lamont's statements that the area under consideration contains rare ecosystems, not only rare locally, but globally as well. Dr. Lamont goes on to state in his evaluation that "strictest environmental laws and codes should be enforced to preserve the integrity of these delicate and sensitive ecological communities". I wholeheartedly echo his recommendation and ask that you utilize every option at your disposal to prevent this inappropriate development. A recent poll of NFEC members, not surprisingly, revealed that protection of Southold's wetlands and beaches as their number one priority. You are charged with the responsibility of protecting these wetlands and I know it is a responsibility that you do not take lightly. Lots such as the one under consideration are becoming more and more vulnerable to development as time goes on. What once was considered acceptable should not be considered acceptable today and presumably we have learned from past mistakes. Recognizing this fact, the Trustees wisely called on the Town Board to impose a moratorium on wetland permits. This permit was issued prior to the moratorium and prior to the amendments to Chapter 97 of the Southold Town Code. It was also issued at a time when the Trustees did not have the benefit of an environmental analyst on staff. You also have the expect testimony of two experts - clearly circumstances have changed. Chapter 97 states that the Trustees may grant a permit only if granting the permit will not "adversely affect the wetlands of the Town" or "adversely affect the aesthetic value of the wetland and adjacent areas". I argue that allowing this development to proceed will do both. You have expert opinion as to the unique nature of this parcel and the impacts if developed. I know you will take this into account when making your decision. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Gwynn Schroeder Executive Director Albert J. Krupski, President James King, Vice-President Artie Foster Ken Poliwoda Peggy A. Dickerson Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-1366 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD January 27, 2005 TO: Board of Trustees E.Brownell Johnston, Assistant Town Attorney Mark Terry, Senior Environmental Planner Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant FROM: Heather Tetrault, Environmental Technician Re~ Application for Amendment to Permit #5631 Gregory Mazzanobile 1300 & 1460 Lake Drive, Southold SCTM# 59-1-21.6, 21.7 REPORT: This memorandum is in response to the Trustees' request for a review of new information presented to the Board regarding this application. PURPOSE: The purpose is to determine the effect of the above application on the natural resources of the Town of Southold. STATEMENT OF FACTS are as follows: 1 .Applicant applied for a permit to construct a house, pool, and sanitary system on May 2, 2002. 2.Permit # 5631 granted from the Board of Trustees on September 25, 2002. 3.Applicant applied for an amendment to change the location of the sewage disposal system and fill and retaining wall on June 27, 2003. 4.Trustees denied the amendment on December 17, 2003. 5.Applicant applied for an extension to Permit #5631 on July 14, 2004. 6.Trustees granted a one-year extension on July 21, 2004. 7.Applicant applied for an amendment to eliminate the pool and move the sanitary system three feet to the west on September 29, 2004. FINDINGS These are my findings on this project, as the Environmental Technician for the Town of Southold. The permit that was granted on September 25, 2002 was prior to the revisions of Chapter 97, the Wetland Code for the Town. The lot is located in a globally rare natural plant community, an interdunal freshwater wetland swale. This is a distinct ecosystem that is seasonally flooded. It is a dynamic system that is susceptible to saltwater intrusion and shifting sand formation. An interdunal swale forms a distinct ecosystem, that occurs sporadically along the Atlantic coast, seasonally flooded depressions that occur in the back dunes and contain rare plants, recharge areas for groundwater, and amphibian habitats. The subject property is located in an area that is an approved subdivision from the 1980s,when the Town was not prepared to environmentally assess the natural resources found in that habitat. The area is a globally rare habitat and in order to protect this unique habitat the setbacks set out in the Town Code must be followed and for these reasbns: 1. Listed in the purpose and goals of Chapter 97 Wetlands are lands and submerged lands commonly called bogs, containing bog mat vegetation including cranberries (Vaccinium sp.), and other fresh water wetland systems. 2. These wetland systems are typically found within and comprise an interdunal swale ecosystem. 3. The purpose of Chapter 97 is to ensure for the residents of the Town of Southold the protection and preservation of these wetlands and that their values, including protection of groundwater, flood control, and plant and wildlife habitat, and shall be harmed by development in this area. 4. There are three private wells within 150' (health department standard for shallow wells) of proposed leaching pools (at 71" and 104'). 5. Chapter 97. Section 12B.of the Southold Town Code mandates the prevention of the loss or degradation of critical wildlife and plant habitat. 6. The minimum setbacks to ensure protection of these wetlands are t00 feet for a residence and 100 feet for leaching pools. 7. According to past aerial photography and historical information the groundwater table experiences seasonal fluctuations and the size of the wetlands increase with the movement of groundwater. 8. The subject property has been identified by Eric Lamont in an independent study titled Botanical Report, August 2004, Preliminary Environmental Assessment of the "Great Ponds Wetland and Dunes" Southold, NY as a maritime freshwater interdunal swale, designated by the New York State Natural Heritage Program as a globally rare habitat that is found only in five places on Long Island. 9. This ecosystem has been identified as the only interdunal swale ecosystem occurring in the Town of Southold and contains the rare Irisprismatica, and the maritime dunes that are also designated as State Rare by the New York State Natural Heritage Program. 10. The New York State Natural Heritage program has issued a publication in which interdunal swales are listed as priority habitats for conservation. 11.The standard setbacks that are normally sufficient for protecting wetland areas are not sufficient for this habitat where it is a rare community, shaped by the winds with the movement of sand and vegetation that the level of disturbance is greater from any development. 12. The disturbance of swales and the surrounding dunes will often lead to invasion by the common reed (European Phragmites) and Purple Loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), and the nutrient enrichment from runoff from lawns and septic systems greatly accelerate invasion by these species. These plants are found in that area now and more impacts will support a monoculture of Phragrnites and a loss of valuable wetland species. 13. Expert testimony from Larry Penney, Ecologist, Sag Harbor, Greg Edinger, Ecologist, New York Natural Heritage Program, Eric Lamont, PHD, Botanist, Dr. Scott Shumway, research Biologist, Mark Terry, Senior Environmental Planner, Southold Town, Brian Frank, Town of East Hampton Planning Department, and Bruce Horwith, Nature Conservancy indicates that the area is a critical habitat and may be significantly impacted by the construction of a sanitary system as proposed. 14. Information of concem from the town's Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan, as follows: (ii) Flooding The potential for flooding in Reach 2 is greatest in the vicinity of Goldsmith Inlet, Kenney's Beach and McCabe's Beach. The bluffs that stretch along the shoreline of Reach 2 east from Duck Pond Point move inland at Goldsmith Inlet and return to the shoreline at Lily Pond extending on to Horton Point. Localized flooding occurs along the low shoreline areas between these points. At Goldsmith Inlet, flooding can extend inland from the Long Island Sound shoreline into low-lying areas around the Inlet. This can extend beyond Mill Road and Sound View Avenue. Between Great Pond and Horton Lane, flooding can extend back into the dunes, affecting property along Leeton Drive, West Drive, Lake Drive, Kermey's Road, Dogwood Lane, and North Sea Drive. Flooding also extends to low lying areas around Great Pond and Lily Pond. Flood areas are indicated on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps, which are prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Normally the potential for flood damage or lack of access due to flooding during storms might act as a deterrent to the development of residentially zoned lots. However, the federal flood insurance program has served to make development of some low-lying properties more attractive by requiring raised construction above the 1 O-foot contour. As seasonal cottages are winterized and expanded into year-round dwellings, they also are raised on stilts or mounded earth. However, the roads and surrounding terrain remain susceptible to flooding. This trend is likely to result in problems in the near future for emergency services personnel as the year-round population increases. The Town needs to develop a Flood Hazard Mitigation Plan to inventory potential trouble spots and solutions. (iv) Areas of Special Concern The Town of Southold has identified five areas of special concern within Reach 2. These are examined in more detail below. Long Island Sound shoreline - Goldsmith Inlet to Kenney's Beach The primary issues of concern here are erosion and environmental protection. The Town's main focus here is to identify the degree to which man-made structures located updrifi of this stretch of shoreline are aggravating the naturally occurring rate of erosion. Once that is determined with some degree of certainty, the Town is committed to finding reasonable and feasible ways of redressing the existing problem, and to finding constructive ways to prevent further erosion of the same magnitude. This will, of necessity, include closer scrutiny of applications to rebuild structures seaward of either the mean high tide mark or the CEHA line. Where possible, all structures should be pulled landward. With regard to environmental protection, the Town's main focus is to protect the locally and regionally unique landforms and habitats found within this Reach. This means finding ways to protect the dunes and to protect the beach and wetland habitats (and their respective wildlife components) from destruction or degradation. (iv) Protection of habitats and wetlands Reach 2 features locally unique and important landforms, wetlands and coastal beach habitats. These are concentrated around Goldsmith Inlet, Peconic Dunes, Great Pond and along the shoreline. Significant protection can be provided to this habitat through judicious acquisition of key parcels and careful stewardship of those properties after they are opened to the public. The Town also needs to find ways to mitigate the environmental degradation of these habitats and wetlands that may ensue as vacant lots within existing residential communities are developed or as existing structures are rebuilt or expanded. The restoration of wetland habitat around privately held ponds, e.g. Lily Pond, also should be explored, perhaps in conjunction with the property owners. (v) Protection of water quality As mentioned in the previous paragraph, the Town needs to mitigate the impact of existing and proposed development on the environment. One aspect of this is the need to reduce the flow of pollutants to the surface waters of Goldsmith Inlet, Autumn Pond, Great Pond and Lily Pond, not to mention the wetlands and drainage swales that feed these water bodies. Two types of pollutant sources are of great concern: that of stormwater runoff from public and private property and that of poorly-sited or malfunctioning on-site wastewater treatment systems. Stormwater runoff must be dealt with not just from roads, but from impermeable surfaces on private property. For instance, roof runoff typically is channeled by property owners down their driveway into the road instead of into on-site leaching basins or dry-wells. Much of the road runoffin this Reach is piped to low areas adjacent to wetlands and water bodies, but it is not necessarily filtered of pollutants. Wastcwater treatment is a major problem where the lots are non-conforming in size, particularly if the lots are on the water's edge. As the value of waterfront continues to increase (be this sound, lake or pond front), the pressure to upgrade and expand existing structures on undersized lots may result in increased levels of pollution to surface and ground waters. Finally, landscaping practices that rely on heavy applications of fertilizers and pesticides can be a contributing pollution factor, particularly adjacent to water or drainage swales. In recognition of the existing and potential threat to water quality, the Town recognizes the need for Watershed Plans for threatened areas, particularly that of Goldsmith Inlet. (vi) Flooding and erosion Flooding within Reacho2 is primarily a function of low-lying shorefront and inlet areas within reach of storm driven wave action. Even with compliance with federal flood insurance regulations, these areas will remain vulnerable to the extreme wave action and beach erosion that takes place during severe nor'easters. It is estimated that more than half of the waterfront structures within this Reach lies wholly or partially within the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area. As these residences become endangered, some will be pulled back from the shoreline. However, in certain parts of the Reach, the lots are too small to enable property owners to relocate their residences farther from the water. In the absence of public acquisition of waterfront for the purposes of public access, the Town can only ensure that future subdivision lots are designed with sufficient depth to situate houses well landward of the Coastal Erosion Hazard line and the flood zone. The Town needs to develop a Flood Hazard Mitigation Plan to inventory potential trouble spots and solutions. CONCLUSION In response to your request for my opinion, I would recommend that the Trustees deny the amendment, without prejudice, to the permit of Gregory Mazzanobile for a house, sanitary system, and pool, and revoke the original permit, if legally possible, based on that the area is a globally rare habitat and in order to protect this unique habitat the setbacks set out in the Town Code must be followed. The new information documents the sensitivity of the area. The proposed distance of the leaching pools cannot be mitigated to follow the required setbacks, and will adversely affect this natural habitat. The 50' non-disturbance buffer between the house and the wetland is not sufficient to protect the wetland; there will be normal activity around the house that will be closer to the wetland. In addition, allowing development here sets a bad precedent for protecting the rest of this habitat; I recommend the strictest constraints on these lots; there should be no lawns or use of chemical fertilizers. The size of the house could be reduced (current proposed house is over 3000 square feet). The applicant has not demonstrated that there will not be negative impacts from the proposed development. I would request that they do a ground water flow study, and be responsible for showing that there will be no impact on the wetland areas. Heather Tetrault Environmental Technician 11/15/04 Field Inspection Tetrault, Heather From: Sent: To: Cc: Lillian Ball [ballstudio@thing.net] Monday, January 31,2005 10:52 AM pegdickerson @optonline.net Tetrault, Heather Subject: Great Pond Wetlands Dear Peggy, I just wanted to touch base with you and say thanks for the response we got the other night at the trustees meeting. I know you and Ken must have revisited the issue with the other trustees, and it was great to find them ready to look at all the impressive new information we have found. In addition to the biological reports, Larry Penny had such persuasive points on the frightening results of building on a swale in East Hampton. We all look forward to seeing his report and I'm sure Heather will do a good job as well. Please feel free to pass along the following facts, if you think it would help the preservation effort. As you know this is not just a wetlands, a marine freshwater interdunal swale is a very unusual occurence. I initially got involved because I thought development would affect the health of the lake as well as my lovely view. But now after all this research I realize it is much more serious because it affects everything: LI Sound, beach as well as lake property owners, lots of birds and wildlife, in fact the entire community. Preservation has become what feels like a driving force to me, personally, a responsibility I take very seriously. Since becoming the Chairman of the committee in July, I have spent nearly 650 hours working to get those reports, mobilize the entities involved ( the Civic Ass., Peconic Land Trust, Southold Land Preservation, Suffolk County Planning, The Nature Conservancy, Natural Heritage Program, NY Dept of State) and raise the nearly $200,000. to pumhase the comer lot ( the 1 st offered to us) on West + Lake. The Southold Land Preservation Committee has indicated to us that they are willing to contribute as much as 20% towards the purchase of each of the lots we have targeted. Suffolk County planning is submitting our area to the legislative open space committee for a planning steps resolution. As I said at the hearing, over 70 donors have contributed to the PLT and we are practically at the asking price of $225,000. My commitee and I have spent over $7000 of our own money to facilitate the process such as paying for the Botanical report, appraisals of 10 pamels, xeroxes, etc. We also have all pledged substantial amounts to the Peconic Land Trust. We have gone door to door, sent out mailings and called our neighbors, in a fund raising process that would be substantially easier in the summertime. Therefore, I have reason to believe that we will be able to raise more once people are back in the Spring. However, this has not been a wealthy community, there's a high incidence of retired people living on fixed incomes. In order to purchase all 11 parcels, there must be a coalition with all the public entities involved. I also have applied for a Long Island Sound Futures Fund 3-part Grant with the sponsorship of PLT for acquisition administrative costs and eventual restoration of the preserved area. Though I don't know if we will get the grant, competition is stiff and our costs are higher than average, but the folks at Fish and Wildlife were very helpful and encouraging. The Audubon Society of the North Fork members have contributed individually and the entire group is discussing a donation and endorsement later this week. In short, we've done everything I can think of to facilitate the process of purchasing the land for 1/31/05 5/04 Field Inspection preservation, and intend to go on doing so. The opportunities for fundraising would be considerably enhanced if the permit is not renewed. There are many other properties for sale in the Kenney's Beach area, and we would be happy to welcome Mr Mazzanobile to the neighborhood, if he decides not to build in the wetlands. We are committed to figure out any possible ways that the wetland can be protected AND that everyone may be justly compensated for their properties. As an artist and chairperson of the Wetland Preservation Committee, I think we must remember that the unique nature of this landscape is irreplaceable. As a community, we are all responsible for transforming the situation so that everyone can win: the landowners, the town of Southold, and the ecosystem. Sincerely, Lillian Lillian Ball - chair, Great Pond Wetland Preservation Committee Kenney's Beach Civic Association 2045 Lake Drive, PO Box #881 Southold, NY 11971 631-765-3495 cell 917-453-5040 ballstudio~thing.net 1/31/05 Southold Town Trustees PO Box 1179 53095 Main Rd. Southold, NW 11971 Dear Trustees: 1455 Lake Drive Southold, NY 11971 dAN 2 8 2005 ~ J $outl~o]d l'owxl Beard of Trustees As a resident of 1455 Lake Drive, Southold, I write in opposition to the granting of a permit to build for the Mazzanobile properly located in the Crreat Pond Wetlands. The two lots in the wetlands will not support a large house and its accompanying septic system without threatening the ecology of the area, as well as the safety, of my well water and that of my neighbor, the Manolakos family. For the fifty, years that I have been a resident, the sandy terrain has always been wetlands, often flooded knee deep in the spring..4dYer Hurricane Carole in 1954, much of "fl~c circle," wetlands bounded by Kenneys Rd, Lake Dr, West Dr and Leeton Dr, was underwater for months as Long Island Sound flooded tlie area and even flowed into the Great Pond on the east side of'Lake Dr. More recent storms have had similar although less drastic effects. As we have seen, winter storms with residual snow melt and hurricanes have been increasing in number and intensity, and it is only a matter of when, not ~; the land will be underwater again. The threat of contaminated human waste and sewage floating to the surface or not dispersing properb' underground is real. This land has never been suited to building: to build on it would threaten the health of' all surrounding neighbors. In addition to my personal concerns, I won3,~ about the future of this unusual parcel of iand, one of the few interdunai swaies in the state, i applaud the efforts of neighbors to preserve the environment of"the circle" and its vegetation and ~ildlife. Tons of dirt that would be used to fill in tl~e wetlands in order to make it buildablc would necessarily change the soil composition, drainage patterns, and the flora and fauna it supports. If trucks are dumping dirt next to the wild cranben5~ bog, 1 predict that there is little Journal of Coastal Conservation on the negative effects of dune stabilization sent by my daughter, a graduate student in geology. I have highlighted a few of the salient points. As soon as one or more natural phenomena are changed (the bog or the contours of the sandy dunes), we are aware that the enviromnental impact is far- reaching and often irreversible. For that reason, my family has contributed to thc Peconic Land Trust to save the Grcat Pond Wetlands. As a teacher in a single income household, it took me months to put togcthcr a modest contribution wlfile also paying college tuition. However, my children have also contributed ft'om their part-time earnings, looking toward the future and knowing the importance of preserving the environment it~r their children. From mx.' grandmother's enjoyment of our simple cottage to iny grandchildren's playing in the sand, that is five generations who care deeply about the future of the Great Pond Wetlands in Southold. Over the years, I have seen families who have walked around the ckcle together after dinner appreciate simple pleasures on a small scale, as simple as watching a toad disappear into thc reeds or anticipating the unfolding bloom ora rose-pink marsh mallow. We take pride and pleasure in the fact this is the best place in the world to watch rabbits scurry across tbe bog or gulls hunker down in folmation as a storm approaches. Please feel free to contact me ffyou have any specific questions about my welk the Mazzanobile land orthe ecological history of the neighborhood. I would also appreciate receMng a copy of the minutes of the Janual)~ 19, 2005 Trustees Meeting, as well as minutes of any other meetings at which the Mazzanobile request is discussed. A SASE is provided tbr your convenience. Tiiank you very much for keeping me informed. I trust that you will consider the health and environmental issues carefully. I urge you to deny a permit to build on this wetland. Sincerely yours, Vh'ginia McNally Tang l&{~ili~g {*d~h'ess: PO Box' 3 74Be~[['ord, ~1,4 O1730 Horn e ?ho~e: (78]) 2 75-0588 January 28, 2005 Southold Town Trustees PO Box 1179 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Mazzanobile Application Lake Drive, Southold NY Arline Richter Kenneth E. Richter PO Box 449 Southold, NY 11971 7 S0eth0td Town Beard of Trustees Dear Trustees, As residents and property owners on Lake Drive, Southold, we take this opportunity to express our strong opposition to your approving the building permit and variance request of Mr. Mazzinoble for property at the west end of Lake Drive, Southold. As you are well aware, this property is subject to frequent flooding during times of high rainfall. The ground water table in the area is hardly below the surface in dry times. Any septic tank installation in this area has to negatively affect ground water, notably neighboring wells and Great Pond itself. We believe this property should be preserved in its natural state. In order to accomplish this, we and other residents of the area are working with the Peconic Land Trust to purchase this property and preserve it in its current state. To help make this happen, we have pledged funds to the Land Trust, even though we are retired and living on fixed incomes. We also believe this property should be preserved due to its unique properties, which include a naturally occurring cranberry bog and a globally rare ecosystem with important plant species. Sincerely,,, ,, ,~ Kenneth E. Richter MAZZ0105 5 Pickwick Drive Rochester, NY 14618 November 16, 2004 Suffolk County Department of Health Services Division of Environmental Quality Board of Review ATT: Stephen A. Costa, P.E. -Chairman 220 Rabro Drive Hauppauge, NY 11788 RE: REF # R10-02-0097 Dear Mr. Costa, I oppose the granting of a Health Department Permit for the installation of a septic system at the Manzanobile property in the Great Pond Wetlands [SCTP# 59-1-21.6 & 21.7]. The installation of a septic system in such an ecologically sensitive area may potentally result in significant negative impacts to downgradient groundwater quality and the surrounding vegetation and wildlife. The regional direction of groundwater flow in the Upper Glacial Aquifer in the Kenney's Beach area is westward toward the shoreline of Long Island Sound. However, the presence of both Great Pond to the east and the wetland to the west may have significant local effects on the direction of flow at the subject parcel. Water is present at the ground surface during a significant portion of the year in the wetland west of the subject parcel. It may be present due to a perched condition or it may be the water table intersecting the ground surface. The presence of the surface water at various times of the year causes localized variations in groundwater flow direction and velocities. These variations will affect the rates of migration of inorganic and organic contaminants introduced into the system. Under certain conditions this may potentially result in a greater concentration of septic system contaminants detected in downgradient groundwater than typically expected in sandy soils. In considering the application for a septic system permit in such an hydrogeologically complex area, the Health Department needs to adequately define the specific groundwater flow conditions in the Kenney's Beach area to determine the potential for groundwater contamination of nearby downgradient residential wells. Similar factors affecting groundwater flow away from the proposed septic system may result in the migration of inorganic and organic contaminants into the adjacent wetland which could cause changes to the ecosystem. The wetland is currently being proposed for protection as a Significant Habitat by the Kenney's Beach Civic Association. In a recent report written by Eric Lamont, PhD. (hired by the Kenney's Beach Civic Association) and completed in August, the 10 acres of wetland in the Kenney's Beach area were characterized as a globally rare ecosystem. In the event that all of the available lots on the west side of Lake Drive are developed the impact on the wetland could be increased many times over. Due to the presence of a locally complex groundwater flow system and an ecologically significant wetland in the Kenney's Beach area, it is important to make a site specific evaluation of potential impacts of development on the subject parcel and not merely rely on Health Department standards and guidelines for new residential septic systems. Development of the Manzanobile property and others along the west side of Lake Drive present at least one other potential source of contamination for the area groundwater and wetland. Recently, several neighbors have begun to grow grass on their property in the dunes. Due to the proximity of the subject parcel to the wetland, potential significant impacts to the wetland from infiltration of lawn chemicals, top soil and mulch from this practice need also be considered. On a more general note, I have been summering in Southold since 1966 and can attest to the fact that the Kenney's Beach area has been an enchanting and beautiful place since I was first introduced to it as a child. Roger Tory Peterson came and painted the birds and foliage facing the Sound from atop "Big Hill" (west of Lake Drive between West Drive and Lake Court). Over the years we have seen pheasant, red fox, guinea fowl, deer, rabbits and several different kinds of snakes. At the end of the summer and into fall the area is alive with migrating birds. As a child I harvested cranberries from the cranberry bog on Lake Drive and from plants on my own property. With the exception of two houses on West Drive and two houses on Kenney's Road, west of Dogwood Lane, development in the. wetland has been nonexistent. With every encroachment through human development on the wetland come changes to the habitat. These changes are not reversible. They are additive. In the event that a septic permit is granted for the one parcel currently under consideration, other people considering development west of Lake Drive will be encouraged to move forward with their plans to build homes as well. In considering granting this permit the Suffolk County Health Department needs to evaluate the potential negative impacts to the Kenney's Beach Area wetland and the local groundwater quality from development of all of the available parcels on Lake Drive, for if one piece is developed they all will be developed in due time. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. For your records I own the house and property at 1795 Leeton Drive, Southold, NY. Yours truly, Caroline Paul Yates CC' George Brown, SCDHS- Riverhead Charles Luyster, Pres. Kenney's Beach Civic Assoc. 11 Austin Lane Huntington, NY 11743 January22,2005 Board of Trustees Town Hall Main Street Southold, NY 11971 Dear Board of Trustees, JAN 2¢ 203,5 ib~: SouthCd Iow0 Board of Trustees On your January 19, 2005 meeting the subject of the Mazzanobile permit application was discussed at length. I am sorry I was unable to attend that evening, but I would like to add my comments at this time. I am the President of the Kenney's Beach Civic Association and have been very active in the planning of our desire to preserve the remaining parcels of land in the area north of Lake Drive. Our fund-raising efforts with the local community have been very successful and many people out of the immediate area have also contributed to show their support. My home is on Leeton Drive and for over 50 years I have had the opportunity to talk to people walking or riding their bicycles around the "loop" which surrounds this environmentally rare section of the Town of Southold. Many people are from the area, but many from out of the area come to see the beautiful sunsets and enjoy the refreshing sea breezes. If a home is built on the lots in question it will set a precedent and in time the land, which is predominantly wetlands, will be janm~ed full -with new' homes. The Town of Southold and Suffolk County both are making great strides in land preservation. Here is an opportunity for the local population to get involved and work with the Town and County to preserve land for future generations. Our Civic Association represents over 90 families in the area. I believe I am speaking for most of them. ~ste r~~ Tetrault, Heather From: Sent: To: Subject: Lillian Ball [ballstudio@thing.net] Wednesday, January 26, 2005 10:58 AM Tetrault, Heather e adresses Dear Heather, I've encouraged our members to write the trustees about their concerns but I feel it might be good for me to write something too. Do you think it would be appropriate for me to email the trustees individually? I would like to thank Peggy and Ken and perhaps give some new info I forgot to mention at the hearing. Don't think I mentioned our grant application for aquisition administrative funds to the Long Island Sound Futures fund. I want them to know all the things we are doing to make the preservation happen. Also, I know making a report is a lot more work for you, so I hope it is going well and we really appreciate your efforts to help save the whole interdunal swale. You have also seen those Chinese parcels and know how difficult it would be to build there. Let me know if you're coming to look again, I'll give you a cup of tea to warm up. DO you think we really have a chance? The last meeting was so encouraging, but I don't dare get my hopes up. Best, Lillian Lillian Ball - chair, Great Pond Wetland Preservation Committee Kenney's Beach Civic Association 2045 Lake Drive, PO BOX #881 Southold, NY 11971 631-765-3495 cell 917-453-5040 ballstudio@thing.net 11/15/04 Field Inspection SuffolkWeb's WVVW Email Gateway [Mail] Main I Mail l Contacts I Preferences I Help l L~out Folders: Reply I Reply to al! I Forward I Print View I Delete I Move I Recompose I New message I Backto "INBOX" Date: Wednesday, January 26 2005 10:54 pm From: Scott Shumway <sshumway@wheatonma,edu> ~ To: htetraul@suffolk.lib, ny.us Reply-To: Scott Shumway <sshumway@wheatonma.edu> Subject: Re: swale protection Full Headers: Display Headers [11 [2 of 21] [31 In MA interdunal swales would receive double protection under the state Wetlands Protection Act. First of all, they protected as freshwater wetlands. Second, the original authors of the Act recognized the value of coastal sand dunes and gave them protection as well. To develope these areas in any manner would be absurd. They support freshwater wetland plants. Most of these plants are common wetland species, but some are state listed rare or watch list species. You might look to see if they support any rare species of orchids. I don't know the status of these species in NY, but Calopogon, Pogonia, and Spiranthes are possible (note that you will not see these unless you look at the time of year when they flower). Some of my swales have Plymouth Gentian, but that is probably an extremely rare occurrence. Our state Natural Heritage program has issued a publication in which interdunal swales are lsited as priority habitats for conservation. My study site is also an Area of Critical Environmental Concern and receives additional protection as a result. The water table is going to be located only a few CENTIMETERS from the surface and in the springtime the areas will be completely inundated with water as deep as a half meter. (HOw can you possibly site a septic system in an area like this? The hydrology changes seasonally, even daily, and no study should be accepted that does not carry out 12 month monitoring and recognize interannual variation). These areas also qualify as vernal pools which receive special protection in the state of MA. Vernal pools also receive some federal protection. The NY expert on vernal pools and the amphibians that breed there (fowlers toads, american toads, spadefoot toads [rare], and possibly mole salamanders) is Michael Klemmons (sp?). The pools (swales) and the surrounding upland should be protected in order to preserve these species. Driveways and roads are a major source of mortality for amphibians migrating to and from the breeding pools. Do not buy into any reports from consultants who report not observing any of these uncommon plants or vernal pool amphibians. If you do not look at the RIGHT time of year, you will not see any of them. A habitat study including a botanical inventory and amphibian inventory should be conducted by trained biologists (and probably not by the same person). Local wells will likely contribute the drying up of these habitats, adversely impacting all plants and animals that depend upon them. 11/15/04 Field Inspection Disturbance of swales and the surrounding dunes will often lead to invasion by Phragmites and Purple Loosestrife. Nutrient enrichment from runoff from lawns and septic systems greatly accellerate invasion by these species. Once the invasion begins, it is nearly impossible to prevent the habitat from becoming a monoculture. Some work has been done on the interdunal swales of Fire Island back in the 1970s. For the definitive work on vernal pool ecology and conservation, see the new book by Elizabeth (Betsy) Colburn. A tootle search on Colburn and vernal pool will take you to the publisher's website where you can order a copy. Good luck. Quoting "Heather C." <htetraul@suffolk.lib.n~.us>: Dear Dr. Shumway, I got your email address off of your internet page. I am the Environmental Technician for the Town of Southold, on eastern Long Island, New York. I am interested in the research that you have done in the interdunal swale areas on Cape Cod, which would be similar to Long Island. There is an interdunal swale located between Long Island Sound and Great Pond in Southold, about 11 acres. The land is currently subdivided into one acre parcels and some are under consideration for development (single family homes). Our department is working with a neighborhood group to try to preserve the area, but we may have to give permits for some building. We are looking for any imformation on how the species will be affected by homes, septic systems, driveways. If you have any information or contacts on how these areas have been preserved on Cape Cod I would appreciate it. Thank you. Work email address is htetrault@town.southold.ny.us Heather Tetrault Scott Shumway Professor of Biology Department of Biology Wheaton College Norton, MA 02766 You have 1 new messages in INBOX I am htetraul@suffolk.lib.ny.us This isTWIG 2.7.7a Proper-T Permit Services POST OFFICE BOX 617, CUTCHOGUE, NEW YORK 11935-0617 (631) 734-5800 January 11, 2005 President Board of Town Trustees Town of Southold Post Office Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re: Grego~ M~z~obile; Dear Sir: Enclosed, for your file on this project, are copies of the findings of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services Board of Review, which approve the project, and of the permit issued by the SCDHS subsequent to that approval. Enclosures: Letter, Board of Review, dated 12/8/04 Permit, SCDHS, dated 1/6/05 a subsidiary of THE PECONIC EASTERN CORPORATION DEPARIMENT OF HE. ad.TN S~ OFF~£ OF WASTnVA~ER MA2OdO4ENF Pern~ may be remm~ ex~stded, tnaMemsi ormvimi in ac~danne' wi~h the pm~hmm dm:t~aed ~ of the selb fersewqe ampee~ systm~ TheDepmmmntmustbeneelaedatleastMksnstnmMnehedule F~NAL AI'ntOVAL ISSt~D BY T~ Di~~,IS"NEC~s~¥ PaiOk To OCCtmANCY O~ NEW Bun.~os, ADDmONS TO EXXSTmG BUrLDmOS, O~ tatar Tm~ UsE OF SEWAG~ DISI, O~AL OR WATER SUPPLY WWM.0~8 (Rev. 9/99) PAGEIOF2 TE · ~AN ] 3, 2005 °u*4~4rm)Soothoid Town Beard of Trustees / / HOLE DATA SURVEY OF. LOTS 6 & ? SUBDIVISION MAP FOR CONSTANTINE P. GEORGIOPOULO$ nL~ ~. 7844 riLED JN,~O*S¥ SITUATED AT SOUTHOLD TO'iN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK S.C. TAX No. 1000-59--01-21.6 1 000--59-01 -21.7 SCALE 1 "=50' MARCH 28, 2002 JULY lg, 2002 ~ V~rTLANOS AREA = 80,134.86 sq. ft. 1.840 ac. SEPTIC SYSTEM RETAINING WALL DESIGN B]~ JOSEPH FISCHETTI, PE 1725 HOBART ROAD SOUTHOLD. NY 11971 651-765-2954 PROPOSED SEPTIC SYSTEId DETAIL SEPTIC TANK Joseph A. Ingegno Land Surveyor I~ON[ (~51)727-2090 Fax (631)727-1727 COUNTY OFSUFFOLK STEVE LEVY SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE December 8, 2004 Mr. James E. Fitzgerald, Jr. Proper-T Permit Services P.O. Box 617 Cutchogue, NY 11935-0617 JAN ~,~ 2~¢5 Souti~oitl Town Board of Trustees Subject: Board of Review Hearing ~ November 18, 2004 R10z02-0097 ~ residence for Mazzanobile, n/w/s Lake Drive, 278 ft. s/w/o Kenny's Road, Southold- t/o Southold- SCTM: 1000 05900 0100 021006 Dear Mr. Fitzgerald: Enclosed is a copy of the findings, recommendations and determination of the Board of Review concerning the subject application. Based on the information submitted, the Board granted the request for variance/waiver with the provisions indicated in the determination. The granting of this waiver does not imply that your application will be automatically approved. It is your responsibility to ensure that your application is complete; otherwise, your approval will be subject to unnecessary delay. Very truly yours, P.E., Chief Engineer Chairman, Board of Review Enclosure C: Board of Review File - Riverhead Mr. George Brown - Reviewer Mr. Andrew Freleng ~ Planning Department Ms. Lauretta Fischer ~ Planning Department Mr. Gregory Mazzanobile Ms. Valerie Scopaz - Town of Southold Distribution List DMSION OF ENVmONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD OF R~vmw ARTICLE 2, SEC'rlON 220, SUFFOLK COUNTY SANITARY CODE To: Brian L. Harper, M.D., M.P.H., Commissioner From: Stephen A. Costa, P.E., Chairman, Board of Review Subject: Findings and Recommendations of the Review Board Regarding: R10-02-0097 - residence for Mazzanobile, n/w/s Lake Drive, 278 ft. s/w/o Kenny's Road, Southold - fro Southold - SCTM: 1000 05900 0100 021006 Hearing Date: November 18, 2004 Statement of Problem Construction standards require that the distance between sanitary systems and shallow private wells be at least 150 feet. The applicant is proposing installing the sanitary system less than 150 feet fi.om a private well. Findings and Facts 1. The applicant is proposing to construct a single-family residence using an on-site sewage disposal system and connecting to public water. 2. The project is located in Groundwater Management Zone 4. 3. Soil conditions are good with clean sand at surface and below. 4. Depth to groundwater is 4 feet. The parcel is made up of lots 6 and 7 on the map of Georgiopoulos, approved by the department on April 3, 1984 and filed in the office of the Suffolk County Clerk. The applicant is restricted in where he may propose the sewage disposal system because of large areas of wetlands on and surrounding the lot. The applicant has received a town wetlands permit to construct dated September 25, 2002 and a state wetlands permit issued by New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 0q¥SDEC) on July 27, 2004. 7. Public water is available to the lot supplied by Suffolk County Water Authority (SCWA). The applicant will connect to public water. The proposed sewage disposal system consists of a 1,000 gallon septic tank and five 2-foot shallow leaching rings with area for expansion as required by the department's construction standards. 9. Due to the wetland boundaries as marked by the NYSDEC and the Southold Trustees, the placement of the applicant's sewage disposal system is restricted to Brian L. Harper, M.D.,~I~I.P.H., Commissioner Hearing Date: November 18, 2004 Subject: Findings and Recommendations of the Review Board Regarding: R10-02-0097 -residence for Mazzanobile, n/w/s Lake Drive, 278 fi. s/w/o Kenny's Road, Southold - t/o Southold - SCTM: 1000 05900 0100 021006 the center of the lot along Lake Drive. Two existing dwellings to the east and northeast are using on-site drinking water wells instead of the available public water supply. The total depth of the wells is unlmown and no well depth information has been submitted, but, for purposes of this heating, it is being assumed that they may be shallow, thus requiring a 150-foot separation distance from the proposed sewage disposal system rather than 100 feet. 10. The separation distance between the applicant's proposed location for the leaching pools and the well on the lot to the east (Manolakos) is 71 feet. The separation distance to the closest point on the lot to the northeast (Tang-McNally) is approximately 104 feet. The actual location of the Tang-McNally well was not provided, but is presumed to be within 150 feet of the proposed disposal system. 11. An offer to connect to public water for both the Tang-McNally property and the Manalokos property was made on May 2, 2003. This offer was to pay for all costs to make the connection to public water. The offers have not been accepted. 12. According to the applicant's engineer, the direction of groundwater flow is to the northwest, toward the Long Island Sound and away from the neighboring wells. The assumed direction was verified by consultation with the department's hydrogeologist. 13. Several neighbors forwarded letters to the Board and/or made presentations at the heating, including representatives of the Kenney's Beach Civic Association. All were in opposition to construction of any buildings at the subject location. Almost all of the commentary referred to construction in an ecologically sensitive area and preservation of wetlands. One letter from Ms. Tang concerned protection of her well fi.om the threat of sewage floating to the surface or not dispersing properly underground. Determination It was a 3 to 0 determination of the Board to grant the request for the variance to construct the sewage disposal system at the proposed location as depicted on the plan prepared by Joseph Ingegno dated March 28, 2002 last revised on July 7, 2004, provided the applicant agrees to maintain the offer to connect both the Manolakos and Tang- McNally dwellings to the public water supply without cost to the homeowner. The offer to connect to public water shall be held open until the depa~hnent issues final approval for the subject project. The applicant possesses valid wetlands permits from two agencies having jurisdiction over protection of wetlands. The direction of groundwater flow is away from the nearby wells and a regulated source of drinking water is available. Brian L. Harper, M.D.,-'M.P.H., Commissioner Hearing Date: November 18, 2004 · Subject: Findings and Recommendations of the Review Board Regarding: R10-02-0097 - residence for Mazzanobile, n/w/s Lake Drive, 278 fr. s/w/o Kenny's Road, Southold - t/o Southold - SCTM: 1000 05900 0100 021006 As per §760-609 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code (Sanitary Code), the approval of the variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Sanitary Code to protect groundwater and drinking water supplies, surface water and other natural resources, and public health, safety and welfare. In compliance with §760-609(1)(a), the proposed variance is in general conformity with the Sanitary Code. The uses of groundwater, surface water, and drinking water supplies will not be impaired, taking into account the direction of groundwater flow and, as such the granting of the variance is in compliance with §760-609(1)Co). December 8, 2004 Stepl4~n A. Costa, P.E. Chairman - Board of Review Oeo 17 04 10:38a Permit Services p.1 Proper- T Permit Services P.O. Box 617, Cutchogue NY 11935 Phone: 631-734-5800 Fax: 63%734-7463 FAX MEMO TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: December 17, 2004 Lauren - Trustees' Off'~e Jim Fitzgerald Gregory M~anobile; SCTM #1000-59-1-21.6 & 21.7 Please postpone thc scheduled hearing on this project until the January 2005 meeting. Thanks. Pagea attached: None COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STEVE LEVY SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE COPY[ December 8, 2004 Mr. James E. Fitzgerald, Jr. Proper-T Permit Services P.O. Box 617 Cutchogue, NY 11935-0617 Subject: Board of Review Hearing - November 18, 2004 R10-02-0097 - residence for Mazzanobile, n/w/s Lake Drive, 278 ft. s/w/o Kenny's Road, Southold - t/o Southold- SCTM: 1000 05900 0100 021006 Dear Mr. Fitzgerald: Enclosed is a copy of the f'mdings, recommendations and determination of the Board of Review concerning the subject application. Based on the information submitted, the Bo~d granted the request for variance/waiver with the provisions indicated in the determination. The granting of this waiver does not imply that your application will be automatically approved. It is your responsibility to ensure that your application is complete; otherwise, your approval will be subject to unnecessary delay. P.E., Chief Engineer Chairman, Board of Review Enclosure C: Board of Review File - Riverhead Mr. George Brown - Reviewer Mr. Andrew Freleng ~ Planning Department Ms. Lauretta Fischer - Plarming Department Mr. Gregory Mazzanobile Ms. Valerie Scopaz ~ Town of Southold Distribution List DEC 2 7 2004 S,-,u[h0[d T0a, n SUFFOLK~I~ouNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH~ERVICES DMSION OF ENVmONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD oF REVIEW ARTICLE 2, SECTION 220, SUFFOLK COUNTY SAmTARY CODE To~ Brian L. Harper, M.D., M.P.H., Commissioner From: Stephen A. Costa, P.E., Chairman, Board of Review Subject: Findings and Recommendations of the Review Board Regarding: R10-02-0097 - residence for Mazzanobile, n/w/s Lake Drive, 278 ft. s/w/o Kenny's Road, Southold - t/o Southold - SCTM: 1000 05900 0100 021006 Heating Date: November 18, 2004 Statement of Problem Construction standards require that the distance between sanitary systems and shallow private wells be at least 150 feet. The applicant is proposing installing the sanitary system less than 150 feet fi.om a private well. Findings and Facts 1. The applicant is proposing to construct a single-family residence using an on-site sewage disposal system and connecting to public water. 2. The project is located in Groundwater Management Zone 4. 3. Soil conditions are good with clean sand at surface and below. 4. Depth to groundwater is 4 feet. The parcel is made up of lots 6 and 7 on the map of Georgiopoulos, approved by the department on April 3, 1984 and filed in the office of the Suffolk County Clerk. The applicant is restricted in where he may propose the sewage disposal system because of large areas of wetlands on and surrounding the lot. The applicant has received a town wetlands permit to construct dated September 25, 2002 and a state wetlands permit issued by New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) on July 27, 2004. 7. Public water is available to the lot supplied by Suffolk County Water Authority (SCWA). The applicant will connect to public water. The proposed sewage disposal system consists of a 1,000 gallon septic tank and five 2-foot shallow leaching rings with area for expansion as required by the department's construction standards. 9. Due to the wetland boundaries as marked by the NYSDEC and the Southold Trustees, the placement of the applicant's sewage disposal system is restricted to Brian L. Harper, M.D., M.P.H., Commissioner Hearing Date: November 18, 2004 Subject: Findings and Recommendations of the Review Board Regarding: R10-02-0097 - residence for Mazzanobile, n/w/s Lake Drive, 278 ft. s/w/o Kenny's Road, Southold - fro Southold - SCTM: 1000 05900 0100 021006 the center of the lot along Lake Drive. Two existing dwellings to the east and northeast are using on-site drinking water wells instead of the available public water supply. The total depth of the wells is unknown and no well depth information has been submitted, but, for purposes of this heating, it is being assumed that they may be shallow, thus requiring a 150-foot separation distance from the proposed sewage disposal system rather than 100 feet. 10. The separation distance between the applicant's proposed location for the leaching pools and the well on the lot to the east (Manolakos) is 71 feet. The separation distance to the closest point on the lot to the northeast (Tang-McNally) is approximately 104 feet. The actual location of the Tang-McNally well was not provided, but is presumed to be within 150 feet of the proposed disposal system. 11. An offer to connect to public water for both the Tang-McNally property and the Manalokos property was made on May 2, 2003. This offer was to pay for all costs to make the connection to public water. The offers have not been accepted. 12. According to the applicant's engineer, the direction of groundwater flow is to the northwest, toward the Long Island Sound and away from the neighboring wells. The assumed direction was verified by consultation with the department's hydrogeologist. 13. Several neighbors forwarded letters to the Board and/or made presentations at the hearing, including representatives of the Keuney's Beach Civic Association. All were in opposition to construction of any buildings at the subject location. Almost all of the commentary referred to construction in an ecologically sensitive area and preservation of wetlands. One letter fi.om Ms. Tang concerned protection of her well from the threat of sewage floating to the surface or not dispersing properly underground. Determination It was a 3 to 0 determination of the Board to grant the request for the variance to construct the sewage disposal system at the proposed location as depicted on the plan prepared by Joseph Ingegno dated March 28, 2002 last revised on July 7, 2004, provided the applicant agrees to maintain the offer to connect both the Manolakos and Tang- McNally dwellings to the public water supply without cost to the homeowner. The offer to connect to public water shall be held open until the department issues final approval for the subject project. The applicant possesses valid wetlands permits from two agencies having jurisdiction over protection of wetlands. The direction of groundwater flow is away from the nearby wells and a regulated source of drinking water is available. Brian L. Harper, M.D.,'I~I.P.H., Commissioner Hearing Date: November 18, 2004 Subject: Findings and Recommendations oft_he Review Board Regarding: R10-02-0097 - residence for Mazzanobile, n/w/s Lake Drive, 278 ft. s/w/o Kenny's Road, Southold - t/o Southold - SCTM: 1000 05900 0100 021006 As per §760-609 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code (Sanitary Code), the approval of the variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Sanitary Code to protect groundwater and drinking water supplies, surface water and other natural resources, and public health, safety and welfare. In compliance with §760-609(1)(a), the proposed variance is in general conformity with the Sanitary Code. The uses of groundwater, surface water, and drinking water supplies will not be impaired, taking into account the direction of groundwater flow and, as such the granting of the variance is in compliance with §760-609(1)(b). December 8, 2004 Stepl~n A. Costa, £.E. Chairman ~ Board of Review q)uantil3 in,~ iandscape-ecoio,~ical succession m a coastal dune s3 stem using sequential aeriM phot{~graph3' and Shanmugam, S,' & Barnsley, ln/roduelion gI~IIllI]ICS The) cilil ['Ol311 irc basis oL and produce tile change deteeiion techtliqlies ('onvcnt~onal su~cying ample, combined aerial photoglaph) and GIS t~ dcfi~c mapping and manual cartographic proccdtI~vs Stud3area Thc study area e'camined in this contribution is Ire Kenfi~ BurmxYs National Natuie Re.selvc (Kenfig) in S Wales (Fig 1). Ke~fig is a m~mmnl of a re.ch larger sand dime syslcm that once stretched along tile coas~ oF south Wales trom thc River Ogmme to the Gowcr Peninstlla C was eslablislted as a Site ot Special Scientific lntemsl ~ SSSi > in 1977 ami. u{ 600 ha. is one of {he fatgesl ot thc a',',ociatcd v. iih o~,cI 'mlbi!iza~ion is highlighted b? ici · KerFS shes. on~hoidotthcrarcanddccliningFe~ orchid L~paris'/ocselii supporting more ,~an 95e3 of ~h¢ total Brilish popuialion This species ~s thc onl> higher plant occm'rin7 i9 Briain to be lisicd ~s a prior5B' sp ccies iii Annex II of ~hc original i~(7' 1 Iabi~ats and Sp~tes i 992 Bern ( ~o~x cntim~ and is on Sct~edule 8 oPlh¢ Wih/li[t and Countryside Act 1992. De~pitc this itisstill in decline specks A. erial photography and aerial pholo-ecology The need lot plato ecologists to sludy the ~egetation relationships of entire regions was emph;,sizcd as early as 1926 (Howard I97o). 1 oday, this regio.al approach ~s encouraged by applying aerial photographs and satct lite rinage~7 to thc stud5 of both vegetation a.d tcrruh~ graphs are mosl valuable where Ihey hdp to cormcl thc hnbalancc bcr. xccn plant geography aug pbgc: ecology Aerial phologmphs can be used io ideldif5 a.d delineate plani assemblages at the ph}siognomic 9~ fom~ation levels (ltoward t950). Irilol as~mblage ol plant species discernible i. pairs ol] aerial photographs at a specified scale This seve~ al other fi~do~s such as photo texture, lone etc towards the delineaiion ofhahitals and vegetalio, dcnsi ties Thc vegetation upes con'esponding to thc habitats haxc been inferred with the ass,slat*ce of recent vegcta Methodology Tile methodology adopted in thi~ ~mdy ix simiNr ro lhat used by Hartog et al. (1992) Thus. we have visually inteq)mlcd the aerial photographs ~Table 1) based on die keys developed b} }hOog el aI. d992h allhough these wilt not be described here Fig 2 shox~s aerial phoio Clearly. ther~ ;.c limitations ~o the abili~' to ideulif) media. Consequently otn'aim has I~ecn to map habilats based on a visual assessmen~ of ~ egelarion dcnsi~) and structure ill aerial phologiaphs Takritg rolo account the nature thesu 5, l~esc eo phooga[ susel andlhestmc the1962and 1971phologmpbs Eachparcdofa ils area, pcrimetc~ halrimt type and hydmlype (Fig 3} Table 2.(lassifkation ke; of hab~a/s ~sec n h sx t; Il Fig. 2. Acriai phoioglaphs o f K=lIiig B ~rrm~ s acquired during (al 1962 and (b) 1994 Note tho moto~la5 (M,4) in Ih,.= east in the 1994 photogmplt Vector GIS and dune~lamlscape succession analysis Overlays were produccd of thc infiividtla[ habilal maps fo~ each '/eal considered in this study The icsull ant change vecto~'q piesclH a vivid picture descrihing type of successional changes it~at took place beN, ten 1962 and /994 The changes arc reltcclcd ~elllls of an increase or decrease m the areal cxlenl ot imlbidual habitats, but also m ~ecms of partial or eom plcle change ot each habilat pared into anolher stage in Fig. 4. An cxampl= !11 a digi=d ~eclo entge of the tandscape&abimt map o denvc~t from aerial photographs acq~ in I%2. alcal extenl of each of the habitaWlandscapc p;pcs ',.'.,as computed t~r each of tile years studied The mst]its confimt th:a~ there has heen a general greening ot the dune system since 19~.2 In oflm~ wo~ds, thele has not Oltly been a substantial dec,ease in the areal extent ot open sand/mobile dune. but also a ~duction in the general/on of dune slacks and an increase in ibc hiomass on existing slacks The most likely explanation lha~ lhem has been a decrease in H~e mobili(v of Ihe dunes, as a consequence ol over stabilization A tloanliflcation of thc change brought ab(mi in dune system over thc yearn, de~ribed qualilalivcty above, is given hi Fig. 5 Tbls shows fl~at about 2!¢% (ca. 82 o[ file study area wilhin lite resetx,e was covered by reduced to amcrc i 5% !6 5 [la} hy 1994 Similarly. thc rcch~ced from 26% in 19~;2 1o 2~Q hv 1994 ()n lhc other [land thc a~ea of modc[atcl~ vegetated dunes (MVD) increased frotn i8.7% to 56 8% over thc same period oI time In thc case of the d uric slacks, tile parfialty vegetated slacks have ~,cduced in extent h'om ca 12% *o 16%: this lsa resull of their ~ransition illlo more densely vegetaled s~acks (0.24% in 1962 ~o 5.65% in 1994) The slacks also have a icndency ~o transform into ~oodlanSs. lhe area oi which has increased eightlold Table 3 provides an ove~wicw of lhe changes in tile spatial structure of xcgetation i~ Iht dune and slack I]abitals. A mtue de lailed anaiys~s oI ibc successional changes ~o~ specific habitats, infrared from Table 3 is as lot}ows tn 1994. areal extent in 1962 This was duc 1o developme.t Thus 8 85 of ibc open sand hahita~ had been ~ pro DVP [] trend indicates thc gleemng and stabiiizatkm of illobility which has resllllcd ill tile collx ei'sion O[I ~he pa~tbll5 vegelatcd dunes inlo open sand Analyses of thc chaugc x cclm-s bclween 1971 and 199i show lha~ fl~e gt'omo~hological process of erosion/dune mobiliiy seems ~o haxc almost ceased sometime *~l~e~ 19-1 A similar analysis for thc dune slacks sho~xs that significa~H erosional/dune mohility processes were in operation dmhtg 1962 aud fm some years latek resuh habitats By 1994. howex~, 24.7~ of thc parfiall5 ;egem~cd slacks (PVS) had been con~ erred into modcr ately xcgc~atca slacks (MVS~. This conve~ion was principally along the pm'iphe~y of the slacks C'ompar~ son ofvegetatioa g~ox;ah on 1he dunes and in the slacks indicates that thc dunes were greeaing a~ a I2sler rate than the slacks la thc dune ~abital, die a~eal extent of PVD convcision to MVD is higher than any other type ol habital co~version. Thc ~te of succession deasely vegetated dunes (DVDi and scrubland ~s not e/sled dunes (MVD) Fidd observation sho;xcd thai moxGng o~ removing Ihe xegetation cover Restoration oF DVD imo ()S is mum diFficuh as it invol~cs sire. repeated motxing a~d conq)lclc remova~ of ]h})l~C,l~h~, ~hl~ludin~ thc roots3 by maiiual calling and Slack hydrology as an a(tribute Oxe~hys of lite habila~ maps of diflercn~ years has Iogic:.J !c,-_ime plays an importnm role in determini~g slack areas tha~ arc nnde~goi~tg ~tpid t~a~sft~o~ d~e *o hydrological heroin Thc dune slacks at KcnFig xvete classified into one o[Ik~tlr Wpes by Joltes {1993~ hased oa their hydrological stores: Type 1 slacks arc 15pitied hy vc~w shallou wmlcr flooding ])unng periods of l]ood~ng Ihe waler Iai)lc disph*ys a subdued ~esponse even ;o Inolonged periods o/'hea;y min/alh Type 2 slacks are simiia; [o thc alcove t, ul flood to a greater dcpd~ The depth of doodling rarely exceeds iht]nd lo tie between loom and 25cm; Type 3 are characterized by Seep 'Mn*er floodmzz; anti qypc 4 slacks mc characterized by extremely deep wm A vector (point) cox e~agc consisling oi 192 dip well locations (,bnes 1993) C logelhcr~ilh ihmr COlTespoad lng hydrological characlc~sftcs (hydro iypc'atlribute) C was combined xvitt~ thc habimi cha~lge vcclor maps Flnsim~icatcd that (I}slack types 2 and 3 are thc most nalIy characterized hy slack ~ypes 2 and 3: and ~3) after Limitations of i|tis study Thc mosl dill]cull ?,and pcd~aps error pronv) i)u~i ol g~-aphs ?o so,ne refcrellcc ntap projection. ADhough tl~e tlliilos[ care was takc~ in geo ~efercncing the photo g~-~pl)s a~)d recItt~ing them, thc scale of thc photographs percentage o~ C~TOI creeping i~l ihe gcomeDy of the ~ cc?om and c~cnlnalty m [t~e change statistics. A second consideiation is thai colour photographs, had they t~cen available for ali lite years under conside~ution would have provided more reliable in/ormation on ~egc~alion iypc ~IHJ dcHsi~y The ge!~eml conclusion Ihat can be d~xx~ from die integration of acnat images and C;IS used in this su~dy that while the princesses of erosion and dune mob(lin' wcrc active at Kcnfig NNR at thc staa of Ibc period considered (1962 1994) d~c dunes have hero,ne creasingly slabilized and there has been a cessaliol} dune slack generation D was also holed thal the g~cening ol thc dunes has been slower lhan that of the slacks, ;lad that al leasl 25G: ol thc slacks co/dd be restored to die species g~ven appcopriare management }Iabi~at monitoring is ali impodant prerequisite to thc management of coastat dune systems, which are highly d].'iialilic in iiittlll'C Aciial pholographs pro,.idc a rca dcca(tca [hen value in this contcx~ deli?cs (eL thc multisp¢ctml images produced by digital remote sensing devices: GtS is an ideal tool v. itb v, hicb to Aekn~owledgeme.ls. Tile authors woukt like to thank the ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 southoldtown.northfork.net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Southold Town Trustees' Office Linda J. Cooper, Deputy Town Clerk December 8, 2004 Foil Request of James Fitzgerald Transmitted herewith is a FOIL request of James Fitzgerald. Please respond to this office within five (5) business days. Thank you. B,%rd of Trustees REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS M&RIUAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FRR~.r~M OF INI~TION OFFICER Town Hall, ~3095 Main Road P.O. B~x 1179 Southold, New York 119~1 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (6~1) 765-1800 southoldtown.nor thforl~net OFFICE OF ~ TOWN CI.ERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD APPLICATION FO~ PUBLIC ACCESS TO RECORDS · INSTRUCTIONS: Please complete Section I of this form and give to Town Clerk's Office (agency Freedom of Information Officer). One copy will be returned 'to you in response to Your request, or as an interim response. SECTION I ;..~. · ('~epartment or Officer. if known.· that has th'~ information you are req~sting.)' RECORD YOU WISH TO INSPECT: (Descrlbe'~the r~ord sought. If possible. Supply da~ file ~tle. tax map numar, and an ~ther.pe~inent ~ormatio~.~. Si9mture of Appli~nt: [ ~ ~i11~ Addms (if different from a~ve): TeIeph~ Num,r: 7~-- ~O Da,: RECEIVED [ ] DENIED* ] APPROVED ] AppROVED WITH DELAY* Elizaqieth A. Neville Freedom of Information Officer DEC Date Southoll Towa Clerk STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF STATE 4 I STATE STEEET ALBANY, NY I 2~3 ~-000 J GEORGE E. PATAKI GOVERNOR Charles Luyster President Kenney's Beach Civic Association P.O. Box 881 Southold, NY 11971 Dear Mr. Luyster: RANDY A. DANIEL~ November 4, 2004 $outhold Town Board of Trustees Thank you for your letter of October 19, 2004 regarding undeveloped lands between Kenney's Road Beach and Goldsmith Inlet in the Town of Southold and your Association's efforts to protect this area. The proposed Department of State Goldsmith Inlet and Beach Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat includes maritime dunes and maritime freshwater interdunal swales, which are rare ecological communities as identified by the New York Natural Heritage Pro,ram. Th,-se c(~'n~,,n;"n.- T' · ,, ;' .: ~ .... :- . · , - - ......................... ~.~o duct ~i,~.l )cai Oi~oa*l,s&klOtl nave expressed an interest in. It is the intention of the NYS Department of State to submit the enclosed draft habitat and narrative for the proposed Goldsmith Inlet and Beach significant coastal fish and wildlife habitat for federal approval in the near future as part of the habitat designation process. Please call me at (518) 486-3108 if you have any questions about this habitat area and its proposed designation. Michael Corey Coastal Resources Specialist Division of Coastal Resources COASTAL FISH & WILDLIFE HABITAT ASSESSMENT FORM Name of Area: Designated: County: Town(s): 7V2' Quadrangle(s): Draft: Goldsmith Inlet and Beach Suffolk Southold Southold,NY October 12, 2004 Assessment Criteria Ecosystem Rarity (ER)--the uniqueness of the plant and animal community in the area and the physical, structural, and chemical features supporting this community. ER assessment: Narrow maritime beach and associated tidal pond, dune, and interdunal communities, the latter two rare in New York State. Species Vulnerability (SV)--the degree of vulnerability throughout its range in New York State of a species residing in the ecosystem or utilizing the ecosystem for its survival. SV assessment: Documented nesting of piping plover (E, T-fed), least tern (T), and osprey (SC). Calculation: 36 + (25/2) + (16/4) = Human Use (HU)- the conduct of significant, demonstrable commercial, recreational, or educational wildlife-related human uses, either consumptive or non-consumptive, in area or directly dependent upon the area. HU assessment: No significant human use of fish and wildlife resources of the area. Population Level (PL)--the concentration of a species in the area during its normal, recurring period of occurrence, regardless of the length of that period of occurrence. PL assessment: No unusual concentrations of any fish and wildlife species in the area. Replaceability Oi)--ability to replace the area, either on or off site, with an equivalent replacement for the same fish and wildlife and uses of those same fish and wildlife, for the same users of those fish and wildlife. R assessment: Irreplaceable. 64 52.5 0 1.2 Habitat Index = [ER + SV + HU + PL] = 116.5 Significance = HI x R = 139.8 Page 1 of 5 NEW YORK STATE SIGNIFICANT COASTAL FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT NARRATWE Goldsmith Inlet and Beach LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF HABITAT: Goldsmith Inlet and Beach is located on the north shore of Long Island, between Mattituck Inlet to the west and Horton Neck to the east, in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County (7.5' Quadrangle: Southold, NY). This approximately 150-acre area is roughly bounded by Long Island Sound on the north, Horton Lane on the east, Sound View Avenue on the south, and Mill Lane on the west. The fish and wildlife habitat includes a narrow area of maritime beach that extends nearly two miles along the Sound from about two hundred yards west of the inlet northeast to and including Horton Lane Beach; Goldsmith Inlet and Pond; and a mosaic of dunes, intedunal uplands, and swales extending fi'om Goldsmith Inlet County Park northeast to Great Pond. The habitat is bordered by residential developments as well as undeveloped vegetated dunes. FISH AND WILDLIFE VALUES: The Goldsmith Inlet and Beach habitat consists of several associated significant ecological communities. An extensive maritime beach that has recently become an important nesting area for piping plovers and least terns along the north shore of Long Island extends approximately two miles along Long Island Sound. Goldsmith Pond and its contiguous tidal wetlands lie at the western end of the habitat area. Goldsmith Inlet County Park and Peconic Dunes County Park and adjacent upland and non-tidal wetlands contain maritime dunes as well as maritime freshwater interdunal swales ecological communities, both of which are considered rare by the New York State Natural Heritage Program. This diverse area as a whole plays an important role as nesting and feeding habitat for a variety of migratory birds. Since the mid-90's Goldsmith beach and Kenney's Road beach have served as nesting sites for piping plover (E, T-Fed) and least tern (T). During the period 1996 to 2002, an average of 4 pairs of piping plovers nesting on this stretch of beach, with a peak year of 1998, when 7 pairs of nesting birds were documented. Least tern have nested at this site on a fairly regular basis since 1996, with an annual average of seven nesting pairs between that year and 2002. The peak year for least tern nesting was 2000, when 22 pairs were documented. One pair of common tem (T) was documented as nesting on the beach in 2000. This species had not been noted since 1992, when 27 nesting pairs were documented. About 40 roseate tem (E) individuals were observed to be loafing near the inlet in 2001. Osprey(SC) have been documented nesters at Goldsmith Inlet Pond since the early 1980's. The Goldsmith Inlet and Beach area contains a diversity of ecological community types, including tidal pond, maritime beach, maritime dunes, and maritime freshwater interdunal swales. These latter two communties extend about 1.5 miles from west of Great Pond southwest to Goldsmith Pond, and are considered by the New York State Natural Heritage Program to be rare ecological community Page 2 of 5 occUrrences from a statewide perspective. Approximately 70 acres of maritime dune habitat extend from Great Pond to Goldsmith Inlet, with approximately 22 acres of maritime freshwater interdunal swales located adjacent to the dunes. One rare plant species (Iris prismatica) has been documented as occurring within the wetlands of this habitat. Recreational uses of Goldsmith Inlet and Beach are concentrated in the area around Goldsmith Inlet and Goldsmith Pond, where blue crabs and eels are harvested. The Town of Southold maintains a public beach at Goldsmith Inlet, and Goldsmith Inlet County Park includes 34 acres of park land which is home to a diversity of wildlife. The Suffolk County- operated Peconic Dunes County Park on the west shore of Great Pond and south of Kenny Road Beach provides access across the beach to Long Island Sound for surf fishing. IMPACT ASSESSMENT: Any activity that would substantially degrade water quality and/or terrestrial natural resoumes at Goldsmith Inlet and Beach would adversely affect the biological productivity of this area. All species of fish and wildlife would be affected by water pollution, such as chemical contamination (including food chain effects resulting from bioaccumulation), oil spills, excessive turbidity, and waste disposal. Unrestricted use of motorized vessels including personal watercraft in the -protected, shallow waters of Goldsmith Inlet Pond can have adverse effects on aquatic vegetation and fish and wildlife populations. Use of motorized vessels should be controlled (e.g., no wake zones, speed zones, zones of exclusion) in and adjacent to shallow waters and vegetated wetlands. Alteration of tidal patterns in Goldsmith Inlet Pond could have major impacts on the fish and wildlife communities present. Dredging to maintain existing boat channels should be scheduled between September 15 and December 15 to minimize potential impacts on aquatic organisms, and to allow for dredged material disposal when wildlife populations are least sensitive to disturbance. Dredged material disposal in this area would be detrimental, but such activities may be designed to maintain or improve the habitat for certain species of wildlife. Nesting shorebirds inhabiting Goldsmith Inlet and Beach are highly vulnerable to disturbance by humans, especially during the nesting and fledgling period (March 15 through August 15). Significant pedestrian traffic or recreational vehicle use of the beach could easily eliminate the use of this site as a breeding area and should be minimized during this period. Recreational activities (e.g., boat and personal watercraft landing, off-road vehicle use, picnicking) in the vicinity of bird nesting areas should be minimized during this period. Predation of chicks and destruction of eggs or nests by unleashed pets (e.g., dogs, cats) and natural predators may also occur, and predator control should be implemented where feasible. Fencing and/or continued annual posting of shorebird nesting areas should be provided to help protect these species. Control of vegetative succession, through beneficial use of dredged material or other means may improve the availability of nesting habitat in this area. Page 3 of 5 'Elimi'~ation of salt marsh and intertidal areas, through loss of tidal connection, ditching, excavation, or filling, would result in a direct loss of valuable habitat area. Construction of shoreline structures, such as docks, piers, bulkheads, or revetments, in areas not previously disturbed by development, may result in the loss of productive areas which support the fish and wildlife resources of the Goldsmith Inlet and Beach area. Alternative strategies for the protection of shoreline property should be examined, including innovative, vegetation-based approaches. Control of invasive nuisance plant species, through a variety of means, may improve fish and wildlife species use of the area and enhance overall natural resource values. Thermal discharges, depending on time of year, may have variable effects on use of the area by marine species and fish. Installation and operation of water intakes could have a significant impact on juvenile (and, in some cases, adult) fish concentrations, through impingement or entrainment. Page 4 of 5 KNOWLEDGEABLE CONTACTS: Habitat Unit NYS Department of State Division of Coastal Resources 41 State Street Albany, NY 12231 Phone: (518) 474-6000 NYSDEC~Region 1 State University of New York, Building 40 Stony Brook, NY 11790-2356 Phone: (631) 444-0354 Wildlife Manager NYSDEC--Region 1 State University of New York, Building 40 Stony Brook, NY 11790 Phone: (631) 444-0310 Town of Southold Trustees Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 1197l Phone: (631) 765-1892 Town of Southold Planning Board Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Phone: (631) 765-1938 Bureau of Marine Resources NYSDEC 205 N. Belle Meade Road, Suite 1 East Setauket, NY 11733 Phone: (631) 444-0430 Finfish and Crustaceans NYSDEC 205 N. Belle Meade Road, Suite 1 East Setauket, NY 11733 Phone: (631) 444-0436 New York Natural Heritage Program 625 Broadway, 5th Floor Albany, NY 12233-4757 Phone: (518) 402-8935 Office of Ecology Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services Bureau of Environmental Management County Center Riverhead, NY 11901 Phone: (631) 852-2077 Page 5 of 5 GOLDSMITH INLET AND BEACH ISignificant Divisio~ of Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats Goldsmith Inlet and Beach I~! Proposed New Habitat 2000 1000 0 2000 fee~ Hov lB 04 10: 1Sa PI er-T Permit Services 63~ 474B3 p.1 Proper-T Permit Services P.O. Bo× a~7, cutchogue ~q¥ tt935 Phone: 03'1-734-§800 Fax: 63'1-734-7463 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: FAX Lauren - Trustees' Office Jim Fitzgerald MEMO DATE: November 16, 2004 Gregory Mazzanobfle; SCTM #1000-59=1-21.6 & 21.7 Please postpone the scheduled hearing on this project until the December meeting. Pages attached: None 11/15/04 Field Inspection 11/15/04 Field Inspection 1 I/15/04 Field Inspection 11/I 5/04 Field Inspection Telephone (631) 765-1892 Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box I 179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL TOWN OF SOUTHOLD At the meeting of the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council held Monday, October 18, 2004, the following recommendation was made: Moved by Don Wilder, seconded by William Cook, to TABLE the application of GREGORY MAT?ANOBILE to Amend Permit #5631 to eliminate the swimming pool and move the proposed sanitary system leaching pools 3' further from the wetlands line. Located: 1300 & 1460 Lake Dr., Southold. SCTM#59-1- 21.6&21.7 The CAC Tables the application and will re-inspect in November when the project is staked. Vote of Council: Ayes: All Motion Carried COUNTY OF SUFFOLK SUit'FOLK COLrNTY EXECUTIVE COPYI October 14, 2004 Mr. Gregory Mazzanobile 250 East 48 Street ~ Apt 5C New York, NY 10017 Subject: Variance Hearing R10~02~0097 ~ residence for Mazzanobile, n/w/s Lake Drive, 278 ft. s/w/o Kenny's Road, Southold - t/o Southold - SCTM: # 1000~ 59~ 1 -£ 1.6 and 21.7 Dear Mr. Mazzanobile: Your request to appear before the Board of Review of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services has been received, The review of this case has been scheduled for November 18, 2004 at 3:00 p.m. in the Suffolk County Department of Health Services' Conference Room, County Center, Room 8-238, Riverhead. you and interested, parties .are requ~.sted to appe .a:r: witch or wit.h, out ,counsel..On t.?t ~vaeSi_on, you may produce any lnfOrlnahon or emdence you w~sh to ~e conmaerea concermng me amev referenced property. Should you have any questions, please call (631) 853.3086. Very ~uly yours, Stephen A. Costa, PE Chairman, Board of Review SAC/Ira C', Martin Trent Walter Daw-ydiak, Jr., P.E. Lauretta Fischer ~ Planning Department Proper-T Permit Service (J£ FitTgerald, Jr.) Valerie Scopaz - Town of Southold George Brown ~ SCDHS * Board of Review * Suffolk County Del~q~aent of Ite~lth f~rices Division of lhaviromnea~tal Q~,ality '~g0 Rabro Ddve- Haulrl~Ug% NY 11788 (6~1) 855.~086 - Fax: (6~;1) 855.$075 (continued) Mary G. Rogers Gerald M. McCavera Brian and Martina Faerber George Bambrick Brian and Brendan Bambrick Theodore Manolalcos Richard E McNally and Virginia I Tang Charles Luyster Page 1 of 2 Martina Boyle From: Sent: To: Subject: Chuck Luyster [cluyster@optonline.net] Friday, October 15, 2004 9:45 AM Virgina Tang; C. P. Georgiopoulos; Sydney L. Schwartz; Bill/Mary Steele; Don Stanton; Sergio/Priscilla Sedita; Ken Richter; Lynne Normandia; Charlie/Susie Geitz; Eppop46@aol.com; Drgeorge0@aol.com; Missy Diack; Pat Lair; Peter/Sharon Manganiello; Chris Conners; Jean Vazquez; Thomas Rozakas; Don Vazquez; Eugene Gluck; John Sepenoski; Brian Bambrick; Fredrick VonZuben; Martina Faerber; Jerry McCarvra; Meg Abatelli; Jerry Silberstein; Aileen Paskoff; John Betsch; Gerald Cruise; Joseph Dews; Lynne Faught; A. Geszczynski; Edwald Karbiner; John Kassimatis; Alan Litner; Nea! Lovett; Catherine Sucic; Mary Rogers; Serge Rozenbaum; Leslie Weisman; Ernest Schroeder; Lillian Ball; Robt./Annette Nitsche; Monte Sonnenborn; Warren/Nina Bernstein; John/Christina Muccioli; Robed/Annette Nitschke; Paul/Molly Stetz Fw: Support for Wetlands --- Original Message .... From: Lillian Ball To: Gwynn Schroeder; Arden Scott_; Tim Kelly; Georae Bambrick; _N~ncy; Tim Bishop *; Patricia -Ac_~m~)ora; NLc~k Gibbon_s.; Janet_~Jyn_n; Ken + -A£[[Q.e__Rjchter; D~o. Di._s and Bdgit M.cM.a_pn; Ma _c~yer@,~e th~ net; Debo_ca__h Geurt~.__e Hi_ha + Wa~e_g _Be_rnstein; Ba0d~._Parsons; J.a~e__.+._Re_ed.Rubin; Tim Caufield; &o. sb. Ho_rt~o; John +~a_n_dy Kassimat.is.; Chuck Luy~.te_r; Gera d + Pat[_(; a Cruise; Virg!_n._a Tang; MDuro_en; Me.g.+ Wayne Abetelli; Ho~.erd+ rene; S.e_rge+Susan ~.o.~epb~aum; Tqm+_Ann Rozakis; _Kare~ L Fellows; Greg Ediqger; Joh~ S~penoski; R~k Bird; Eri¢.L.amont; ChrLs Kelly; Mari!y_n ~igold; Bill F0nda; Diane Dunbar; P~U! ~ Darb~r~ S~tought~nb~rg; Kath!een Be~k~[; Gre~lg + J.!.Hano; Justin Porter Pa[.Hovey; An~ Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 11 :i 1 PM Subject: Support for Wetlands Dear Folks, As many of you know the Great Pond Wetland Committee is working on organizing a preservation effort for the wetland/dune area North of Lake Drive in Southold. There will be an important public hearing at the trustees meeting on Wed, Oct 20 after 7 at Town Hall to reconsider a permit given two years ago in the middle of the area we are trying to preserve (right next to the substantial cranberry bog). It is important that they see the community support for the preservation. We will let you know closer to the date~ exactly what time they have us scheduled. The following map and press release should give you an idea of the project. Please call or e if you have any questions or other ideas. Thanks, Lillian 1 O/18/2004 Page 2 of 2 PRESS RELEASE The Great Pond Wetland Preservation Committee of the Kenney's Beach Civic Association has recently commissioned a study of the area between Kenney's Beach and Great Pond in Southold. The Botanical Report by Eric Lamont, PHD has identified the area as a classic example of a "Maritime Freshwater Interdunal Swale" which is listed as as "Globally and Locally Rare" by New York Natural Heritage Program standards. The Natural Heritage Program ecologist Greg Edinger also reports that any development within the dunes would reduce the overall quality of this significant occurrence and reduce its long term viability. Specifically, the approximately 10 acres on the North side of Lake Drive between Kenney's Road and West Drive continues the interdunal wetland system at the adjacent Peconic Dunes County Park. The area between Goldsmith's Inlet and Horton Point is geologically unique on the North Fork and supports several equally unique ecosystems. These specific freshwater wetlands support a high diversity of plant species, including native cranberries, carnivorous sundews, and at least one rare plant, the Iris prismatica. They also form a major filtering system for Great Pond and are extensively connected with Long Island Sound. The report concluded that this area is comprised of rare ecological communities that should be preserved for future generations. Fragmentation of this unique ecosystem will result in negative environmental impacts and needs further study. The Association has formed the "Great Pond Wetland Preservation Committee" to build a coalition between the neighbors, the town of Southold, and The Peconic Land Trust in order to purchase the area and preserve it from environmental degradation. for further info call Lillian Ball, Committee chairperson, 631-765-3495 10/18/2004 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES PO BOX 1179 SOUTHOLD NY 11971 REF:ADMENDMENT TO WETLAND PERMIT #5631 TO MAZZANOBILE SCTM # 59-1-21.6 & 21.7 OCi 14 OD l~c~]~,,vSouthold Town ..... 'Board of Trustees 10/11/04 I AM IN STRONG OPPOSITION TO THE THE GRANTING OF AN ADMENDMENT TO THE WETLAND PERMIT TO GREGORY MAZZANOBILE. 1 HAVE A COPY OF THE SURVEY MR MAZZANOBILE SUBMITTED TO OBTAIN A SUFFOLK COUNTY D.E.C, PERMIT WHICH IS SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT FROM THE ONE UPON WHICH YOU BASED YOUR APPROVAL FOR HIS ORIGINAL PERMIT. THE FOLLOWING ARE JUST SOME OF THE CHANGES MADE TO THE SURVEY 1 .NEW SURVEY SHOWS STAIRS ON THE N.W. CORNER OF THE HOUSE 2. THE SEPTIC TANK HAS BEEN RELOCATED 3.SIZE OF HOUSE AND DECK AREA HAS BEEN CHANGED 4.WEST WALKWAY HAS BEEN REMOVED-CENTER WALKWAY HAS BEEN REPOSITIONED 5.LOCATION OF RETAINING WALL HAS CHANGED 6.SEPTIC SYSTEM IS NOW CLOSER TO A NEIGHBORING PRIVATE WELL THIS ENTIRE AREA HAS NOW BEEN IDENTIFIED AS AN MARITIME FRESHWATER INTERDUNAL DUNE COMMUNITY. MR. MAZZANOBILE'S REQUEST TO AMEND HIS PERMIT MUST NOW BE HELD TO A HIGHER STANDARD. THIS APPLICANT HAS CONSISTANTLY TRIED TO MISLEAD AND FALSIFY THE INFORMATION HE HAS SUBMITTED TO THIS BOARD. THE SUBMISSION OF 2 DIFFERENT SURVEYS, ONE TO THE BOARD THE OTHER TO THE DEC, IS JUST THE LATEST IN A SERIES OF PLOYS TO OBTAIN THIS PERMIT THIS AMENDMENT MUST BE DENIED AND THE DEC SHOULD BE ADVISED THE SURVEY SUBMITTED TO THEM IS NOT THE ONE THIS BOARD HAD APPROVED. SINCERELY GEORGE BAMBRICK PO BOX 1064 SOUTHOLD NY I 1971 Oct 12 04 03:37p Proper-T Permit Services 63173474G3 p. ! Proper- T Permit Services P.O. Box 617, Cutchogue NY 11935 Phone: 631-734-5800 Fax: 631-734-7463 FAX MEMO DATE: 10/12/04 TO: Lauren - Trustees' Office FROM: Jim Fitzgerald SUBJECT: Gregory Mazzanobile; SCTM #1000-59-1-21.6 & 21.7 Please postpone the public hearing on the amendment for this project to the November meet- ing. Thanks. Pages attached: None gemll ef Tmstees New York Natural Heritage Program A Partnership between The Nature Conservancy and the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation 625 Broadway, 5'~ Floor Albany, NY 12233-4757 (518) 402-8947 Fax (518) 402-8925 www. nynhp.mg Prepared by Greg Edinger, Program Ecologist, NY Natural Heritage Program October 8, 2004 The NY Natural Heritage Program was contacted by the Keuney Beach Civic A,,ssoclation~ Preliminary Environmantal Assessment o£ the "Great Pond Wetlands & Dunes, So,hold Tow~lOB~ltl~k County, New York (Lamont 2004) In order to accurately classify and rank the quality of the natural communities at this site, ideally the following data are needed: · vegetation cover data at known location points, · an accurate map showing the boundaries of each community (~vith the full extent of each community being mapped, even if it extends beyond the area of interest), · data on the condition of each community (e.g., anthropogenic disturbances, presence of invasive exotic species, etc.), · and information on the size and condition of the surrounding landscape. The Lamont (2004) report presents sufficient information to confirm the presence two natural communities described NY Natural Heritage in Ecological Communities ofNYS (Edinger et al. 2002) at the site. These two communities are maritime dunes and maritime fresh~vater interdunal swales. Although a first draft of the natural communities was included with the report (Lamont 2004), an accurate map showing the full boundaries of each community is needed. A review of in-house digital orthoimagery and reports of the site (Lamont 2004, pers. comm. Michael Corey, DOS) suggests that both communities extend beyond the boundary of the "Great Pond Wetlands & Dunes" site. The maritime dunes appear to extend about 1.5 miles from Great Pond southwest to Goldsmith Inlet. Additional patches of maritime freshwater interdunal swales appear to occur within this area of dunes, but perhaps not as large and numerous as observed on the "Great Pond Wetlands & Dunes" site. Using aerial photo interpretation and GIS, I estimate that there are about 70 acres of maritime dunes that extend from Great Pond to Goldsmith Inlet, with about 7.5 acres within the "Great Pond Wetlands & Dunes" site. There are about 22 acres of maritime freshwater interdunal swales adjacent to these dunes, with about 9 acres within the "Great Pond Wetlands & Dunes" site. The acreage would likely change with more accurate community delineation. The digital orthoimagery and reports (Lamont 2004, pers. comm. Michael Corey, DOS) suggest that both of these community occurrences are good quality. However, there are reports of reed grass (Phragmites australis) and purple loosestrife (Lythrurn salicaria) at this site (Lamont 2004), and there appear to be sand roads and driveways through sections of maritime dune. The landscape surrounding the maritime dunes is in relatively good condition, except for the portion within the "Great Pond Wetlands & Dunes" site where the dunes are surrounded on three sides by residential development. At least one house on West Drive appears to have displaced a portion of the maritime freshwater interdunal swales. The ecological processes that maintain maritime dune viability appear to be more intact to the southwest of Great Pond where the dunes and swales have greater connectivity with Long Island Sound. Conclusions The maritime dunes and maritime freshwater interdunal swales at the "Great Pond Wetlands & Dunes" site are part of larger occurrences of these communities that extend southwest to Goldsmith Inlet. The occurrence of maritime dunes from Great Pond to Goldsmith Inlet are tentatively ranked "B" using NY Natural Heritage Rang Specifications (Appendix A) for size, condition, and landscape context. A B-rank indicates a good quality occurrence of maritime dunes which is a globally secure (G4) but state rare (S3) community. NY Natural Heritage considers the maritime dunes at this site a significant natural community occurrence from a statewide perspective. Enabling aM E r/oan°ng Comenmion ~ New York's Biodizersity The occurrence of ma~ freshwater interdunal swales from Great PoI Goldsmith Inlet is also tentatively ranked "B'~"~' ~"l~g NY Natural Heritage Rank Specifications (A'~endix B) for size, condition, and landscape context. A B-rank indicates a good quality occurrence of maritime freshwater interdunal swales which are a globally rare to globally secure (G3G4), but a very vulnerable (S2) community. NY Natural Heritage considers the maritime freshwater interdunal swales at this site a significant natural community occurrence from a statewide perspective. NY Natural Heritage concurs with Eric Lamont's (2004) statement that dune-swale complexes are extremely rare on the north shore of Long Island. Reconunendations Review of the readily available information suggests that there are two natural community occurrences of statewide significance at this site, maritime dunes (tentatively B-ranked) and maritime freshwater interdunal swales (tentatively B-ranked). NY Natural Heritage recommends the following: · A thorough survey of all natural community occurrences is recommended from Great Pond to Goldsmith Inlet in order to accurately map and confirm tentative occurrence ranks. · Further survey is needed to confirm the report (Lamont 2004) of maritime pitch pine dune woodland at this site. · Element Occurrence Records for all significant natural community occurrences should be entered into the NY Natural Heritage database. · Protection efforts should focus on the viability of the maritime freshwater interdunal swales already shown to contain state rare species (Lamont 2004). · Protection and/or restoration of the connectivity and ecological processes (e.g., storm surge, sand deposition, and salt spray) of the dunes & swales to Long Island Sound would also be beneficial. · Protection and proper management of the maritime dunes that serve as a wetland buffer would increase the viability of the swales. Development within maritime dunes would likely reduce the landscape ranking factor for the maritime freshwater interdunal swales, reduce the overall quality of the occurrence, and threaten its long term viability. Note: It is important to reiterate that this assessment, and tentative community occurrence ranking, is based on the full extent of the two natural communities at this site from Great Pond to Goldsmith Inlet, and not limited to the "Great Pond Wetlands & Dunes" site depicted in the report (Lamont 2004). Edinger, G.J., D.J. Evans, S. Gebauer, T.G. Howard, D.M. Hunt, and A.M. Olivero (editors). 2002. Ecological Communities of New York State. Second Edition. A revised and expanded edition of Carol Reschke's Ecological Communities of New York State. (Draft for review). New York Natural Heritage Program, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY. Lamont, E. 2004. Preliminary Environmental Assessment of the "Great Pond Wetlands & Dunes," Southold Township, Suffolk County, New York. Botanical report prepared for Kenny Beach Civic Association. Prepared by Eric Lamunt, Ph.D., Botanical Consultant, Riverhead, NY. E mb//ng ard E d~anOng Comerrut~:n of New York's Bkd/~,vs~y APPENDIX A Maritime Dunes Overview of Status in NY · Historical Occurrences in NY: Historical numbers unknowu, probably about 25 to 50 very large occurrences. Estimated Extant Occurrences in NY: There are an estimated 30 to 50 or more occurrences statewide. This number is elevated due to fragmentation of fewer, larger occurrences into more numerous smaller occurrences. · NYNHP Documented Occurrences: 2004:8 extant occurrences. · NYNHP Documented Occurrences with Good Viability: 2004:8 occurrences with good viability (A- to BC-ranked). · Protected Occurrences in NY: 2004:7 (88%) occurrences are on public land or private conservation land. 5 (63%) are on state park land and 2 (25%) are on federal land. · Historical Acres in NY: Historical acres unknown, probably about 150 to 200 miles covering 19,000 to 25,000 acres (very rough estimate). · Estimated Extant Acres in NY: There are an estimated 145 miles of maritime dunes on Long Island (about 100 miles on the south shore) covering about 5,300 to 15,800 acres. · NYNHP Documented Acres: 2004:2,014 acres mapped. Distribution in NY: Restricted to the ocean shoreline of Long Island. Discontinuous patches of maritime dunes occur from Rockaway Point east to Jones Beach, where the dunes become larger and less fragmented (e.g., Fire Island Wilderness Area), and the dunes continue east until the shore grades into morainal bluffs at Montauk Point. Smaller examples (<5 m/les long each) occur in the Peconic Bay and along the north shore of Long Island. · State Exemplary Site(s): FIRE ISLAND, JONES BEACH ISLAND, WALKING DUNES Summary of NYNHP Occurrences: Rank Size Survey Site County Town AB 889 Jones Beach Island Nassau/Suffolk Oyster Bay, Babylon, Hempstead AB 190 Walking Dunes Suffolk East Hampton AB 125 Atlantic Double Dunes Suffolk East Hampton B 69 Nissequogue River Suffolk Smithtown BC 496 Fire Island Democrat Pt. Suffolk Islip, Babylon BC 145 Napeague Dunes Suffolk East Hampton BC 85 Plum Island Suffolk Suffolk Southold BC 14 Northwest Creek Mouth Suffolk East Hampton Draft Element Ranking Specifications A Rank Specifications: Minimum size 60 acres with "A" condition and landscape setting. B Rank Specifications: Minimum size 30 acres with "A" condition and landscape setting. Minimum size 60 acres with "B" condition and landscape setting. C Rank Specifications: Minimum size 10 acres with "A" condition and landscape setting. Enabling ard E rdvammg Conse,'uaion of New York's Bidiqz',slzy A~PENDIX B Maritime Freshwater Interdunal Swales Overview of Status in NY · Historical Occurrences in NY: Historical numbers unknown, probably less than 50 sites. · Estimated Extant Occurrences in NY: There are an estimated 20 extant occurrences statewide. Most sites consist of a group of several swales. · NYNHP Documented Occurrences: 2004:5 extant occurrences. · NYNHP Documented Occurrences with Good Viability: 2004:5 occurrences with good viability (A- to B- ranked). · Protected Occurrences in NY: At least two sites protected: Napeague Dunes and Atlantic Double Dunes. Fire Island National Sea Shore may protect some swales. · Historical Acres in NY: Historical acreage unknown, probably less than 1000 acres. · Estimated Extant Acres in NY: Probably less than 1000 acres extant. · NYNHP Documented Acres: 2004: 287acres mapped. Distribution in NY: Restricted primarily to the southern coast of Long Island and Fire Island, with smaller examples in the Peconic Bay and along the "North Fork" of Long Island in the coastal lowlands of Suffolk County. New York is in the central part of the range from New England south to New Jersey (or possibly farther). · State Exemplary Site: NAPEAGUE DUNES Summary of NYNHP Occurrences: Rank Size Survey Site County Town A 27 Napeague Dunes Suffolk East Hampton AB 125 Atlantic Double Dunes Suffolk East Hampton B 25 Walking Dunes Suffolk East Hampton B 5 Promised Land Suffolk East Hampton B 5 Hospital Point Suffolk Brookhaven Element Ranking Specifications (NYNHP 1995) Occurrence Specs: minimum size: 2 acres to map. Need at least 50% cover of vegetation consisting of characteristic native species and less than 50% cover of exotics. Interdunal swales occur in a mosaic with dunes as multiple patches within the dune matrix. One occurrence includes all the swales within a contiguous area of maritime dunes. Map to the same boundary as the dunes. A Rank Specs: minimum size: 100 acres ofinterdunal swales within a larger matrix of maritime dunes, with minimal disturbance and few or no exotic species; and surrounded by little - disturbed matrix of maritime dunes. B Rank Specs: mimmum size: 20 acres of interdunal swales in good condition with minor disturbance, or minimum of 5 acres in excellent, pristine condition within a larger matrix maritime dunes. Some exotics or disturbance may be present, but recovery potential is very good. C Rank Specs: minimum size: 2 acres of interdunal swales in fair condition, either starting to recover from past disturbance, or recently disturbed or altered. Set in a matrix of disturbed dunes - which may be partly developed; poor recovery potential. D Rank Specs: minimum size: 2 acres of interdunal swales in poor condition, with 25 to 50% cover of exotics, isolated from dunes by development or surrounded by very disturbed or altered dunes, with little or no recovery potential. E ns~//ng aM E r/~ancmg Cor~eru~/bn c/New York's Bmd~w, st~ Buffering natural communities for community persistence Timothy G. Howard, draft 21 January 2004 New York Natural Heritage Program thoward~tnc.org Abstract To maintain ecological integrity of high quality natural community occurrences, conservation efforts have to extend beyond the community's edge. In this project, we synthesize literature and expand on previous buffering efforts by utilizing a GIS to dynamically buffer communities based on local factors. Our goal is to automatically delineate areas that are important in maintaining the targeted natural community's integrity. We used EPA Multi-Resolution Landscape Characteristics to identify additional wetlands adjacent to significant palustrine communities, 30m Digital Elevation Models to determine slope and flow direction, and USDA Soil Survey data (SSURGO) for soil erodibility information. For palustrine communities, we began by adding adjacent wetlands to the natural community boundary. We then buffered this polygon by 163m, the 75% quantile for the 33 recommended buffer values found in the literature. Buffers over land sloping into the wetland were increased, with the increase contingent on slope pement and soil erodibility. Because threats vary by system, we treated estuarine and terrestrial natural communities differently. We are applying this model to all significant natural communities at the county level. This is the first effort we are aware of to dynamically vary buffer distances based on multiple factors. Additional information This document describes our efforts to use raw Natural Heritage element occurrence data to provide interpreted information to land use planners. Namely, we have developed a GIS-based decision matrix and a set of AML (Arc Macro Language) routines to buffer element occurrences at varying widths depending on local conditions. Here, I only discuss buffering natural community occurrences, but we have also developed similar routines for both rare plant and rare animal occurrences. Overall, since the communities buffered in this project represent high-quality examples of each community type (e.g., these are some of the best in the state), we take a conservative approach. Thus, the goal of this project, as far as natural communities are concerned, is to describe an area surrounding the natural community in which all contributors to that target natural community are self-sustaining, thereby making the target natural community as self sustaining as possible. (A great quote: "Conservation efforts for amphibians that concentrate solely on wetlands likely will fail without consideration of the adjacent terrestrial habitat" Dodd and Cade (1998)). Furthermore, our goals are intended to exceed the distance required for buffers to act as filters for sediment removal (note negative effects of sediment Wemer and Zedler 2002) and chemicals in solution (see Woo & Zedler 2002). Indeed, buffers designed solely for water quality are much smaller than those designed with wildlife and plants in mind (e.g., Trimble & Sartz 1957, Swift 1986, Osborne & Kovacic 1993). Thus, our buffers should also mitigate for water quality in wetlands. While there are excellent data suggesting large buffers of 1 to 2 km are required to maintain species New York Natural Heritage Program A Partnership between The Nature Conservancy and the NYS Department of Enviromment al Conservation 625 Broadway, 5m Floor Albany, NY 12233-4757 (518) 402-8935 Fax (518) 402-8925 www.nynhp.o~ richness in wetlands (Findlay & Houlahan 1997, Pope et al. 2000), we based our criteria on a series of other papers indicating an importance of buffers in the range of 100-300 m. Also, researchers have noted a directional component to amphibian movement away from wetlands (Dodd & Cade 1998). Unfortunately, no data exist that would allow us to incorporate this type of information into this buffer delineation eftbrt. From the perspective of the developed land, the effects of roads have been well studied (Trombulak & Frissell 2000). These effects are known to extend tens to hundreds of meters away from the road edge, depending on the effects of interest (Forman & Alexander 1998, Forman & Deblinger 2000). These types of studies emphasize the importance of maintaining natural communities at some distance from roads. (Also a review on the biological consequences of fragmentation: Saunders et al. 1991) For each system described below, I outline the main threat buffering is trying to mitigate. Community types Estuarine: Upland buffers will not greatly mitigate hydrologic threats to estuarine systems, as most of the hydrologic influence is from the tidal flushing of the estuary. Yet, upland buffers will help mitigate: 1. Habitat destruction, 2. Overland flow and deposition of suspended solids, and 3. Alteration of surface water levels and stream flow patterns (Shisler et al. 1987). The goal for estuarine communities is to minimize these impacts. We use the recommended distances in Shisler et al (1987) who vary the distance based on low intensity and high intensity land use and broad community classifications (salt marsh, freshwater tidal marsh, and hardwood swamp). To achieve these buffers, we used the following steps: 1) Evaluate cells adjacent to the estuarine natural community. Add all wetland cells to the natural community polygon to create a base polygon of all adjacent wetlands. Attribute these cells with the natural community name of the closest natural community using spatial adjacency routines. The Hudson River is mapped as a significant natural community (tidal river), but in places mapped conservatively to low tide marks and within constraints of railroad barriers. Here, we use a more refined version of the hudson river shoreline developed by the Hudson River Estuarine Research Reserve and DEC on their submerged aquatic vegetation beds project. 2) Create a temporary 100 m buffer around the base polygon (created in #1, above) in which to evaluate land use intensity. 3) The goal in this step is to find the high intensity land use sites. Within the 100 m buffer, select all high intensity land use cells (MRLC # 3, 4: high density residential, commercial/industrial) and buffer them 100 m. 4) All places where the buffer generated in #3 intersects the base polygon created in #1 will receive the high intensity land use buffers, all edges of the base polygon that do not intersect with the buffers generated in #3 will receive the low intensity set of buffers. 5) Apply a buffer to the base polygon using the following criteria: For all edges identified as occurring near high intensity land use, buffer as follows: Woody tidal communities: 30 m Non-woody tidal communities: 46 m Salt marsh: 30 m New York Natural Heritage Program A Partnership between The Nature Conservancy and the NYS Deparmaent of Environmental Conservation 625 Broadway, 5t~F/oor Albany, NY 12233-4757 (518) 402-8935 Fax (518) 402-8925 www. nvnhp.o~ For all other edges: Woody tidal communities: 15 m Non-woody tidal communities: 30 m Salt marsh: 15 m Palustrine: Goal is to minimize all kinds of external disturbance to maximize community integrity and persistence of the EOs. So, the buffer should integrate land cover type, slope, and soil texture. Note that our view of the community is the full interacting assemblage of plants and animals. For example, salamander and turtle studies ARE relevant to community buffering. 1) Evaluate cells adjacent to the palustrine natural community (adjacent on the diagonal also). Add all wetland cells to the natural community polygon to create a base polygon of all adjacent wetlands. Attribute these cells with the natural community name of the closest natural community using spatial adjacency routines. Rationale: because of the potential for high rates of mixing and interchange of solutes throughout wetlands, the quality of one portion of a wetland is strongly dependent on the quality of all other portions of the wetland. Thus, as a base, all abutting wetlands to a significant wetland natural community should, by default, be included in any buffering process. 2) Add a baseline buffer of 163 meters. Rationale: this value is the 75% quantile for the 33 values for recommended buffers in the literature (Table 1). This distance encompasses 25 of the 33 values. These 33 buffers are restricted to those posited as what would be needed to maintain animal, plant, or natural community assemblages. 3) Assess the proportion of forest cover within the buffer polygon. If forest in buffer is <50% total buffer, increase buffer length by 50m in the forested areas. Rationale: throughout NY, forested land is a much better wetland buffer than agricultural fields, pastureland, old fields, and most other non- forested lands. Thus, we should consider the forested portions of buffers around wetlands with a low proportion of forested buffer as more important, and use this technique to increase the amount of forested buffer. As an aside, note that trout streams need to be more than 80% forested cover to maintain trout populations (Barton et al. 1985). 4) Assess cover type and slope. 1F cover type is forest, -and slope is away from wetland, don't alter buffer -and slope is towards wetland, increase buffer distance with a formula of 2.0 X (slope%) (Swift 1986, general forest management areas) (note that the extra 50m in step #3 could easily be applied here, after polygons are attributed as greater or less than 50% cover) 1F cover type -- non forested (& terrestrial) And slope is away from wetland, don't alter buffer And slope is towards wetland, increase the buffer based on soil erodibility, as follows (if SSURGO is not available, forego the following and increase buffer distance by: 3.86 X (slope%) (Swift 1986, moderate erosion soils)). Using the SSURGO layer joined to a modified table containing averaged Kfact values. These averaged values were obtained by averaging Kfact in the first two layers (LAYERNUM) for each SEQNUM and then calculating a weighted average across all SEQNUMs for each MU1D. (see Appendix 1 for more detail). For each MUID use the following cutoffs to generate three levels of soil erosion New York Natural Heritage Program A Pannemhip between The Nature Conservancy and the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation 625 Broadway, 5mFloor Albany, NY 12233-4757 (518) 402-8935 Fax (518) 402-8925 www. nynhp.q)rg hazard: 0-0.22 = low, 0.23-0.40 = Moderate, 0.41-0.64 = High. Create a layer that merges all polygons into these classes; for missing values, use 'low'. Apply the following buffer for each of these erosion hazard types (Swift 1986): Low: 2.98 X (slope%) Moderate: 3.86 X (slope%) High: 4.78 X (slope%) The rationale for increasing buffer by slope, even though particulates would be caught anyway in existing buffer is: we want the existing buffer to be a fully interacting sustainable community. Thus, any sediment should be caught before entering what we consider the main portion of the buffer. Terrestrial: Matrix forests: no buffer. These are large enough to be self sustaining (Matlack 1994, Spellerberg 1998, Mladenoff et al. 1994). Here, we define matrix forests as any natural community occurrence (or cluster of adjacent occurrences) greater than or equal to 2000 acres. Natureserve EO specs define matrix communities as greater than around 5000 acres. Our frequency distribution of sizes suggests 2000 acres is a good cut-off between large patch and matrix. This is pretty arbitrary, as much smaller occurrences could be considered matrix as well. Small and large patch: Goals for terrestrial are mainly to deter negative direct human impacts. Follow rules of Palustrine, but begin at step 2 (but skip step 3) and use a baseline of 15m (-50ft, as per Shisler et al. 1987). 1) 2) Add a baseline buffer of 15 meters to the small patch terrestrial community. Rationale: This reflects the 50 foot baseline suggested in Shisler et al. 1987. Assess cover type and slope of buffer: 1F cover type is forest, -and slope is away from the small patch terresthal community, don't alter buffer -and slope is towards the small patch terrestrial community, increase buffer distance with a formula of: 2.0 X (slope%) (Swift 1986, general forest management areas) IF cover type = non forested (& terrestrial) And slope is away from wetland, don't alter buffer And slope is towards wetland, increase the buffer based on soil erodibility, as follows (if SSURGO is not available, forego the following and increase buffer distance by: 3.86 X (slope%) (Swig 1986, moderate erosion soils)). Using the SSURGO layer joined to a modified table containing averaged Kfact values. These averaged values were obtained by averaging Kfact in the first two layers (LAYERNUM) for each SEQNUM and then calculating a weighted average across all SEQNUMs for each MUID. (see Appendix 1 for more detail). For each MUID use the following cutoffs to generate three levels of soil erosion hazard: 0-0.22 = low, 0.23-0.40 = Moderate, 0.41-0.64 = High. Create a layer that merges all polygons into these classes; for missing values, use 'low'. Apply the following buffer for each of these erosion hazard types (Swig 1986): New York Natural Heritage Program A Partners}tip between The Natme Cormervancy and the NYS Depamment of Environmental Conservation 625 Broadway, 5e~Floor Alb:my, NY 12233-4757 (518) 402-8935 Fax (518) 402-8925 www.nynhp.o~ End. Low: 2.98 X (slope%) Moderate: 3.86 X (slope%) High: 4.78 X (slope%) Table 1. Citation Distance Value For what? used (m) Findlay & Houlahan 1997 1-2km 1000 Plant richness in wetlands Findlay & Houlahan 1997 0.5-1km 500 Bird richness in wetlands Findlay & Houlahan 1997 >2km 2000 Herptile richness in wetlands Findlay & Houlahan 1997 >2km 2000 Mamrnal richness in wetlands Spellerberg 1998 15-50m 15 Edge effects into interior forests Burke & Gibbons 1995 275m 275 Full protection of turtle nests Burke & Gibbons 1995 73m 73 90% protection of turtle nests Semlitsch 1998 164m '164 95% of salamander population Ehrenfeld & Schneider 1991 91m 91 Protect Atlantic white cedar populations Matlack 1994 92m 92 Piedmont forest edge effects into interior Angold 1997 200m 200 Reduce edge effects ofheathland vegetation Spackman & Hughes 1995 28.8m 28.8 Mean minimum corridor width along stream to achieve 95% species richness, trees, shrubs, herbs Spackman & Hughes 1995 161.7m ~6~.7 Mean minimum corridor width along stream to achieve 95% species richness, birds Mladenoffet al. 1994 100m ~00 Distance needed to make forests have interior Following is from Fischer & Fischenich 2000 Brosofske et al. 1997 >45m 45 Maintain microclimate gradient near streams Burbrink et al. 1998 100-1000 ~00 Maintain reptile and amphibian diversity Rudolf and dickson 1990 >30m 30 Amphibians, reptiles, other vertebrates Bulhmann 1998 >135m ~35 Turtles Dickson 1989 >50m 50 Gray squirrel Erman, et al. 1977 >30m 30 Benthic invertebrates adjacent logging Moring 1982 >30m 30 Allow fish eggs to develop Darveau et al. 1995 >60m 60 Forest dwelling birds Hodges and krementz 1996 >100m ~00 Maintain assemblages of neotropical birds Mitchell 1996 >100m ~00 Breeding habitat for birds Tassone (1981) >50m 50 Neotropical migrants Triquet et al 1990 >100m ~ 00 Neotropical migrants New York Natural Heritage Program A Parmetship betxveen The Nature Conservancy and the NYS Depann~nt of Environmental Conservation 625 Broadway, 5t~ Floor Albany, NY 12233-4757 (518) 402-8935 Fax (518) 402-8925 www.nynhp.org ·Kilgo et al 1998 >500m 500 Maintain complete avifauna community Keller et al 1993 >100 100 Nesting habitat for area-sensitive speices Gaines 1974 >100m 100 Yellow billed cuckoo Vander haegen and degraaf 1996 >150 ~ 50 Reduce edge related nest predation Whitaker and montevecchi 1999 >50 50 Support low densities of interior species Hagar 1999 >40 40 Provide benefit to forest birds Lambert &Hannon 2000 100m 100 Conserved ovenbird numbers in riparian buffer after logging beyond buffer. Papers addressing buffering for solutes (N, P; Osbome& Kovacic 1993), sediments (Swift 1986, Trimble & Sartz 1957), and pesticide spray release (Kleijn & Snoeijing 1997) are not included in Table 1. Literature cited Angold P.G. The impact of a road upon adjacent heathland vegetation: effects on plant species composition. Journal of Applied Ecology 34, 409-417. 1997. Barton D.R., Taylor W.D. & Biette R.M. Dimensions of riparian buffer strips required to maintain habitat in southern Ontario streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 5, 364-378. 1985. Burke V.J. & Gibbons J.W. Terrestrial buffer zones and wetland conservation: A case study of freshwater turtles in a Carolina Bay. Conservation-Biology. 1995; 9 (6) 1365-1369. 1995. Dodd C.K. & Cade B.S. Movement patterns and the conservation of amphibians breeding in small, temporary wetlands. Conservation Biology 1212], 331-339. 1998. Ehrenfeld J.G. & Schneider J.P. Chamaecyparis thyoides wetlands and suburbanization: effects on hydrology, water quality and plant community composition. Journal of Applied Ecology 28, 467-490. 1991. Findlay C. & Houlahan J. Anthropogenic correlates of species richness in southeastern Ontario wetlands. Conservation Biology [CONSERV.BIOL.].VoI.11, no.4, pp.1000-1009.Aug 1997. 1997. Fischer R.A. & Fischenich J.C. 2000. Design recommendations for riparian corridors and vegetated buffer strips. 17 pp. Vicksburg, MS, US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Environmental Laboratory. Forman R.T.T. & Alexander L.E. Roads and their major ecological effects. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 29, 207-231. 1998. Forman R.T.T. & Deblinger R.D. The ecological road-effect zone of a Massachusetts (U.S.A.) suburban highway. Conservation Biology 14[1], 36-46. 2000. Kleijn D. & Snoeijing G.I.J. Field boundary vegetation and the effects of agrochemical drift: Botanical change caused by low levels of herbicide and fertilizer. Journal-of-Applied-Ecology. Dec., 1997; 34 (6) 1413-1425. 1997. Lambert J.D. & Haunon S.J. Short-term effects of timber harvest on abundance, territory characteristics, and pairing success of ovenbirds in riparian buffer strips. The Auk 11713], 687-698. 2000. Matlack G.R. Vegetation dynamics of the forest edge - trends in space and successional time. Journal of Ecology 82, 113- 123. 1994. Mladenoff D.J., White M.A., Crow T.R. & Pastor J. Applying principles of landscape design and management to integrate old-growth forest enhancement and commodity use. Conservation Biology 813], 752-762. 1994. New York Natm'al Heritage Program A Panners}tip between The Nature Conservancy and the NYS Depammnt of Environmental Conservation 625 Broadway, 5m Floor Albany, NY 12233-4757 (518) 402-8935 Fax (518) 402-8925 www.nynhp.o~ Osborne L.L. & Kovacic D.A. Riparian vegetated buffer strips in water-quality restoration and stream management. Freshwater Biology 29, 243-258. 1993. Pope S.E., Fahrig L. & Merriam H.G. Landscape complementation and metapopulation effects on leopard frog populations. Ecology 81 [9], 2498-2508. 2000. Saunders D.A., Hobbs R.J. & Margules C.R. Biological consequences of ecosystem fragmentation: a review. Conservation Biology 511], 18-32. 1991. Semlitsch R.D.a. Biological delineation of terrestrial buffer zones for pond-breeding salamanders. Conservation- Biology. Oct., 1998; 12 (5) 1113-1119. 1998. Shisler J.K., Jordan R.A. & Wargo R.N. 1987. Coastal Wetlands Buffer Delineation. -111. New Brunswick, New Jersey, New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station. Spackman S.C. & Hughes J.W. Assessment of minimum stream corridor width for biological conservation: species richness and distribution along mid-order streams in Vermont, USA. Biological Conservation 71,325-332.1995. Spellerberg I.F. Ecological Effects of roads and traffic: a literature review. Global Ecology and Biogeography Letters 7, 317- 333. 1998. Swift L.W. Filter strip widths for forest roads in the southern Appalachians. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 10, 27-34. 1986. Trimble G.R. & Sartz R.S. How far from a stream should a logging road be located? Journal of Forestry, 339-341. 1957. Trombulak S.C. & Frissell C.A. Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and aquatic communities. Conservation Biology 14[1], 18-30. 2000. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Data Base; Data Use lnformation. 31 pages with appendices. 1995. FortWorth, Texas. Werner K.J. & Zedler J.B. How sedge meadow soils, microtopography, and vegetation respond to sedimentation. Wetlands 2213], 451466. 2002. Woo I. & Zedler J.B. Can nutrients alone shffi a sedge meadow towards dominance by the invasive Typha X glauca? Wetlands 2213], 509-521. 2002. New York Natural Heritage Program A Panne~ship between ~lae Nature Conservancy and the NYS Deparm~nt of Environmental Conservation 625 Broadway, 5m Floor Albany, NY 12233-4757 (518) 402-8935 Fax (518) 402-8925 www.nynhp.o~ · 3,ppendix 1. Averaging Kfact values for each soil polygon I imported the layer and comp tables into MS Access and did the following to the data (filename = SoilData.mdb.) 1. From the SSURGO "layer.dat" table (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service 1995), average kfact values by MUID, by SEQNUM. Use only the layers 1 &2, as the only kfact values for layer 3 were 0 and, in most cases indicated bedrock (some values for 2 also equaled 0 and at this time are still averaged in). 2. Sum COMPPCT in the comp.dat table by MUID. These values do not sum to 100 and thus this intermediary step is needed to get true proportions for the reported values. 3. Calculate the proportion of each soil component (SEQNUM) by dividing COMPPCT by SumCOMPPCT (=PropCOMPPCT). 4. For each SEQNUM within each MU1D, multiply PropCOMPPCT by AverageKfact and sum these values across SEQNUM within each MUD. This is the final, single Kfact value for each MUID. New York Natural Heritage Program A Pannetship between The Nature Conservancy and the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation 625 Broadway, 5m Floor Albany, NY 12233-4757 (518) 402-8935 Fax (518) 402-8925 www.nynhp.org Albert J. Krupski, President James King, Vice-President Artie Foster Ken Poliwoda Peggy A. Dickerson Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-1366 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OFSOUTHOLD September 13, 2004 Mr. James Fitzgerald, Jr. Proper-T Permit Services P.O. Box 617 Cutchogue, New York 11935 Re: Gregory Mazzanobile SCTM# 59-1-21.6 and 21.7 Permit No.5631 Dear Mr. Fitzgerald: The Board of Town Trustees is in receipt of your letter regarding the above referenced permit. The Trustees would like you to apply for an amendment to the permit to make the changes, which were required by the NYSDEC. Enclosed is a copy of the application for an amendment. There is a $50 fee. Sincerely~ Heather Tetrault Environmental Technician Southold Tom Bo~d of Trustees Southold, New York Dear sirs and madam: Great Pond Wetland Preservation Committee Kenney's Beach Civic Association Box 881 Southold NY 11071 8EP - 7 2004 Seuthekl Board of Trustees ugust 28, 2004 Thank you for your kind attention to bur concerns which we pres6nt~ at your recent meeting of August 18, 2004. We are writing to appeal the granting ora 1-year extension to the Wetland Permit on the MazTanobile application for SCTM # 59-1-21.6 & 21.7. We feel we were not given an opportunity to voice our strong objection to the granting of this permit. We are in receipt of, and have submitted to you (with Heather Tetreault at the Aug. 18 meeting), a copy of the survey which Mr. Mazzanobile submitted to obtain a Suffolk Co. DEC permit. That survey was significantly different from the one on which you based your approval in the following ways: 1. The new survey shows stairs on the N.W. comer of the house. 2. The septic tank has been relocated. 3.The size of house and deck area has been changed. 4.The west walkway has been removed-center walkway has been repositioned. 5 The location of retaining wall has changed. 6.The septic system is now closer to a neighboring private well. We are requesting Mr. Mazzanobile be required to file an amendment to his application to reflect these changes. We also request that a SEQRA study be done on this entire area. As a result of the botanical report we have submitted to you which identifies this area as an extensive "maritime freshwater interdunal swale"(listed as globally and locally rare by the New York Natural Heritage Program), we feel this is both prudent and essential for the health and well being of our wetlands. We are also requesting that this area be re-flagged to delineate the existing wetlands in view of all the changes being proposed. As you know, the applicant has submitted 7 or 8 different surveys over a 2-year period. During this time, he has changed his original plans on each survey. The original wetland flags have been removed, blown down or knocked over and none are now in place except for a few near one of the proposed septic systems. We respectfully request that you advise us of your decision in these matters. Sincerely, ~L [l ~!,_~{ Lillian Ball, chairperson cc. John Pavacic Regional Permit Administrator, Department of Environmental Conservation Peter Scully Department of Environmental Conservation George Brown Suffolk County Dept Of Waste Management Ref # R10-02-0097 Mark Terry Southold Town Planning Board Ruth Oliver Southold Town ZBA Joshua Horton Supervisor Town Of Southold John Romanelli Southold Town Council Mike Verity Southold Town Building Dept. Mike Vissichelli-Acting Chief Us Army Corps Of Engineers Senator Kenneth Lavalle Assemblywoman Patricia Acampora Representative Tim Bishop Attached: Botanical Report and Wetland Maps August 2004 //~ ,~;YJ~ ~A ~x~ New York State Department of Environmenta~ Conservation Di~isior, of =nvironmental Fermi-.s ~;uiiding 40 - SUNY, Stony Brook, NY 11790-2.356 Telephone (631) 444-0404 Facsimile (631) 444-0360 Website: www.dec.state.ny.us Erin M. Crotty Commissioner July 26, 2004 Mr. Cn'egory Mazzmaobile .:_ 0 East 48th Street (Apt. 5C) New York, NY 10017 Dear Pemaittee: RE: 1-4738-03032/00001 In conformance with the requirements of the State Uniform Procedures Act (A~icle 70, ECL} and its implementing regulations (6NYCRR, Pm't 62 I) we are enclosing your permit. Please read al! conditions carefulb., if you are unable to comply with any conditions, please contact us at the above address. Also enclosed is a permit sign which is to be conspicuously posted at the project site and protected from the weather. Sincerely ¸.7 Marllyn rz, P~erson '"' Env~ronmemal Anal vst MEP/I s NEW YORK STATE DE:~ARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CDNSERVATION DEC PERMIT NUMBER 1-4738-03Bg2/0000,[ FACILITY/PROGRAM NUMBER~? PERMIT Under the Environmental ! Conservation Law' EFFECTIVE D,~,TE Jul? 26 2004 EXPIRATION DATE(S) July 31, 2009 TYPE OF PERMIT ~1 New ~m Renewal D Modification ~ Permit to Construct [] Permit to Operate Article !5, Title E: Pro~e3tion of Waters ~ 6NYCRR 608: Water Quality [] Art c e 27, Title 7: 6NYCRR 360. Adicte !5, Title '[5: Water Supply Adicle 15, Title 15: Water Transport Article !5, Title 15: Long Island Wells Article 15, Title 27: Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers Certification [] Article 17, Titles 7, 8: SPDES Adisle 19: Air Pollution Control Article 23, Title 27: Mined Land Reclamation Ardcte 24: Freshwater Wetlands Article 25: Tidal Wetlands Solid Waste Management [] Article 2~, Title 9; 6NYCRR 373: Hazardous Waste Management ~m Article 34: Coastal Erosion Management ~ Article 36: Floodplain Management [] Articles 1, 3, 17, 19, 27, 37; 6NYCRR 380: Radiation Control PERMIT ISSUED TO Gre,clor¥ Mazzanobile ADDRESS OF PERMITTEE TELEPHONE NUMBER (212) 838-3776 230 East 48*h Street, (Apt. 5C), New York, NY 10017 ~ONTA~ ~ PERSON FOP, P:RMI%TED WORK James E. Fitzgerald, P.O. Box 617. Cutchogue' NY 11935 NAME AND ADDRESS OF PROJECT/FACILITY TELEPHONE NUMBER (631)734-5800 Mazzanobile property, 1300 & 1460 Lake Drive, Southoid Suffolk Southold DESCRIPTION OF AUTHORIZED ACTIVITY: NYTM COORDINATES Construct single family dwelling, decks and septic system. All work must be done in accordance with the attached survey Drepared by Joseph lngeanc, on o/_8/0_ last ~ ;o= ' . , ~ r~v,~..a on ?/7/04 and stamped NYSDEC approved on 7/26/04. By acceptance of this permit, the permittee agrees that the permit is contingent upon strict compliance with the ECL, all applicable regulations, the General Conditions specified tsee page 2 & 3) and any Special Conditions included as pad of this permit. F,'egron 1 ,UieaclquaF[ers Bid9 ¢40. SUNY. Stony Brook. NY 11790-2356 Page I o~ ~ , Jul)/27, 2004 NEVt' YORK STATe DE~4RTMENT OF eNVIRONMeNTAL CONSERVATION S. -~.4AL CONDITIONS 1. An),, ,~,ork, disturbance, and storage of construction materials shall be confined to within the "Limit of Ciearinc and Ground Disturbance' as shown on the approved plan. ~ 2. Prior to commencement of any construction activities, a continuous row of straw bales shall be staked end to end a~ong the uDiand edge of the Duffer zone. 'The bales snail be maintained, repaired and reoiaced as oftern as necessary to ensure proper function, until all disturbed areas are permanently vegetated. The averaae useful life of a bale is approximately 3-4 months. Sediments trapped by the bales shall be removed to an approved ~aland iosatior, before the bales themselves are removed. · 3. Straw bales shall be recessed two to four inches into the ground. 4. Any demolition debris, excess construction materials, and/or excess excavated materials shall be immediately and completely disposed of on an approved upland site more than 100 feet from any regulated freshwater wetland. These materials shall be suitably stabilized so as not to re-enter any water body, wetland, or wetland adjacent area. 5 Alt fill shall consist of clean soil, sand and/or qravei that is free of the follow ng substances: asphalt, slag, flyash. broken concrete, demo lion debris, garbage, h(~usehotd refuse, tires, woody materials including tree or landscape debris, and metal objects. The introduction of materials toxic to aquatic life ~s expressly prohibited. 6. The driveway must be surfaced with a permeable material. 7 All equipment and machinery shall be stored and safely contained greater than 100 feet landward of the regulated wetland or water body at the end of each work day. This will ser~e to avoid the inadvertent leakage of deleterious substances into the regulated area. Fuel or other chemical storage tanks shall be contained and located at all times in an area greater than 100 feet landward of the regulated wetland or water body. If the above requirement cannot be met by the permit'tee, then the storage areas must be designed to completely contain any and all potential leakage. Such a containment system must be approved by NYSDEC staff prior to equipment, machinery or tank storage within 100 feet of the regulated wetland or water body. 8. All areas of soil disturbance resulting from this project shall be seeded with an appropriate perennial grass, and mulched with straw immediately upon completion of the project, within two (2) days of final grad rig, or by the expiration of the permit, whichever is first Mulch shall be maintained until a suitable veoetative cover ~s established If seeding is impracticable due to the time of year, a temporary mulch shall be applied ~nd final seeding shall be performed as soon as weather conditions favor germination and growth. 9. Suitable vegetative cover is defined as a minimum of 85% area vegetative cover with contiguous unvegetated areas no larger than 1 square foot in size. 10. Within ninety (90) calendar days of the effective date of this permit, Permittee shall incorporate the following language as a notice covenant and deed restriction to the deed of the subject parcel: r'Thi.c covenant shali serve as notification ti}at the property associated with regulated freshwater wetlands S©-5, is located on or near the properties of Gregory Mazzanobile and his heirs, assigns or successors as described in the Suffolk County Tax Map as District 1000, Section 59, Block 1, Lot 21.6, 21.7. located on Lake Drive in Southold, New York, and is therefore subject to current environmental conservation laws regarding the conduct of regulated activities: co sucl~ property Whereas. it is the responsibility of the owner of the properly to obtain a current description of ali regLltated activities from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation CNYSDEC") or its successor oraanization for the purpose of determining what is considered a regulated activity. Pertormance of any regulated activi-ty wilt require prior approval by the NYSDEC or its successor Whereas, the 50 foot area landward of the wetland boundary as shown on the attached survev and described as 'non-d sturbance buffer, will be preserved and will remain undisturbed and in natural veoetati~n In peree~uitv. TI~e folk~win§ activities In the preserved areD are seeci~icahy prohibited: cleannc~ or sLitting Oi veDerai, ion aDr)iication of h~mlual ...... aVatlOh, grading, filiing, cons~rugtloh, el-eOtlOl, of any structures, and use of tl~e are~ for the s[orarje materials or del)ns DEC PERMIT NUMBEP i l I-~'722-03920,00002 The foregoing covenants shall run with the land and are binding on this owner and his heirs and assigns, forever" Within ninety (90 calendar days of the effective date of this Permit. the Permittee shall have said notice covenant and deer~ restriction recorde~: with the 3ien~ of Suffolk County Within thirty (30) calendar days of the effective date of the filling with the county clerk, a copy of the notice covenant and deed restriction or other acceptable proof of record, along with the number assigned to the permit, shall be sent to: NYSDEC, Regional Manager BOH, SUNY Building 40, Stony Brook, NY 11790-2356. Any violation of these restrictions, covenants, and agreements shall cause the violator, in addition to any fines, penalties, and/or forfeitures prescribed by law, to pay for any and all reasonable legal fees and expenses incurred by any party in enforcing the covenants, restrictions, and agreements contained herein. Failure to comply with the filing of the above covenant and restrictions may result in permit revocation and/or the assessment of financial penalties against the applicant, -i-.473~,-03032t00001 ~ ADD;TIONAL G,-N_RA_ ~.DND, ION~ FOR ARTICLES 16 (TITLE 5), 24, 25, 34 AND 6NYCRR PART 608 ~ R=SHWAT_R W--TLANDS) If future operations by the State of New York require an alteration in the position of the structure or work herein authorized, or if, in the opinion of the Department of Environmental Conservation it shall cause unreasonable obstruction to the free navigation of said waters or flood flows or endanger the health, safety or welfare of the people of the State, or cause loss or destruction of the natural resources of the State, the owner may be ordered by the Department to remove or alter the structural work, obstructions, or hazards caused thereby without expense to the State, and if, upon the expiration or revocation of this permit, the structure, fill, excavation, or other modification of the watercourse hereby authorized shall not be completed, the owners, shall, without expense to the State, and to such extent and in such time and manner as the Department of Enwronmentat Conservation may require, remove alt or any portion of the uncompleted structure or fill and restore to its former condition the navigable and flood capacity of the watercourse. No claim shall be made against the State of New York on account of any such removal or alteration. The State of New York shall m no case be liable for any damaee or injury to the structure or work herein authorized which may be caused by or result from future operations~underta'ken by the State for the conservation or improvement of navigation, or for other purposes, and no claim or right to compensation shall accrue from any such damage. Granting of this permit does not relieve the applicant of the responsibility of obtaining any other permission, consent or approval from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Coast Guard, New York State Office of General Services or local government which may be required. 4. All necessary precautions shall be taken to preclude contamination of any wetland or waterway by suspended solids, sediments, fuels, solvents, lubricants, epoxy coatings, paints, concrete, leachate or any other environmentally deleterious materials associated with the pro]est. 5. Any material dredged in the conduct of the work herein permitted shall be removed evenly, without leaving large refuse piles, ridges across the bed of a waterway or floodplain or deep holes that may have a tendency to cause damage to navigable channels or to the banks of a waterway. 6. There shall be no unreasonable interference with navigation by the work herein authorized. 7. If upon the expiration or revocation of ti~is permit, the project hereby authorized has net been completed, the applicant shall without expense to the State, and to such extent and in such time and manner as the Department of Environmental Conservation may require, remove all or any portion of the uncompleted structure or fill and restore the site to its former condition. No claim shall be made against the State of New York on account of any such removal or alteration. If granted under 6NYCRR Part 608. the N'YS Department of Environmental Conservation hereby certifies thatthe subject project will not cont;~avene effluent limitations or other limitations or stanaaros under Sections 301,302, 303,306 and 307 of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (PL 95-217) provided that all of the conditions listed herein are met. 9 At least,48 hours prior to commencement of the proiect, the permittee and contractor shall sign and return the top portion of the enclosed notification form certifying ihat they are fully aware of and understand all terms and conditions of this permit Within 30 days of completion of project, tne bottom portion of the form must also be signed and returned, along with photographs of the completed work and, if required, a survey. 10 All activities authorized by this permit must be in strict conformance with the approved ptans submitted by the applicant or his agent as part of the permit application. Suci~ approved survey was prepared by Jogeph Inqec~no 3/28/02 last revised ~~~, 3o-000o=100001 · . NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMSNTAL CONS_=RVATIO~r NOTIFICATION OF OTHER PERIVlfTTEE OBLIGA;-iSi,~S Item A: Permittee Acc~:s -egal Responsibili~' and Agrees to Indemnification Toe permittee expressly agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Deparzment of Environmental Conservation of the State of New York, its representatives, employees, and a~ents ("DEC") for a claims, suits, actions, and damages, to toe extent attributable to the permittee's so:s o~ omissions in connection with the permittee's undertaking of activities in connection with, or operation and maintenance of, the facility or facilities authorized by the permit whether in comaiiance or not in compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit. This indemnification does no[ extend [o any claims suits, actions, or damages to the extent attributable to DEC's own negligent or intentional acts or omissions, or to any claims, suits or actions naming the DEC and arising under article 78 of the New York Civil Practice Laws and Rules or any citizen suit or civil rights provision under federat or state laws. Item B: Permittee's Contractors to Comply with Permit The permittee is responsible for informing its independent contractors, employees, agents and assigns of their responsibility to comply' with this permit, in eluding ali special conditions while acting as the permittee's agent with respect to the permitted activities, and such persons shall be subject to the same sanctions for violations of the Environmental Conservation Law as those prescribed for the permittee. Item C: Permittee Responsible for Obtaining Other Required Permits The permittee is responsible for obtaimng any other perm ts, approvals, lands, easements and riohts-of-way that may be required to carry out the activities that are authorized by this permit. Item D: No Right to Trespass or Interfere with Riparian Rights This permit does not convey to the permittee any right to trespass upon the lands or interfere with the riparian rights of others in order to perform the permitted work nor does it authorize the impairment of any rights, title, or interest in real or personal property held or vested in a person not a party to the permit. GENERAL CONDITIONS General Condition 1: Facility Inspection by the Department The permitted site or facility, including relevant records, is subject to inspection at reasonable hours and intervals by an authorized representative of the Department of Environmental Conservation (the Department) to determine whether the permittee is complying with this permit and the ECL. Such representative mai/order ti~e work suspended pursuant to ECL 71-0301 and SAPA 401(3). The permittee shall provide a person to accompany the Department's representative during an inspection to the permit area when requested by the Department. A copy of this permit, including all referenced maps, drawings and special conditions, must be availabie for inspection by the Department at all times at the project site or facility Failure to produce a copy of the permit upon request by a Department representative is a violation of this permit. Generar Condition 2: Relationship of this Permit to Oti~er Department Orde~ and Determinations Unless expressly provided for by the Department, issuance of this permit does not modify, supersede or rescind any order or determination previously issued by the Department or any of the terms, conditions or requirements contained in such order or determination. General Condition 3; Applications for Permit Renewals or Modifications The permittee must submit a separate written application to the Department for renewal, modification or transfer of this permit. Such application must include any forms or supplemental reformation tl~e Department requires Any renews, modification or transfer gran[ed by the E,e~)artmem must ne In writin.c, The permittee must submit a renewal application at least: a) 180 days before expiration of permits for State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES), Hazardous \Naste Management Facilities (HWMF) maior Air Pollution Centre! (APC!, and Solid VVast.~, blanaeement Facilities (SWMF); and ' b) 30 days before expiration of all other permit types. Submission of applications for permit renewal or modification are to be submitted to: NYSDEC Regional Permit Administrator, Region 1, SUNY Bldg #40, Stony Brook. NY 11790-2356 General Condition 4: Permit I~odifications, Suspensions and Revocations b~, the Department The Department reserves the right to rnodify, suspend or revoke this permit in accordance with 6 NYCRR Pad 62! The grounds for modification, suspension or revocation include: a) materially false or inaccurate statements in the permit application or supporting papers; b) failure by the permittee to comply w th any terms or condilions of the permit; c) exceeding the scope of the project as described in ihe oermil apetisat~on; newiy discovered material )nformahon or a maiedal cbange ~n envlroemental conditions, re)eva ~ tect~notegv ol applicable law ol regulations since toe issuance of ti~e exlstie§ permit; e) noncompliance with previously issued permil condilions, orders of lhe commlss~oeeh any provision,.; of the Environments', Conservahon Law or regulations of ~e Depanmen! related to ti~e permitted activity I i-~ 3[',-O30a,-/00001 r~ ~ ~,= Mh L;~JMMBNCEMENT OF CONSTRU3TIO~! RL--TUR'N THIS FORA: TO: SD v:PLiANCE Bureau of Habitat NYSDEC Building 40 - SUNY · . .. ~ Stony Brooi[, N~' 1~79D-2356 / PROJECT LOCATiON/ADDRESS: · OR FAX TO: 631-444-0272 CONTRACTOR NAME: ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: Dear Sir: Pursuant to General Condition # 9 of the referenced permit you are hereby notified that the authorized activity snail commence on · We certify that we nave read the referenced permit and ';pproved plans and fully understand the authorized project and a permit conditions. We have inspected the proiect site and can comolete the project as described in the permit and as depicted on the approved plans. We can do so in full compliance with all plan notes and permit conditions. The permit sign, permit and approved plans will be available at the site for inspe~ion in accordance with general Condition Ne. 1. (Both signatures required) PERM1TEE DATE CONTRACTOR DATE THIS NOTICE MUST BE SENT TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS A T LEAST TWO DA YS PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE PROJECT AND /OR ,ANY ASSOCIA TED REGULA TED ACTIVITIES. FAILURE TO RETURN THIS NOTICE, POST THE PERMIT SIGN, OR HA VE THE PERMIT AND APPROVED PLANS A VAIL.ABLE A T THE WORK SITE FOR THE DURA TION OF THE PROJECT MA Y SUBJECT THE PERMITTEE AND/OR CONTRACTOR TO APPLICABLE SANCTIONS AND PENAL TIES FOR NON-COMPLIANCE WITH PERMIT CONDITIONS, 2,ut along this line ~ NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF CONSTRUC~I'~ ...................................................... :rETURN THIS FORM TO: COMPLIANCE OFt FAX TO: 631-444-0272 Bureau of Habitat NYSDEC Building 40 - SUN'Y Stony Brook, NY 11790-2356 =ERMIT NUMBER: =ROJECT LOCATION/ADDRESS: ISSUED TO: ;ONTRACTOR NAMF-: ADDRESS: TELEPHDNE: >ear Sir: )ursuant to Genera/Condition # 9 of the referenced permit, you are hereby notified that the aufi~odzed acfivity was completed on · We have fully complied with the terms and conditions otthe permit and al~proved plans. (Both signatures required} PERMITEE DATE 'CONTRACTOR DATE HI~ Nu, 1,._, WITI~ PHOTO~rr.,4~r~o ut- THE C OMPLE'i ~ WOi~-& AND/u,F. ,~ COIVLC~LETED SURVEY, AS APPROPRIATE, MUST BE ~EAIT TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS WITHIN 30 DA YS OF COMPLETION OF THE ~ROJECT 95-20~! (11;03) -gd New York State Department of Environmental Conservation NOTICE The Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has issued permit(s) pursuant to the Environmental Conservation Law for work being conducted at this site. For further information regarding the nature and extent of the approved work and any Department conditions applied to the approval, contact the Regional Permit Administrator listed below. Please refer to the permit number shown when contacting the DEC. Permit Number , Expiration Date d,,~,~¢, .... ! _ Regional Permit Administrator NOTE: This notice is NOT a permit Albert J. Krupski, President James King, Vice-President Artie Foster Ken Poliwoda Peggy A. Dickerson Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 . Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-1366 September 1, 2004 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Mr. James Fitzgerald, Jr. Proper-T Permit Services P.O. Box 617 Cutchogue, N.Y. 11935 Re: Gregory Mazzanobile SCTM# 59-1-21.6, 21.7 Dear Mr. Fitzgerald: Our office has been notified that the NYSDEC permit on the above referenced property has been issued recently, and has several changes from the one issued by the Trustees. Please send our office a copy of the permit and plan approved the NYSDEC, and notify the owner that they will need an amendment to their Town Trustee permit if there are changes. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Heather Tetrault Environmental Technician Albert J. Krupski, President James King, Vice-President Artie Foster Ken Poliwoda Peggy A. Dickerson Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-1366 September 1, 2004 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Mr. James Fitzgerald, Jr. Proper-T Permit Services P.O. Box 617 Cutchogue, N.Y. 11935 Re: Gregory Mazzanobile SCTM# 59-1-21.6, 21.7 Dear Mr. Fitzgerald: Our office has been notified that the NYSDEC permit on the above referenced property has been issued recently, and has several changes from the one issued by the Trustees. Please send our office a copy of the permit and plan approved the NYSDEC, and notify the owner that they will need an amendment to their Town Trustee permit if there are changes. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Heather Tetrault Environmental Technician Albert J. Krupski, President James King, Vice-President Artie Foster Ken Poliwoda Peggy A. Dickerson Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-1366 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD September 13, 2004 Mr. James Fitzgerald, Jr. Proper-T Permit Services P.O. Box 617 Cutchogue, New York 11935 Re: Gregory Mazzanobile SCTM# 59-1-21.6 and 21.7 Permit No.5631 Dear Mr. Fitzgerald: The Board of Town Trustees is in receipt of your letter regarding the above referenced permit. The Trustees would like you to apply for an amendment to the permit to make the changes, which were required by the NYSDEC. Enclosed is a copy of the application for an amendment. There is a $50 fee. Sincerely~ Heather Tetrault Environmental Technician 18 · The Suffolk Times · September 9, 2004 Call to save Great Pond Attention focused on wetlands area What's a "Maritime Freshwater Interdunal Swale?" Well, if you stroll along what locals ~ "The Loop," formed by Lake Drive and Leeton Drive at Kenney's Beach in Southold, it's that 10 acres of sandy, vacant land in the middle. The area is home to a unique ecosys- tem that includes native cranberries, insect- eating sundew plants and a rare flower, the his prismatica, and acts as a filter for Great Pond just to the south, according to a new study commissioned by the Kenney's Beach, Civic Association. In a grassroots effort, the group is reaching out to Southold Town, the Peconic Land Trust and others tO find a way to preserve the land from development. "It's a miracle it hasn't been built on already," said Lillian Ball, chair of the essoci- ation's Great Pond wetland preservation committee. "We've realized how unique it is, and we want to get the word out that it's worth preserving. It's :dso important for the quality of life of over 75 faini~s in our neigh- borhood, and everyone who enjoys walking and biking in the area." The report was written by Eric Lamont, a Riverhead botanist recommended to the group through the state's Natural Heritage Program, said lVLx Ball The sit~ is part of an interdunal wetland system that runs between into one-acre parcels owned by different individuals, Goldsmith's Inlet and Horton's Point, a type of ter- according to a Southold Tovm map of tidal and fresh- rain listed as rare under the New York Natural water wetlands. The civic association committee is Heritage Program standards, getting in touch with these property owners to open Subdivided in the past, the "Loop" site is broken discussions on how preservation can be achieved, and Suffolk Times photo by Judy Ahrens UHlan Ball, chairwoman of the Great Pond wetland preservation committee, and president ChUck Luyster In ~ of the property they are trying to preserve. will explore oppommities for raising fi~nds, said Ms. Ball. "We want this to be a situation that everyone ends up feeling good about," she said. Gwendolen Groocock Botanical Report August 2004 Preliminary Environmemal Assessment of the "Great Ponds Wetland & Dunes" Southold, NY IPrepared For: IPrepared By: Kennys Beach Civic Assn. Southold, NY Greg Lamont, PH.D. Botanical Consultant 717 Sound Shore RD Riverhead, NY 11901 Kennys Beach Wild Cranberry Bog Botanical Re ort Preliminary Environmental Assessment of the "Great Pond Wetlands & Dunes", Southoid Township, Suffolk County, New York PREPARED FOR: KENNY BEACH CIVIC ASSOCIATION SOUTHOLD TOWNSHIP SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK PREPARED BY: ERIC LAMONT, PH.D. BOTANICAL CONSULTANT 717 SOUND SHORE ROAD RIVERHEAD, NEW YORK 11901 AUGUST 2004 Summary 1. The Great Pond wetland and dune system is composed of two State-rare ecological communities, with one of them currently listed as globally rare. The region is not only rare in New York State, it is rare on Earth. 2. These two ecological communities are intricately connected together and if one community is altered or disturbed, the other community will be negatively impacte& 3. The low, gently undulating dunes north of Lake Drive are classic examples of a"maritime dune" community, listed as rare by New York Natural Heritage Program (NYNHP). 4. In Iow areas of the maritime dune community where the land surface intem~ the water table, small "eranherry bogs" occur as small, green islands among the white sand. These circular islands offer suitable habitat for native cranberries and carnivorous plants called snmdews. 5. The extensive "maritime freshwater interdunal swales" located north of Lake Drive are listed as rare by NYIqHP. 6. These freshwater wetlands support a high diversity of plant species, including at least one rare plant, slender blue flag (Irisprismatica). 7. Another noteworthy feature of this site is its connection to Great Pond and the interdanal wetland system at nearby Peconic Dunes County Park_ 8. The strictest environmental laws and codes should be enforced to preserve the integrity of these delicate and sensitive ecological communities. 9. Fragmentation of this unique maritime ecosystem will result in negative enviroranental impacts. 10. The Great Pond wetlands and dunes are significant and unique elements of Southold's rich natural heritage that should be preserved for future generations. 2 Introduction At the invitation of the Kenny Beach Civic Association (KBCA), I cor~mted an on-site preliminary environmental assessment (on 8 August 2004) of an approximately 10-acre parcel of land located north of Lake Drive in Southold Township. The area is locally known as the "Great Pond Wetlands & Dunes". KBCA arranged for permission bom some residents for me to walk certain properties. Further acee~ was obtained from a Suffolk County parcel and a Soutbeld Township parcel. Final observations were made from adjacent roadsides. A high quality aerial map (on a scale of one inch = 100 fee0 of the 10-acre parcel also was provided by KBCA. The Great Pond wetland and dune system is dominated by two ecological communities: 1) maritime dunes, and 2) maritime freshwater interdunal swales. Both of these commtmity types are listed as rare in New York by the New York Natural Heritage Program ~), and the maritime freshwat~r interdunal swale community is currently listed as globally rare (although 1NrYblHP indicates that the global rank may change in the future). Before continuing with this report, the significance of the previous paragraph must be emphasized. First, NYNHP is the New York State government agency responsible for documenting and tracking rare plants, animals, and ecological communities across blew York. The Heritage staff is comprised of highly trained scientists often with advanced degrees, who are experts in studying New York's biodiversity. Second, it is extremely significant, from an environmental point of view, that a relatively small, 10-acre site be composed of two State-rare ecological communities, with one of them currently listed as globally rare. This statement cannot be overstated. We are not talking about the presence of one rare plant ur animal species, we are talking about an entire ecological community being rare. Additionally, a large portion of this site is "globally" rare. That means that thc region is not only rare in New York State, it is rare on Earth. These two maritime communities are closely and inseparably intertwined with each other. They are connected together by an intricate and delicate balance between macro- and microscopic organisms and abiotic (non-living) factors of the environment sach as hydrology, soil characteristics, and micro-habitats created by blow-outs in the undulating system of dunes. The environmental features occurring at the Great Pond wetlands and dunes comprise a unique aspect of the natural history of Southold Township, because maritime dunes and interdunal swales usually occur on the south shore of Long Island, not on the north shore. For example, these two maritime communities usually occur on Fire Island where dunes are protected and signs warn people to stay ore Long Island's north shore is characte6zed by tall bluffs directly bordering Long Island Sound. The area between Goldsmith's Inlet and Ho~on Point, however, is geologically unique. Instead of 100 foot bluffs towering above L.L Sound, this area supports a unique system of low, undulating dunes and swales, interspersed with a mosaic of extensive wetlands. I cannot think of another location on the north shore of eastern Long Island that supports such a unique and rare system of ecological communities. Another noteworthy feature of this 10-acre site is its connection to Great Pond and the interdunal wetland system at nearby Peconic Dunes County Park. This co~on is most evident at low-lying points along Lake Drive that frequently flood. At these points, wetland plants form corridors linking the sites together into one large system. 3 Site Description The maritime dunes and wet interdunal swales north of Lake Drive grade into each other and the boundaries between them are not always abruptly distinguished. At low areas intcl~persed thro-ghout the dunes are small "cranberry begs" that support a diversity of sedges, rushes, and even camivorons plants. Although these two ecological communities will now be described separately, it should be understood that they are intricately connected together and if one community is altered or disturbed, the other community will be negatively impacted. Maritime Dunes. This ecological community is listed "G4, S3" by NYNHP. The "G" rank is the "Global" rank, while the "S" rank is the "State" rank. Globally, the marifilne dune community is considered to be "apparently secure globally, though it may be quite tare in paris of its range, especially atthe periphery' (F/linger et al., 2002). Along the Atlantic coast, maritime dunes are probably best developed at the Outer Banks of North Carolin~ Maritime dunes are at their northern limit (pefipbety) on Long Island and Cape Cod, Massachusetts, and they are quite rare along the north shore of Long Island. The "S3" Heritage rank indicates that maritime dunes are considered rare inNew York with only "limited acreage". The low, undulating dunes north of Lake Drive are classic examples of the maritime dune community found at Napeague Danes in East Hampton Township and Fire Island National Seashore. The Great Pond maritime dune system is comprised of low, gently undulating dunes interspersed with unvegetated blowouts and sandflats. Characteristic plants of the dunes include beachgrass (Ammophila brevih'gulata), beach heather (Hudsonia tomentosa), seaside goldenrod (Solidago sempervirens), seaside spurge (Euphorbiapolygonifolia), beach plum (Prurrav maritima), bayberry ( Myrica pensylvanica), jointweed (Polygonella artwulata), sexlge (Cyperus grayiO, Panic grass (Panicurn amarum), and hairgrass (Deschampsiaflexuosa). Tucked away among the dunes are small pockets stunted pitch pines (?inus rigida), post oaks (Quercus stellata), and black oaks (Quercus velutina), with a shrub layer dominated by black huckleberry (Gaylussaciabaccata)andhighbushblaeberry(Vacciniumcorymbosum). The pitch pines exh~it an unusual growth form whereby the lower branches grow out horizontally like aprons blanketing the Iow dunes. It is worth noting that these small wooded pockets resemble a "maritime pitch pine dune woodland", an extremely rare ecological community ranked "G2G3 SI" by NYNHP. The extensive wetland system paralleling the northern boundary of the maritime dunos will be dis~nssed in the next se~ztiun. However, it is noteworthy to mention that in low areas of the maritime dune community where the land surface intersects the water table, small "~anberry bogs" o~ur as small, grean islands among the white sand. These circular islands offi~r suitable habitat for cranberries (Va¢¢ini~m rnacrocarpon) and e~smivorous plates called sum~ws ( Dro~era intermedia). 4 Maritime Freshwater lnterdunal Swales. This ecological community is listed "G3G4, S2' by NYNHP, which makes it more rare than the maritime dune community. The "G3' rank indicates that maritime freshwater interdtmal swales are currently regarded as globally rare, but in the future the rank raay change to "G4" indicating that the community is apparently secure globally though it may be quite rare in parts of its range, especially at the periphery. A Heritage nmk of ~32' is tbe second highest rank of rarity in New York State ("S 1' = extreme rarity, "S5' = not rare ("demonstrably secure") in New York). The name of this community was changed from '~maritime interdunal swales" (Reschke, 1990) to distinguish the community from brackish inlerdunal swales. The "Great Pond Wetlands" is an extensive freshwater wetland system nssoei~ed with Great Pond proper, that eontinuns west into Peconi¢ Dtmes County Park. No~th of Lake Drive, these inter, ma! wetlands occur in low areas (swales) between dunes where the soil surface intersecls groundwater levee Water levels fluctuate seasonally and annually, refleeting changes in groundwater levels. The most extensive portion of this wetland s~stem ~um west to east, parallel to Leeton Drive and din~ctly no~ of the maritime dune system. Small, circular "cranberry bogs" also dot low areas among the maritime dunes directly north of Lake Drive The extensive wetlands north of Lake Drive support a high diversity ofplanl species, including at least one rare plant, slender blue flag (Irispriamatica), ranked 6465 S2 by NYNHP (Young 8: Weldy, 2004). Characteristic species include twig-rash (Cladium mariacoides), beakmsh (Rhyncbospora capitellata), malsh rush (Juncus canadensia ), woolgrass (,~c/rpus cyperinus), chaimaaker's rush (Scirtm~pungena), tnssnck sedge (Corex atricta), cranberry ( Vaccinium maerocarpon), spatulate-leaved sundew (Droaera intermedia), lance-leaved violet (Viola lanceolata), cross-leaved milkwort (Polygala cruciata), meadow beauty (Rbexia virginica), mamh mallow (Hibiscus moscheutos), marsh fern (Thelypterispa/ustria), royal rein ( Osmunda regalia var. spectabilis), marsh St. John' s wort ( Triadenum virginicum), a~l swamp candles (Lysimachia terrestria). Slami~ and trees bordering the wetlands inclt~le red nmple (Acer rubrum), tupelo (Nyssa ~wlvatica), red chokeberry (Aronia arbutifolia), bultonbnsh (Cephalanthus occidentalis), and highbush blueberry (Vaccmium corybosum). Unfortunately, phragrnites reed (Phragraitea australia) has invaded the wetlands, as well as scattered individuals of purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria). Conclusion The maritime dunes and freshwater interdunal swales located north of Lake Drive in the Town of Southold are rare ecological communities that should be preserved for future generations. These natural commtmities are significant and unique elements of Soathold's t4ch natural h~ritage. The strictest environmeatal laws and codes should be enforced to ~ the integrity of these delicate and sensitive ecological communities. Fragmentation of this unique marith~e ecosystem will result in negative environmental impacts. It is imperative that Southold Township act promptly and assertively to avoid environmental degradation of the Town's rich natural histol~y. 5 References Cited Edinger, G.J., D.J. Evans, S. Gebauer, T.G. Howard, D.M_ Hunt, and A~M. Olivero (editors). 2002. Ecological Communities of New York State. Second Edition A revised and expanded edition of Carol Reschke's Ecological Communities of New York State. ~ for review). New York Natural Heritage Program, New York State Depashnent of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY. Reschko, C. 1990. Ecological Communities of New York State. New York Natural Heritage Program, N.Y.S. Department of Enviroamental Conservation. Latham, NY. Young, S. IV[ and T. W. Weldy. 2004. New York Rare Plant Status List. New York Natural Heritage Program, N.Y.S. Department of Enviroamental Conservation. Albany, NY. 6 Town of Southoid Sample Land Preservation Target Map l~ Development Rights Private Protected Lands ~ Public Protected Lands Vacant Parcels as of 12/03 ~::~ Vacant ~ Vacant and Adjacent to Public Protected Land Town of Southold Freshwater Wetlands Vacant Parcels as of 12/03 ;~..~ Vacant ~ Vacant and Adjacent to Public Protected Land RICHARD CAGGIANO [~ ~..~..~_v_~ ~-_u_vov WILLIAM J. CREME~ ~-~~ ~) T~-1~38 ~NNETH L. EDW~S ~~a~ F~ (631) 765-3136 ~T~ H. SIDOR PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD To: Town of Southold Trustees From: Mark Ten5,, Senior Environmental Planner NOV I 8 2003 Board of Re: Mazzanobile, Gregory SCTM# 1000-59-1-21.6 1000-59-1-21.7 Date: November 18, ~003 A site visit was conducted on November 18, 2003 to assess the ecological community of the parcel. The parcel is comprised of secondary dane systems with Maritime Freshwater Interdanal Swales occurring in the northeast and southwest sections of the parcel. These systems are dominated by cranberry (Faccinium spp.). The Maritime Freshwater Interdunal Swales are generally listed in Heritage Program Element Ranks as: Global Ranks G3- Eithe~ rare or local throughout its range, or found locally in a restricted range, or foand vulnerable to extinction throughout its range because of other factors. G4 - Apparently secure globally, though may be quite rare in parts of its range, especially at the periphery. State Ranks S2 - Typically 6 to 20 occurrences, few remaining individuals, acres or miles of stream, or factors demonstrably making it very vulnerable in New York State. In addition, to thc above ranks, the communities are locally rare. All efforts to minimize adverse impacts fi:om development should be applied including mandating the maximum setbacks pursuant to ChaPter 97, Wetland.q~ of the Town of Southold Code To insure the integrity of the wetland system in the southwest section of the parcel, I recommend that that the setbacks not be compromised and the amendment to Pemdt No 5631, as ' ' ~~/lemed. The applicant should pursue a resolut~'~'~g~'~- ~' ~ -~---~ :~-'~- ........ County Department of Health Services. I recommend that prior to any further approvals, the Board contact the New York Natural Heritage Program for further information regarding these significant communities. CHRONOLOGY OF 21.6 & 21.7 NOV 8,1982 -LETTER TO GEORGIOPOULOS FROM DEPY OF HEALTH REJECTING PROPOSED SUBDIVISION JULY 1,1983 -LETTER TO GEORGIOPOULOS FROM PLANNING BOARD, REQUIRING HIM TO COMPLIY WITH 2 ACRE ZONING LAW ENACTED MAY 20, 1983 MAY 2,2002 -APPLICATION FOR WETLAND PERMIT BY MA77ANOBILE MAY 10,2002 NOTICE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS MAY 13,2002 - LETTERS TO TOWN TRUSTEES IN OPPOSITION TO GRANTING PERMIT-NOTIFIED TRUSTEES OF CRANBERRY BOG,PRIVATE WELLS,POSSIBLE ILLEGAL SUBDIVISION-A SERIES OF PHOTOS DOCUMENTING FLOODING ON THE SITE JULY 20,2002 -PETTION SIGNED BY 55 RESIDENTS OPPOSING APPLICATION JULY 22, 2002 -LETTER FROM KBCA TO BOARD OF TRUSTEES OPPOSING APPLICATION SEPT 06,2002 -LETTER TO TOWN REQUESTING RE-EVALUATION OF 50FT BUFFER TO 75FT SEPT 25,2002- TOWN BOARD OR TRUSTEES APPROVES A WETLAND PERMIT BY A VOTE OF 3 TO 2 SEPT 26,2002 - LETTER TO DEPT OF HEALTH IN OPPOSITION TO GRANTING HEALTH PERMIT FOR CESSPOOL INCLUDES PETITION, KBCA LETTER IN OPPOSITION AND FLOODING PHOTOS JUNE 27,2003 -REQUEST TO BOARD OF TRUSTEES BY APPLICANT TO AMEND PERMIT TO RELOCATE CESSPOOLS JULY 15,2003 -UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN ADVISORY COUNCIL TO DENY AMENDMENT JULY 16,2003 -- LE3-rER TO TOWN BOARD OF TRUSTEES IN OPPOSITION TO THE GRANTING OF THE AMENDMENT JULY 18,2003 --PETITION BY 43 RESIDENTS OF AREA IN OPPOSITION TO THE GRANTING OF THE AMENDMENT JULY 22,2003 -LETTER TO TOWN BOARD OF TRUSTEES BY KBCA IN OPPOSITION TO THE GRANTING OF THE AMENDMENT OCT 06,2003 - LETTER TO TOWN BOARD OF TRUSTEES ADVISING THEM APPLICANT HAS FAILED TO SHOW THE ACCURATE LOCATION OF WETLAND AREAS ON HIS MOST RECENT SURVEY OCT 20,2003 - LETTER TO TOWN BOARD OF TRUSTEES ADVISING THEM SEPTIC IS LESS THAN 100 FT FROM A PRIVATE WELL MARCH 5,2004 -LETTER TO DEC OPPOSING THE GRANTING OF AN ARTICLE 24 FRESHWATER WETLAND PERMIT JULY 26,2004 --DEC GRANTS FRESHWATER WETLAND PERMIT AUGUST 2,2004 -LETTER TO DEPT OF HEALTH ADVISING THAT APPLICAN3'S SURVEY SHOWS THE SEPTIC SYSTEM 71 FT FROM A PRIVATE WELL AND REQUESTING TO BE NOTIFIED OF THE BOARD OF REVIEW HEARING BEACH CIVIC A.S,SOCIATION i!~iI GREAT POND W[t'¥;L~,ND ?I~.~5LF. V/~,TION COMM~TE[~ _11~ Town of Southoid Freshwater Wetlands suthor~¥' The map v,,a gener¢~ted to reflect ¥~etlands o~ Town¥,,,ide Vacant Parcels as of't2~3 ~ Vacant ~ Vacant and Adjacent to Public Protected Land ®® = Fublic protac'~J lanJ X. = Tar~6etc. J {;or ~rcserva'i:ion PI~CONli L,t. 5OILIN D KENNEY'$ BELACH CIVIC ASSOCIATION PO BOX # ¢51, $OL.ITHOLD, N~W YOR_K li?~J ~¢l K~NN[EY~.S BE. ACH CIVIC ASSOCIATION ~ 50ClTHOLD, NY ~t~ STATE: OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF STATE 4 I STATE STREET ALBANY, NY I 2~31-0001 GEORGE E, PATAKI November 4, 2004 Charles Luyster President Kenney's Beach Civic Association P.O. Box 881 Southold, NY 11971 Dear My. Luyster: Thank you for your letter of October 19, 2004 regarding undeveloped lands between Kenney's Road Beach and Goldsmith Inlet in the Town of Southold and your Association's efforts to protect this area. The proposed Department of State Goldsmith Inlet and Beach Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat includes maritime dunes and maritime freshwater interdunal swales, which are rare ecological communities as identified by the New York Natural Heritage Program. These communities lie within the lands you and your organization have expressed an interest in. It is the intention of the NYS Department of State to submit the enclosed draft habitat and narrative for the proposed Goldsmith Inlet and Beach significant coastal fish and. wildlife habitat for federal approval in the near future as part of the habitat designation process. Please call me at (518) 486-3108 if you have any questions about this habitat area and its proposed designation. Michael Corey Coastal Resources Specialist Division of Coastal Resources WW~V. DOS.STATE.Ny. US E-MAIL; INFO'DOS. STATE.NY. US COASTAL FISH & WILDLIFE HABITAT ASSESSMENT FORM Name of Area: Designated: County: Town(s): 7½' Quadrangle(s): Draft: Goldsmith Inlet and Beach Suffolk Sonthold Southold,NY October 12, 2004 Assessment Criteria Ecosystem Rarity (ER)--the uniqueness of the plant and animal community in the area and the physical, structural, and chemical features supporting this community. ER assessment: Narrow maritime beach and associated tidal pond, dune, and interdunal communities, the latter two rare in New York State. Species Vulnerability (SV)--the degree of vulnerability throughout its range in New York State of a species residing in the ecosystem or utilizing the ecosystem for its survival. SV assessment: Documented nesting of piping plover (E, T-fed), least tern (T), and osprey (SC). Calculation: 36 + (25/2) + (16/4) = Human Use (HU)- the conduct of significant, demonstrable commercial, recreational, or educational wildlife-related human uses, either consumptive or non-consumptive, in the area or directly dependent upon the area. HU assessment: No significant human use of fish and wildlife resources of the area. Population Level (PL)--the concentration of a species in the area during its normal, recurring period of occurrence, regardless of the length of that period of occurrence. PL assessment: No unusual concentrations of any fish and wildlife species in the area. Replaceability (R)-ability to replace the area, either on or off site, with an equivalent replacement for the same fish and wildlife and uses of those same fish and wildlife, for the same users of those fish and wildlife. R assessment: Irreplaceable. 64 52.5 1.2 Habitat Index = [ER + SV + HU + PL] = 116.5 Significance = HI x R = 139.8 Page I of 5 NEW YORK STATE SIGNIFICANT COASTAL FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT NARRATIVE Goldsmith Inlet and Beach LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF HABITAT: Goldsmith Inlet and Beach is located on the north shore of Long Island, between Mattituck Inlet to the west and Horton Neck to the east, in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County (7.5' Quadrangle: Southold, NY). This approximately 150-acre area is roughly bounded by Long Island Sound on the north, Horton Lane on the east, Sound View Avenue on the south, and Mill Lane on the west. The fish and wildlife habitat includes a narrow area of maritime beach that extends nearly two miles along the Sound from about two hundred yards west of the inlet northeast to and including Horton Lane Beach; Goldsmith Inlet and Pond; and a mosaic of dunes, intedunal uplands, and swales extending from Goldsmith Inlet County Park northeast to Great Pond. The habitat is bordered by residential developments as well as undeveloped vegetated dunes. FISH AND WILDLIFE VALUES: The Goldsmith Inlet and Beach habitat consists of several associated significant ecological communities. An extensive maritime beach that has recently become an important nesting area for piping plovers and least terns along the north shore of Long Island extends approximately two miles along Long Island Sound. Goldsmith Pond and its contiguous tidal wetlands lie at the western end of the habitat area. Goldsmith Inlet County Park and Peconic Dunes County Park and adjacent upland and non-tidal wetlands contain maritime dunes as well as maritime freshwater interdunal swales ecological communities, both of which are considered rare by the New York State Natural Heritage Program. This diveme area as a whole plays an important role as nesting and feeding habitat for a variety of migratory birds. Since the mid-90's Goldsmith beach and Kenney's Road beach have served as nesting sites for piping plover (E, T-Fed) and least tem (T). During the period 1996 to 2002, an average of 4 pairs of piping plovers nesting on this stretch of beach, with a peak year of 1998, when 7 pairs of nesting birds were documented. Least tern have nested at this site on a fairly regular basis since 1996, with an annual average of seven nesting pairs between that year and 2002. The peak year for least tern nesting was 2000, when 22 pairs were documented. One pair of common tern (T) was documented as nesting on the beach in 2000. This species had not been noted since 1992, when 27 nesting pairs were documented. About 40 roseate tern (E) individuals were observed to be loafing near the inlet in 2001. Osprey(SC) have been documented nesters at Goldsmith Inlet Pond since the early 1980's. The Goldsmith Inlet and Beach area contains a diversity of ecological community types, including tidal pond, maritime beach, maritime dunes, and maritime freshwater interdunal swales. These latter two communties extend about 1.5 miles from west of Great Pond southwest to Goldsmith Pond, and are considered by the New York State Natural Heritage Program to be rare ecological community Page 2 of 5 occurrences from a statewide perspective. Approximately 70 acres of maritime dune habitat extend from Great Pond to Goldsmith Inlet, with approximately 22 acres of maritime freshwater interdunal swales located adjacent to the dunes. One rare plant species (Iris prismatica) has been documented as occurring within the wetlands of this habitat. Recreational uses of Goldsmith Inlet and Beach are concentrated in the area around Goldsmith Inlet and Goldsmith Pond, where blue crabs and eels are harvested. The Town of Southold maintains a public beach at Goldsmith Inlet, and Goldsmith Inlet County Park includes 34 acres of park land which is home to a diversity of wildlife. The Suffolk County- operated Peconic Dunes County Park on the west shore of Great Pond and south of Kenny Road Beach provides access across the beach to Long Island Sound for surf fishing. IMPACT ASSESSMENT: Any activity that would substantially degrade water quality and/or terrestrial natural resources at Goldsmith Inlet and Beach would adversely affect the biological productivity of this area. All species of fish and wildlife would be affected by water pollution, such as chemical contamination (including food chain effects resulting from bioaccumulation), oil spills, excessive turbidity, and waste disposal. Unrestricted use of motorized vessels including personal watercraft in the -protected, shallow waters of Goldsmith Inlet Pond can have adverse effects on aquatic vegetation and fish and wildlife populations. Use of motorized vessels should be controlled (e.g., no wake zones, speed zones, zones of exclusion) in and adjacent to shallow waters and vegetated wetlands. Alteration of tidal patterns in Goldsmith Inlet Pond could have major impacts on the fish and wildlife communities present. Dredging to maintain existing boat channels should be scheduled between September 15 and December 15 to minimize potential impacts on aquatic organisms, and to allow for dredged material disposal when wildlife populations are least sensitive to disturbance. Dredged material disposal in this area would be detrimental, but such activities may be designed to maintain or improve the habitat for certain species of wildlife. Nesting shorebirds inhabiting Goldsmith Inlet and Beach are highly vulnerable to disturbance by humans, especially during the nesting and fledgling period (March 15 through August 15). Significant pedestrian traffic or recreational vehicle use of the beach could easily eliminate the use of this site as a breeding area and should be minimized during this period. Recreational activities (e.g., boat and personal watemraft landing, off-road vehicle use, picnicking) in the vicinity of bird nesting areas should be minimized during this period. Predation of chicks and destruction of eggs or nests by unleashed pets (e.g., dogs, cats) and natural predators may also occur, and predator control should be implemented where feasible. Fencing and/or continued annual posting of shorebird nesting areas should be provided to help protect these species. Control of vegetative succession, through beneficial use of dredged material or other means may improve the availability of nesting habitat in this area. Page 3 of 5 Elimination of salt marsh and intertidal areas, through loss of tidal connection, ditching, excavation, or filling, would result in a direct loss of valuable habitat area. Construction of shoreline structures, such as docks, piers, bulkheads, or revetments, in areas not previously disturbed by development, may result in the loss of productive areas which support the fish and wildlife resources of the Goldsmith Inlet and Beach area. Alternative strategies for the protection of shoreline property should be examined, including innovative, vegetation-based approaches. Control of invasive nuisance plant species, through a variety of means, may improve fish and wildlife species use of the area and enhance overall natural resource values. Thermal discharges, depending on time of year, may have variable effects on use of the area by marine species and fish. Installation and operation of water intakes could have a significant impact on juvenile (and, in some cases, adult) fish concentrations, through impingement or entrainment. Page 4 of 5 KNOWLEDGEABLE CONTACTS: Habitat Unit NYS Department of State Division of Coastal Resources 41 State Street Albany, NY 12231 Phone: (518) 474-6000 NYSDEC--Region 1 State University of New York, Building 40 Stony Brook, NY 11790-2356 Phone: (631) 444-0354 Wildlife Manager NYSDEC--Region 1 State University of New York, Building 40 Stony Brook, NY 11790 Phone: (631) 444-0310 Town of Southold Trustees Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Phone: (631) 765-1892 Town of Southold Planning Board Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Phone: (631) 765-1938 Bureau of Marine Resources NYSDEC 205 N. Belle Meade Road, Suite 1 East Setauket, NY 11733 Phone: (631) 444-0430 Finfish and Crustaceans NYSDEC 205 N. Belle Meade Road, Suite 1 East Setauket, NY 11733 Phone: (631) 444-0436 New York Natural Heritage Program 625 Broadway, 5th Floor Albany, NY 12233-4757 Phone: (518) 402-8935 Office of Ecology Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services Bureau of Environmental Management County Center Riverhead, NY 11901 Phone: (631) 852-2077 Page 5 of 5 New York Natural Heritage Program A Partnership between The Nature Conservancy and the NYS Department of Envirommental Conservation 625 Broadway, 5~h Floor Albany, NY 12233-4757 (518) 402-8947 Fax (518) 402-8925 www.nynhp.org NY Natural Heritage Program Review of Natural Communities Reported at Great Pond Wetlands & Dunes 0ctoberPrepared8,bY2004Greg Edinger, Program Ecologist, NY Natural Heritage Program :~.~'/.~ ../'777'- '--- The NY Natural Heritage Program was contacted by the Keuney Beach Civic Association and asked to review the Preliminary Environmental Assessment of the "Great Pond Wetlands & Dunes," Southold Township, Suffolk County, New York (Lamont 2004). In order to accmately classify and rank the quality of the natural con:ununities at this site, ideally the following data are needed: · vegetation cover data at known location points, · an accurate map showing the boundaries of each community (with the full extent of each couaiianity being mapped, even if it extends beyond the area of interest), · data on the condition of each community (e.g., anthropogenic disturbances, presence of invasive exotic species, etc.), · and information on the s/ze and condition of the surrounding landscape. The Lamont (2004) report presents sufficient information to confn'm the presence two natural communities described byNY Natural Heritage in Ecological Communities ofNYS (Edinger et aL 2002) at the site. These two communities are maritime dunes and maritime freshwater Interdanal swales. Although a first draft map of the natural communities was included with the report (Lamont 2004), an accurate map showing the full boundaries of each community is needed. A review of in-house digital orthoUnagery and reports of the site (Lamont 2004, pers. comm. Michael Corey, DOS) suggests that both communities extend beyond the boundary of the "Great Pond Wetlands & Dunes" site. The maritime dunes appear to extend about 1.5 miles fi'om Great Pond southwest to Goldsmith Inlet. Additional patches of maritime fireshwater interdunal swales appear to occur within this area of dunes, but perhaps not as large and numerous as observed on the "Great Pond Wetlands & Dunes" site. Using aerial photo interpretation and GIS, I estimate that there are about 70 acres of maritime dunes that extend from Great Pond to Goldsmith Inlet, with about 7.5 acres within the "Great Pond Wetlands & Dunes" site. There are about 22 acres of maritime fi'eshwatar interdunal swales adjacent to these dunes, with about 9 acres within the "Great Pond Wetlands & Dunes" site. The acreage would likely change with more accurate con'anunity delineation. The digital oFthoimagery and reports (Lamont 2004,pers. comm. Michael Corey, DOS) suggest that both of these community occmxences are good quality. However, there are reports of reed grass (Phragmites australis) and purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) at this site (Lamont 2004), and there appeur to be sand roads and driveways through sechons of maritime dune. The landscape surrounding the maritime dunes is in relatively good condition, except for the portion within the "Great Pond Wetlands & Dunes" site where the dunes are surrounded on three sides by residential development. At least one house on West Drive appears to have displaced a portion of the maritime freshwater mterdunal swales. The ecological processes that maintain maritime dune viability appear to be more intact to the southwest of Great Pond where the dunes and swales have greater connectivity with Long Island Sound. Conclusions The maritime dunes and maritime f~eshwater interdunal swales at the "Great Pond Wetlands & Dunes" site are part of larger occurrences of these conantmities that extend southwest to Goldsmith Inlet. The occurrence of maritime dunes from Great Pond to Goldsmith Inlet are tentatively ranked "B" using NY Natural Heritage Rang Specifications (Appendix A) for size, condition, and landscape context. A B-rank indicates a good quality occurrence of maritime dunes which is a globally secure (G4) but state rare (S3) community. NY Natural Heritage considers the maritime dunes at this site a significant natural connnunity occurrence from a statewide perspective. Enabl&g and Enhandng Conservation of N~v York's Biock'v~y The occurrence of maritime freshwater interdunal swales from Great Pond to Goldsmith Inlet is also tentatively ranked "B' using NY Natural Heritage Rank Specifications (Appendix B) for size, condition, and landscape context. A B-rank indicates a good quality occurrence of maritime freshwater interdunal swales which are a globally rare to globally secure (G3G4), but a very vulnerable (82) community: NY Natural Heritage considers the maritime freshwater interdunal swales at this site a significant natural community occurrence from a statewide perspective. NY Natural Heritage concms with Eric Lamont's (2004) statement that dune-swale complexes are extxemely rare on the north shore of Long Island. Review of the readily available information suggests that there are two natural community occurrences of statewide siEnificaoce at this site, maritime dunes (tentatively B-ranked) and maritime freshwater interdunal swales (tentatively B-ranked). NY Natural Heritage recommends the following: · A thorough survey of all natural community occurrences is recommended from Great Pond to Goldsmith Inlet in order to accurately map and confirm tentative occurrence ranks. Further survey is needed to confura the report (Lamont 2004) of maritime pitch pine dune woodland at this site. Element Occurrence Records for all significant natural community occurrences should be entered into the NY Natural Heritage database. · Protection efforts should focus on the viability of the maritime freshwater interdunal swales already shown to contain state rare species (Lamont 2004). · Protection and/or restoration of the connectivity and ecological processes (e.g., storm surge, sand deposition, and salt spray) of the dunes & swales to Long Island Sound would also be beneficial. Protection and proper management of the maritime dunes that serve as a wetland buffer would increase the viability of the swales. Development within maritime dunes would likely reduce the landscape ranking factor for the maritime freshwater interdunal swales, reduce the overall quality of the occurrence, and threaten its long term viability. Note: It is important to reiterate that this assessment, and tentative community occurrence ranking, is based on the full extent of the two natural communities at this site from Great Pond to Goldsmith Inlet, and not limited to the "Great Pond Wetlands & Dunes" site depicted in the report (Lamont 2004). Edinger, G.J., D.$. Evans, S. Gebauer, T.G. Howard, D.M. Hunt, and A.M. Olivero (editors). 2002. Ecological Communities of New York State. Second Edition. A revised and expanded edition of Carol Reschke's Ecological Communities of New York State. (Draf~ for review). New York Natural Heritage Program, New York State Depar~nent of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY. Lamont, E. 2004. Preliminary Environmental Assessment of the "Great Pond Wetlands & Dunes," Southold Township, Suffolk County, New York. Botanical report prepared for Kenny Beach Civic Association. Prepared by Eric Lamont, Ph.D., Botanical Consultant, Rivethead, NY. Enabling and Enhandng Conservation of Nero York's Biodiversi~y APPENDIX A Maritime Dunes Overview of Status in NY · * Historical Occurrences in NY: Historical numbers un]mown, probably about 25 to 50 very large occurrences. Estimated Extant Occurrences m NY: There are an estimated 30 to 50 or more occurrences statewide. This number is elevated due to fl:agmentation of fewer, larger occurrences into more numerous smaller · NYNI-IP Documented Occurrences: 2004:8 extant occurrences. · ~ Docmted Occurrences with Good Viability: 2004:8 occurrences with good viability (A- to BC-ranked). · Protected Occurrences in NY: 2004:7 (88%) occurrences are on public land or private conservation land. 5 (63%) are on state park land and 2 (25%) are on federal land. · Historical Acres in NY: Historical acres unknown, probably about 150 to 200 miles covering 19,000 to 25,000 acres (very rough estimate). · Estimated Extant Acres in NY: There are an estimated 145 miles of maritime dunes on Long Island (about 100 miles on the south shore) covering about 5,300 to 15,800 acres. · NYIqHP Documented Acres: 2004:2,014 acres mapped. Distxibution in NY: Restricted to the ocean shoreline of Long Island. Discontinuous patches of maritime dunes occur fi.om Rockaway Point east to Jones Beach, where the dunes become larger and less fragmented (e.g., Fire Island Wilderness Area), and the dunes continue east until the shore grades into morainal bluffs at Montank Point. Smaller examples (<5 miles long each) occur in the Peconic Bay and along the north shore of Long Island. · State Exemplary Site(s): FIRE ISLAND, JONES BEACH ISLAND, WALKING DUNES Summary of NYNHP Occurrences: Rank Size Survey Site County Town AB 889 Jones Beach Island Nassau/Suffolk Oyster Bay, Babylon, Hempstead AB 190 Walking Dunes Suffolk East Hampton AB 125 Atlantic Double Dunes Suffolk East Hampton B 69 Nissequogue River Suffolk Smithtown BC 496 Fire Island Democrat Pt. Suffolk Islip, Babylon BC 145 Napeague Dunes Suffolk East Hampton BC 85 Pldm Island Suffolk Suffolk Southold BC 14 Northwest Creek Mouth Suffolk East Hampton Draft Element Ranking Specifications A Rank Specifications: Minimum size 60 acres with "A" condition and landscape setting. B Rank Specifications: Minimum size 30 acres with "A" condition and landscape setting. Minimum size 60 acres with "B" condition and landscape setting. C Rank Specifications: Minimum size 10 acres with "A" condition and landscape setting. Enab~g and Enhand#g Conseraa~on of Nero York's Biod~i,er~ APPENDIX B Maritime Freshwater Interdunal Swales Overview of Status in NY · Historical Occurrences in NY: Historical numbers unknown, probably less than 50 sites. · Estimated Extant Occurrences in NY: ~nere are an estimated 20 extant occurrences statewide. Most sites consist of a group of several swales. · NYNltP Documented Occurrences: 2004:5 extant occurrences. · NYNHP Documented Occurrences with Good Viability: 2004:5 occurrences with good viability (A- to B- ranked). · Protected Occurrences in NY: At least two sites protected: Napeague Dunes and Atlantic Double Dunes. Fire Island National Sea Shore may protect some swales. · Historical Acres in NY: Historical acreage unknown, probably less than 1000 acres. · Estimated Extant Acres in NY: Probably less than 1000 acres extant. · NYNHP Documented Acres: 2004: 287acres mapped. Distribution in NY: Restxicted primarily to the southern coast of Long Island and Fire Island, with smaller examples in the Peconic Bay and along the "North Fork" of Long Island in the coastal lowlands of Suffolk County. New York is in the central part of the range from New England south to New Jersey (or possibly farther). · State Exemplary Site: NAPEAGUE DUNES Summary of NYNHP Occurrences: Rank Size Survey Site County Town A 27 Napeague Danes Suffolk East Hampton AB 125 Atlantic Double Dunes Suffolk East Hampton B 25 Walking Dunes Suffolk East Hampton B 5 Promised Land Suffolk East Hampton B 5 Hospital Point Suffolk Brookhaven Element Ranking Specifications (NYNHP 1995) Ocgurrance Specs: minimum size: 2 acres to map. Need at least 50% cover of vegetation consisting of characteristic native species and less than 50% cover of exotics. Interdunal swales occur in a mosaic with danes as multiple patches within the dune matrix. One occurrence includes all the swales within a contiguous area of maritime dunes. Map to the same boundary as the dunes. A Rank Specs: minimum size: 100 acres ofinterdunal swales within a larger matrix of maritime dunes, with minimal disturbance and few or no exotic species; and surrounded by little ~ disturbed matrix of maritime dunes. B Rank Specs: minimum size: 20 acres ofinterdunal swales in good condition with mim)r disturbance, or minimum of 5 acres in excellent, pristine condition within a larger matrix maritime dunes. Some exotics or disturbance may be present, but recovery potential is very good. C Rank Specs: minimum size: 2 acres ofinterdunal swales in fair condition, either starting to recover from past disturbance, or recently disturbed or altered. Set in a matrix of disturbed dunes - which may be partly developed; poor recovery potential. D Rank Specs: minimum size: 2 acres ofinterdunal swales in poor condition, with 25 to 50% cover of exotics, isolated from dunes by development or surrounded by very disturbed or altered dunes, with little or no recovery potential. Enab~ng and Enhandn~ Conservation of Nco, York 'x Biod~er~i~y Botanical Re ort Preliminary Environmental Assessment of the "Great Pond Wetlands & Dunes", Southold Township, Suffolk County, New York PREPARED FOR: KENNY BEACH CIVIC ASSOCL4TION SOUTHOLD TOWNSHIP SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK PREPARED BY: ERIC LAMONT, PH.D. BOTANICAL CONSULTANT 717 SOUND SHORE ROAD R1VERHEAD, NEW YORK 11901 AUGUST 2004 Summary 1. The Great Pond wetland and dune system is composed of two Stale-rare ecological communities, with one of them currently listed as globally rare. The region is not only rare in New York State, it is rare on Earth. 2. These two ecological communities are intricately connected together and if one community is altered or disturbed, the other community will be negatively impacted. 3. The low, gently undulating dunes north of Lake Drive am classic examples of a "maritime dune" community, listed as rare by New York Natural Heritage Program (NYNHP). 4. In Iow areas of the maritime dune community where the land surface intersects the water table, small "cranberry hogs" occur as small, green islands among the white sand. These circular islands offer suitable habitat for native cranberhes and carnivorous plants called sundews. 5. The extensive "maritime freshwater interdunal swales" located north of Lake Drive are listed as rare by NYNHP. 6. These freshwater wetlands support a high diversity of plant species, including at least one rare plant, slender blue flag (Irisprismatica). 7. Another noteworthy feature of th/s site is its connection to Great Pond and the interdunal wetland system at nearby Peconic Dunes County Parle 8. The strictest env/ronmental laws and codes should be enforced to preserve the integrity of these delicate and sensitive ecological communities. 9. Fragmentation oft}tis unique maritime ecosystem will result in negative environmental impacts. 10. The Great Pond wetlands and dunes are significant and unique elements of Southold's rich natural heritage that should be preserved for future generations. 2 Introduction At the invitation of the Kenny Beach Civic Association (KBCA), I conducted an on-site preliminary environmental assessment (on 8 August 2004) of an approximately 1 O-acre parcel of land located north of Lake Drive in Southold Township. The area is locally known as the "Great Pond Wetlands & Dunes". KBCA arranged for permission from some residents for me to walk certain properties. Further access was obtained from a Suffolk County parcel and a Southold Township parcel. Final observations were made from adjacent roadsides. A high quality aerial map (on a scale of one inch = 100 fee0 of the 10-acre parcel also was provided by KBCA. The Great Pond wetland and dune system is dominated by two ecological communities: 1) maritime dunes, and 2) maritime freshwater interdunal swales. Both of these community types are listed as rare in New York by the New York Natural Heritage Program (NYNHP), and the mar/time freshwater interdnnal swale community is currently listed as globally rare (although NYNHP indicates that the global rank may change in the future). Before continuing with this report, the significance of the previous paragraph must be emphasized. First, NYNHP is the New York State government agency responsible for documenting and tracldng rare plants, animals, and ecological communities across New York. The Heritage staff is comprised of highly trained scientists often with advanced degrees, who are experts in studying New York's biodiversity. Second, it is extremely significant, from an environmental point of view, that a relatively small, lO-acre site be composed of two State-rare ecological communities, with one of them currently listed as globally rare. This statement cannot be overstated. We are not talking about the presence of one rare plant or animal species, we are talking about an entire ecological community being rare. Additionally, a large portion of this site is "globally" rare. That means that the region is not only rare in New York State, it is rare on Earth. These two maritime communities are closely and inseparably intertwined with each other. They are connected together by an intricate and delicate balance between macro- and microscopic organisms and abiofic (non-Jiving) factors of the environment such as hydrology, soil characteristics, and micro-habitats created by blow-outs in the undulating system of dunes. The environmental features occurring at the Great Pond wetlands and dunes comprise a unique aspect of the natural history of Southold Township, because maritime dunes and interdunal swales usually occur on the south shore of Long Island, not on the north shore. For example, these two maritime communities usually occur on Fire Island where dunes are protected and signs warn people to stay off. Long Island's north shore is characterized by tall bluffs directly bordering Long Island Sound. The area between Goldsmith's Inlet and Horton Point, however, is geologically unique. Instead of 100 foot bluffs towering above L.£ Sound, this area supports a unique system of low, undulating dunes and swales, interspersed with a mosaic of extensive wetlands. I cannot think of another location on the north shore of eastern Long Island that supports such a unique and rare system of ecological communities. Another noteworthy feature of this 10-acre site is its connection to Great Pond and the interdunal wetland system at nearby Peconic Dunes County Park. This connection is most evident at low-lying points along Lake Drive that frequently flood. At these points, wetland plants form corridors linking the sites together into one large system_ Site Description The maritime dunes and wet interdunal swales north of Lake Drive grade into each other and the boundaries between them are not always abruptly distinguished. At low areas interspersed throughout the dunes are small "cranberry begs" that support a diversity of sedges, rushes, and even carnivorous plants. Although these two ecological communities will now be described separately, it should be understood that they are intricately connected together and if one community is altered or disturbed, the other community w/ll be negatively impacted. Maritime Dunes. This ecological community is listed "G4, S3" by NYNHP. The "G" rank is the "Global" rank, while the "S" rank is the "State" rank. Globally, the maritime dune community is considered to be "apparently secure globally, though it may be quite rare in par~s of its range, especially at the periphery" (Edinger et al., 2002). Along the Atlantic coast, maritime'dunes are probably best developed at the Outer Banks of North Carolina. Maritime dunes are at their northern I/mit (periphery) on Long Island and Cape Cod, Massachusetts, and they are quite rare along the north shore of Long Island. The "S3" Heritage rank indicates that maritime dunes are considered rare in New York with only "limited acreage". The Iow, undulating dunes north of Lake Drive are classic examples of the maritime dune community found at Napeague Dunes in East Hampton Township and Fire Island National Seashore. The Great Pond maritime dune system is comprised of low, gently undulating dunes interspersed with unvegetated blowouts and sandflats. Characteristic plants of the dunes include beachgrass (Ammophila breviligulata), beach heather (Hudsonia tornentosa), seas/de goldenrod (Solidago sernpervirens), seaside spurge (Euphorbia polygonifolia), beach plum (Przan~* maritima), bayberry (Myrica pem;ylvanica), jointweed (Polygonella articulata), sedge (Cyperus grayii), Panic grass (?anicum amarum), and hairgrass (Deschampsiaflexuosa). Tucked away among the dunes are small pockets stunted pitch pines (?inus rigida), pest oaks (Quercus stellata), and black oaks (Quercus velutma), with a shrub layer dominated by black huckleberry_ ( Gaylussacia baccata) and highbush blueberry ( Vaccinium coryrnbosum). The pitch pines exhibit an unusual growth form whereby the lower branches grow out horizontally like aprons blanketing the low dunes. It is worth noting that these small wooded pockets resemble a "maritime pitch pine dune woodland", an ex~emely rare ecological community ranked "G2G3 SI" by NYNHP. The extensive wetland system paralleling the northern boundary of the maritime dunes will be discussed in the next section. However, it is noteworthy to mention that in low areas of the maritime dune community where the land surface intersects the water table, small "cranberry bogs" occur as small, green islands among the white sand. These circular islands offer suitable habitat for cranberries (Vaccinium rnacrocar_pon) and carnivorous plants called sundews (Drosera intermedia). 4 Maritime Freshwater lnterdunal Swales. This ecological community is listed "G3G4, S2" by NYNHP, which makes it more rare than the maritime dune commun/ty. The "G3" rank indicates that maritime freshwater interdunal swales are currently regarded as globally rare, but in the future the rank may change to "G4" indicating that the community is apparently secure globally though it may be quite rare in parts of its range, especially at the periphe~. A Heritage rank of"S2" is the second highest rank of rarity in New York State ("SI" = extreme rar/ty, "S5' = not rare ("demonstrably secure") in New York). The name of this community was changed from "maritime interdunal swales" (Reschke, 1990) to distinguish the community from brackish interdunal swales.. The "Great Pond Wetlands" is an extensive freshwater wetland system associated with Great Pond proper, that continues west into Peconic Dunes County Park. No~h of Lake Drive, these interdunal wetlands occur in low areas (swales) between dunes where the soft surface intersects groundwater level. Water levels fluctuate seasonally and annually, reflecting changes in groundwater levels. The most extensive portion of this wetland system runs west to east, parallel to Leeton Drive and directly north of the maritime dane system. Small, circular "cranberry bogs" also dot low areas among the maritime dunes directly north of Lake Drive. The extensive wetlands north of Lake Drive support a high diversity of plant species, including at least one rare plant, slender blue flag (Iris£rismatica), ranked G4G5 S2 by NYNHP (Young & Weldy, 2004). Characteristic species include twig-rush (Cladiurn mariscoides), beakmsh (Rhynchospora capitellata), marsh rash (o/acm' canadensis), woolgrass (Scirpus cyperin~), chairmaker's rash (Sc~rp*zs'pungena'), tussock sedge (Carex stricta), cranberry ( Vacciniurn macrocarpon), spatulate-leaved sundew (Drosera interrnedia), lance-leaved violet (Viola lanceolata), cross-leaved milkrwort (Polygala cruciata), meadow beauty (Rhexia virginica), marsh mallow (Hibiscus moscheutos), marsh fern (Thelypterispalu~tris), royal fern (Osmunda regalis var. spectabili.~), marsh St. John's wort (Triadenum virginicurn), and swamp candles (Lysimachia terrestris). Shrubs and trees bordering the wetlands include red maple (Acer rubrum), tupelo (Nyssa ,~ylvatica), red chokeberry (Aronia arbutifolia), buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), and h/ghbush blueberry (Vaccinium corybosum). Unfortunately, phragrnites reed (Phragmites australis) has invaded the wetlands, as well as scattered individuals of purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria). Conclusion The maritime dunes and freshwater interdunal swales located north of Lake Drive in the Town of Southold are rare ecological communities that should be preserved for future generations. These natural communities are significant and unique elements of Southold's rich natural heritage. The strictest environmental laws and codes should be enforced to preserve the integrity of these delicate and sensitive ecological communities. Fragmentation of this unique maritime ecosystem will result in negative environmental impacts. It is imperative that Southold Township act promptly and assertively to avoid environmental degradation of the Town's rich natural history. 5 References Cited Edinger, G.J., D.J. Evans, S. Gebauer, T.G. Howard, D.M. Hunt, and A.M. Olivero (editors). 2002. Ecological Communities of New York State. Second Edition. A revised and expanded ed/t/on of Carol Reschke's Ecological Commmfit/es of New York State. (]Draft for review). New York Natural Heritage Program, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Albany, NY. Reschke, C. 1990. Ecological Communities of New York State. New York Natural Heritage Program, N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation. Latham, NY. Young, S. M. and T. W. Weldy. 2004. New York Rare Plant Status List. New York Natural Heritage Program, N.Y.S. Deparlraent of Environmental Conservation. Albany, NY. 6 T~lepho~e (631) 765-1892 Hall. 5~3g.5 Main Rcmd P.O. BoX 1179 S<~'thold. New Yc~k ~lgT1 SOLrrHOLD TOWN CONSEB_VATI01N ADVISORY COUNCIL At the meeting of the Southold Town Conse~ation Advisory Council held Tuesday, July 15, 2003, the following recommendation was made: Moved by Bob Ghosio, seconded by William Cook, it was RESOLVED to recommend to the Southold Town Board of Trustees DISAPPROVAL of the Amendment application of GREGORY MANZANOBILE to Amend Permit #5631 to allow the location of the sewage disposal system and the necessary fill and retaining wall, Located: 1450 Lake Dr., Southold. SCTM#59-1-21.6&21.7 The CAC recommends Disapproval of the amendment application and the previous application for the Wetland Permit because the CAC has a concern with the proposed change in the grade el'evations and the negative impact due to the run-off into the freshwater wetlands. There is also a concem with the elevations up to the edge of the wetlands. This project requires a 75' non-disturbance buffer. Vote of Council: Ayes: All Motion Carried '18 · The Suffolk Times · September 9, 2004 Call to'save. Great Pond Attention focused on wetlands area What's a "Maritime Freshwater Intcrdunal Swale?" Well, if you stroll along what locals call "The Loop," formed by Lake Drive and Leeton Drive at Kenney's Beach in Southold, it's that 10 acres of sandy, vacant land: in the middle. The area is home to a unique ecosys- tem that includes native cranberries, insect- eating sundew plants and a rare flower, the Iris prismatica, and acts as a filter for Great Pond just to the south, according to a new study commissioned by the Kenney's Beach Civic Association. In a grassroots effort, the group is reaching out to Southold Town, the Peeonic Land Trust and others to find a way to preserve the land from development. "It's a miracle it hasn't been built On already," said Udlian Ball, chair of the associ- ation's Great Pond wetland preservation committee. "We've realized how unique it is, and we want to get the word out that it's worth preserving. It's also important for the quality of life of over 75 families in our neigh- borhood, and everyone who enjoys walking and biking in the area." The report was written by Eric Lamont, a Riverhead botanist recommended to the group through the state's Natural Heritage Program, said Ms. Ball. The site is part of an interdunal wetland system that runs between Goldsmith's Inlet and Horton's Point, a type of ter- rain listed as rare under the New York Natural Heritage Program standards. Subdivided in the past, the "Loop" site is broken Suffolk Times photo by Judy Ahrens Ullian Ball, chairwoman of the Great Pond wetland preservation committee, and president Chuck I.u)'ster In front of the property they are trying to preserve. into one-acre parcels owned by different individuals, according to a Southold Town map of tidal and fresh- water wetlands. The civic association committee is getting in touch with these property owners to open discussions on how preservation can be achieved, and will explore opportunities for raising fiinds, said Ms. Ball. "We want this to be a situation that everyone ends up feeling good about," she said. Gwendolen Groocock KENNY'S BEACH CiViC ASSOC GRY. EAX POUND V~TLAND PRESER5%XION COM6M!TTEE $/25/04 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES PO BOX 1179 SOUTHOLD NY 11971 REF:WETLAND PERMIT TO GREGORY MAZZANOBILE SCTM # 59-1-21.6 & 21.7 CC: JOI1N PAVAC1C REGIONAL PERMIT ADMINISTRATOR D.E.C. SUNY - BLDG 40 STONEYBROOK NY ! 1790 PETER SCULLY D.E.C. SUNY-BLDG 40 STONEYBROOK NY 11790 GEORGE BROWN SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPT OF WASTE MANAGEMENT REF # R ! 0-02-0097 COUNTY CENTER RIVERHEAD NY 1 lO01 ECEO E Southold Town Board of Trustee~ MARK TERRY SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANN1NG BOARD 53095 MAIN ROAD SOUTHOLDI1971 RUTI I OLIVER SOUTHOLD TOWN ZBA 53095 MAIN ROAD SOUTHOLD NY 11971 JOSI IUA I IORTON SUPERVISOR TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 53095 MAIN ROAD SOUTHOLD NY 11971 JOIIN ROMANELLI SOUTHOLD TOWN COUNCIL 53095 MAIN ROAD SOUTHOLD NY 11971 MIKE VERITY SOUTHOLD TOWN BUILDING DEPT. 53095 MAIN ROAD SOUTHOLD NY 11971 MIKE VISSICHELLI-ACTING CHIEF US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS NY DISTRICT 26 FEDERAL PLAZA NEW YORK NY 10278 SENATOR KENNETH LAVALLE 325 MIDDLE COUNTRY ROAD SELDEN NY 117 84 ASSEMBLYWOMAN PATRICIA ACAMPOILA 400 W. MAIN STREET RIVERHEAD NY 11901 REPRESENTATIVE TIM BISHOP 3680 RTE 112 SUITE C CORAM NY 11727 WE ARE APPEALING THE GRANTING OF A I YEAR EXTENSION TO THE WETLAND PEPaMIT TO GREGORY MAZZANOBILE WITHOUT AN OPPORTUNITY TO VOICE OUR STRONG OBJECTION TO THE GRANTING OF THIS PERMIT. WE ARE IN RECEIPT OF AND HAVE SUBMITTED TO YOU A COPY OF THE SURVEY MR MAZZANOB[LE SUBMITTED TO OBTAIN A SUFFOLK COUNTY D.E.C. PERMIT WHICH IS SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT FROM THE ONE UPON %q-flCH YOU BASED YOUR APPROVAL. THE FOLLOWING ARE JUST SOLVE OF THE CHANGES MADE TO THE SURVEY i.NEW SURVEY SHOWS STAiRS ON THE N.W. CORNER OF THE HOUSE 2. THE SEPTIC TANK HAS BEEN RELOCATED 3.SIZE OF HOUSE AND DECK AREA HAS BEEN CHANGED 4.WEST WALKWAY HAS BEEN REMOVED-CENTER WALKWAY HAS BEEN REPOSITIONED 5.LOCATION OF RETAINING WALL HAS CHANGED 6.SEPTIC SYSTEM IS NOW CLOSER TO A NEIGHBORING PRIVATE WELL WE ARE REQUESTING MR. MAZZANOB[LE BE REQULRED TO FILE AN AMENDMENT TO HIS APPLICATION TO REFLECT THESE CHANGES.AND THAT A SEQRA STUDY BE DONE ON THIS ENTIRE AREA AS A RESULT OF THE BOTANICAL REPORT WE HAVE SUBMITTED TO YOU WHICH IDENTIFIES THIS AREA AS AN EXTENSIVE" MARiTIME FRESHWATER INTERDLrNAL SWALE" LISTED AS GLOBALLY AND LOCALLY RARE BY THE NEW YORK NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM WE ARE ALSO REQUESTING THAT THIS AREA BE RE-FLAGGED TO DELINEATE THE EXISTING WETLANDS IN VIEW OF ALL THE CHANGES BEING PROPOSED,AS YOU KNOW THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED 7 OR 8 DIFFERENT SURVEYS OVER A 2 YEAR PERIOD DURING WHICH TIME HE HAS CHANGED HIS ORiGINALLY PLANS ON EACH SURVEY. THE ORIGINAL WETLAND FLAGS HAVE BEEN REMOVED,BLOWN DOWN OR KNOCKED OVER AND NONE ARE NOW IN PLACE EXCEPT FOR A FEW NEAR ONE OF THE PROPOSED SEPTIC 8¥SI'EMS PLEASE ADVISE US OF YOUR DECISION IN THIS MATTER LILLIAN BALL J CHALRPERSON COMMITTEE TO PRESERVE GREAT POND WETLANDS KENNY'S B 'EACH CIVIC ASSOC PO BOX 88t SOUTHOLD 11971 ki~.rt ~. Krupski, President James King, Vice-Preside~t Artie Foster Ken Poliwoda Peggy A. Dickerson Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-1366 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Elizabeth A. Neville, Town Clerk Office of the Board of Trustees August 12, 2004 Foil Request of Lillian Ball The file of Gregory Mazzanobile is available for review Monday - Friday during normal business hours 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM. ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 southoldtown.northfork.net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: FROM: RE: DATE: Southold Town Trustees Elizabeth A. Neville, Southold Town Clerk 8/10/04 Foil request of Lillian Ball 8/10/04 Transmitted is Foil request of Lillian Ball received today. Please respond to my office, in writing, within five business days. Thank you. l?.l~l~ OF VIT/t~ STAT18'I~C8 MARI~IAGE OFFICER RECORD~ MANAGEME~TT OFFICER FREEDOM OF I~FORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 68095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 766-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 southoldtown.northfork.net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC ACCESS TO RECORDS INSTRUCTIONS: Please complete Section I of this form and give to Town Clerk's Office (agency Freedom of Information Officer). One copy will be returned to you in response to your request, or as an interim response. SECTION I. (Department or Officer; If known, fha[ h~s the i~10r2tion you are ~equesting.) RECORD YOU WISH TO INSPECT: (Describe the record sought. If possible, supply date, file title, tax map n,umber, and any other pertinent informatior~) Signature of Applicant: ///~J ~,///,/~ /~/ Prated Name: ~ili~g Address (if different fre~ above): Telephone Number: C03/~'7~,~' ~t~,~ Date: ............................... -- [ ] APPROVED [ ! APPROVED WITH DELAY* [ I DENIED* zabeth A. Neville Freedom of Information Officer $ovthoHTown Clerk Date * If delayed or denied see reverse side for explanation. GREAT POND WETLAND PRESERVATION COMMITTEE KENNEY'S BEACH CIVIC ASSOCIATION Board of Southold Town Trustees 53095 Main Road Southold ,NY 11971 Dear Trustees, We would like to request to be on your agendas for the walk through on August 10, and the meeting on August 18th, 2004. The Great Pond Wetland, an area I am sure you are familiar with, is an approximately 1 0 acre strip along the North side of Lake Drive, including a Suffolk County lot, that is currently not developed. It is essential to the health of Great Pond and is a site of great beauty and unique habitat characteristics. , We look forward to working with you on those dates. Sincerely, Lillian Ball Chair, Great Pond Wetland Preservation Committee PO Box 881, Southold ,NY 11971 631-765-3495 Albert J. Krupski, President James King, Vice-President Artie Foster Ken Poliwoda Peggy A. Dickerson Town Hall 53095 Re/ute 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-1366 July 21, 2004 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Mr. James E. Fitzgerald, Jr. Proper-T Permit Services P.O. Box 617 Cutchogue, NY 11935 RE: GREGORY MAZZANOBILE 1460 LAKE DR., SOUTHOLD SCTM#59-1-21.6&21.7 Dear Mr. Fitzgerald: The following action was taken by the Southold Town Board of Trustees at their Regular Meeting held on Wed., July 21, 2004: RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board of Trustees grants a One-Year Extension to Permit #5631, as issued on September 25, 2002. This is not an approval from any other agency. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Sincerely, Albert J. President, Board of Trustees AJK:lms ,JUN 2 0 2003 Soothoid Town Board of lrGstees $,C. TAX No. 1000-59--01-21.7 d~CL £OT O fr~ LOT 0 ~k ,l SURVEY OF LOTS 6 & 7 SUBDIVISION MAP FOR CONSTANTINE P. GEORGIOPOULOS SITUATED AT SOUTHOLD TOWN OF SOUTHOLO SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK S.C. TAX No. 1000-59-01-21.6 1000-S9-01-21.7 SCALE 1 '=50' MARCH 28, 2002 SEPTIC SYSTEM & RETAINING WALL DESIGN JOSEPH FISCHE1TI, PE 1725 HOBART ROAD SOUTHOLD, NY 11971 651-765-2954 PROPOSED SEPTIC SYSTEM DETAIL ,~~-~. -~, ,. ~ , ~ ~'~'-~, , ~~-' PROPOSED CONC. RETAINING WALL DETAIL Joseph/A. IngegnO Land Surveyor PHONE (655)727-20~0 Fox (631)727-1727 Albert J. Krupski, President James King, Vice-President Artie Foster Ken Poliwoda Peggy A. Dickerson Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-1366 December 17, 2003 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Mr. James E. Fitzgerald, Jr. Proper-T Permit Services P.O. Box 617 Cutchogue, NY 11935 RE: GREGORY MAZZANOBILE SCTM#59-1-21.6 & 21.7 Dear Mr. Fitzgerald: The following action was taken by the Southold Town Board of Trustees at their Regular Meeting held on December 17, 2003: RESOLVED, that thc Southold Town Board of Trustees DENY thc Amendment to Permit #5631 to allow the new proposed location of the sewage disposal system and the necessary fill and retaining wall. The application is denied because moving the septic system closer to the wetlands would infifnge on the roles and regulations of the Trustees. Permit #5631, in accordance with the survey prepared by Joseph A. Ingegno, last dated January 12, 2004 and referencing wetland lines delineated by En-Consultants, Inc. dated March 4, 2002 and July 16, 2002 only, meets the Board's criteria, as approved on September 25, 2002. This is not a determination 15om any other agency. If you have any questions, please call our office at (631) 765-1892. Sincerely, Albert J. Krupski, Jr. President, Board of Trustees AJK:lms ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS - MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax ~516) 765-1823 Telephone i516i 765-1800 OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC ACCESS TO RECORDS INSTRUCTIONS: Please complete Section I of this form and give to Town Clerk's Office (agency Freedom of Information Officer). One copy will be returned to you in response to your request, or as an interim response. SECTION I. TO: To,^m Trustees (Department or Officer, if known, that has the information you are requesting. RECORD YOU WISH TO INSPECT: (Describe the record sought. If possible, supply date, file title, tax map number, and any other pertinent information.) Mind, res of n~biic h~,~iag on 10/22/03 relating to the application of Gr~gory N:t~zanobii,~, SCTM ~1:~0{~-59-1-21.6&2i .7 Address 385 HAYWATERS DRIVE, CUTCHOGUE Mailing Address PO BOX 617, CUTCHOGUE NY 11935 Telephon~ber 631-734-5800 Date: [ ] APPROVED 'W~~ [ I DENIED* Freedom 'of Information Officer * If delayed or denied see reverse side for explanation. Proper-T Permit Services P.O. Box 617, Cutchogue NY 11935 Phone: 631-734-5800 Fax: 831-734-7463 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: 10/16/03 Trustees ~ JiMmaz~ia~22:l~l,d~ #1000-59-1-21.6 & 21.7 Here are an original and two copies of the most recent survey showing the "new" wetlands in the south comer of the property, flagged by both the DEC and En-Consultants, and a "new" rectangular wetlands ar,ea in the north-central portion of the property, as flagged by the DEC. Board o! TrusteeS I Proper-T Permit Services P.O. Box 617, Cutchogue NY 11935 Phone: 631-734-5800 Fax: 631-734-7463 MEMORANDUM DATE: 10/16/03 TO: Trustees ~ FROM: Jim Fitzge raid~/ SUBJECT: Mazzanobile, ~ #1000-59-1-21.6 & 21.7 Here are an original and two copies of the most recent survey showing the "new" wetlands in the south comer of the property, flagged by both the DEC and En-Consultants, and a "new" rectangular wetlands ar?a in the north-central portion of the property, as flagged by the DEC. Boar~ et Trustees CONST*NTINE P GEORGIOPOUWS SOUTHO~ I~-~-01-21.7 ~r~c r~ o~ s~. 131-~-2~ ~_ ,t ,:S~., .~/ 10~06~03 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PO BOX 1179 SOUTHOLD NY 11971 RE: REQUEST TO ADMEND PERMIT #5631 SCTM#1000-59-1-21.6 & 21.7; GREGORY MAZZANOBILE DEAR SIRS: ON 9~6/02 I BROUGHT TO YOUR ATTENTION THAT THE WETLAND BOUNDARY MARKERS AROUND THE NATURAL CRANBERRY BOG WERE SEVERAL FEET INSIDE THE BOG AND NOT ON THE EDGE OF THE BOG WHICH WOULD IN FACT BE THE START OF THE NON- DISTURBANCE BUFFER ZONE, ON AUGUST 8 2003 WHEN APPLICANT'S SURVEYOR [EN-CONSULTANTS INC.] WERE ON THE LOT FLAGGING THE WETLANDS ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE LOT [WHERE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO PLACE HIS CESSPOOL] I MENTIONED TO THE SURVEYOR THAT THE WETLAND FLAGS IN THE NATURAL CRANBERRY BOG WERE NOW ABOUT 10 FEET INSIDE OF THE BOG. THE SURVEYOR ADVISED ME THE NATURAL CRANBERRY BOG HAD GROWN AND EXPANDED. HE INDICATED HE WOULD FLAG THE NEW WETLAND BOUNDARY OF THE BOG. THE RE-FLAGGED BOUNDARY ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE NATURAL CRANBERRY BOG IS NOW APPROXIMATELY 49 FEET FROM THE MARKER FOR THE PROPOSED DWELLING. APPLICANT'S MOST RECENT SURVEY DOES NOT REFLECT THE EXPANSION OF THE NATURAL CRANBERRY BOG, BUT USES THE EDGE OF THE WETLANDS FLAGGED IN JULY 2002 ONCE AGAIN THE APPLICANT HAS FAILED TO SHOW THE ACCURATE LOCATION OF WETLAND AREAS ON HIS SURVEY. THIS DECEPTIVE PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR BY THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN CONSISTANT THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS. I WOULD LIKE TO CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL WITH RESPECT TO THE NON- DISTURBANCE BUFFER. THEY INDICATED THIS PROJECT REQUIRES A 75 FOOT NON- DISTURBANCE BUFFER. YOURS TRULY' GEORGE BAMBRICK PO BOX 1064 SOUTHOLD NY 11971 10/20/03 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PO BOX 1179 SOUTHOLD NY 11971 OCT 2 0 2003 ~c~n~ of tm~N~ RE: REQUEST TO ADMEND PERMIT #5631 SCTM#1000-59-1-21.6 & 21.7; GREGORY MAZZANOBIL CC: SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPT. OF HEALTH SERVICES OFFICE OF WASTE MANAGEMENT ATT: CHARLES BRIGHAM COUNTY CENTER RIVERHEAD NY 11901 DIANE RADKE NYS DEPT OF ENVIORNMENTAL CONSERVATION BLDG 40 SUNY STONYBROOK NY 11790-2345 DEAR SIRS: I RECEIVED THE APPLICANT'S 7TH REVISED SURVEY DEPICTING THE LATEST POSITION OF HIS PROPOSED CESSPOOLS.THE NEW LOCATION PLACES THE SEPTIC TANK 46 FT AND THE LEECHING POOLS 85 FT FROM THE WELL OF MR MANOLAKOS [ LOT 1000-59-5- 8.1] I ALSO NOTICED THE APPLICANT FINALLY INDICATES THE WETLAND SURVEY FLAGGED BY THE D.E.C.. THIS SURVEY SHOWS THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED DWELLING INSIDE THE 50 FT NON-DISTURBANCE BUFFER FROM THE NATURAL CRANBERRY BOG. THE PROPOSED POOL IS 20 FT FROM WETLANDS. THE PROPOSED CONCRETE RETAINING WALL IS 40 FT FROM THE WESTERN BOUNDARY OF WETLANDS I CALL YOUR A1-FENTION ONCE AGAIN TO THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL. THEY INDICATED THIS PROJECT REQUIRES A 75 FT NON-DISTURBANCE BUFFER ZONE YOURS TRULY GEORGE BAMBRICK PO BOX 1064 SOUTHOLD NY 11971 Gregory D. Dwyer 3961 Taft Ave. Seaford, N.Y. 11783 Home Phone (516)781-4391 September2,2003 Board ofTownTru~ees Town ofSouthold P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Dear Sirs; As a second home owner on Lake Drive for 26 years, I was shocked to hear of the planned development by Mr. Gregory Mazzanobile at 1460 Lake Drive. What was most surprising was the environmental disregard this development poses. The wetlands that presently exist at the site are a unique feature of the area, and once distroyed, can never be replaced. Through the years, I have personally observed white tailed deer, pheasant, and snapping turtles at the site. I truly believe that the amount of excavation planned would be devastating to the fragile ecology of the area. At a time when farmland preservation and limits on growth are being so widely discussed, shouldn't there be just as much concern for protection of our wetlands? Construction of retaining walls and importation of fill do llOlhillg but irreparably alter the natural makeup of the land. When I see wildlife in the dunes on Lake Drive, I am able to watch, up-close, a natural routine that has played out on the North Fork for hundreds of years. I urge you to deny the requested land use permit and preserve the dunes and cranberry bogs on Lake Drive as a living treasure of wetland life in Southold Town. Sincerely, Gregory D. Dwyer KENNY'S BEACH CIVIC ASSOCIATION PO Box 881 Southold, New York 11971 Mr. A1 Krupski, Chairman Southold Board of Town Trustees PO Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re: Request to amend Permit # 5631 SCTM # 1000-59- 1-21.6&21.7 Gregory Mazzanobile Dear Mr. Krupski: The Kenny's Beach Civic Association is very concerned with the above request to amend permit # 5631. The proposed relocated septic system will now be in the middle of a class A wetland area. The proposed construction of a concrete retaining wall 8 feet in elevation and a timber retaining wall also 8 feet in elevation in this fragile wetland area will adversely effect the very sensitive ecosystem present in this area. Charles Luyster President 'BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PO BOX l 179 SOUTHOLD NY 11971 JULY 18,2003 Board of Trustees RE: APPLICATION FOR ADMENDMENT TO WETLAND PERMIT # 5631 BY GREGORY MAZZANOBILE 1460 LAKE DRIVE SOUTHOLD NY 11971 SCTM #59-1-21.6&21.7 DEAR SIRS: THE FOLLOWING RESIDENTS OF THE KENNY'S BEACH AREA W1SH TO GO ON RECORD AS STRONGLY OPPOSING THE GRANTING OF AN ADMENDMENT TO WETLAND PERMIT # 5631 FOR THE ABOVE APPLICATION. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONTRUCTING A SEWAGE D1SPOSAL SYSTEM WITH A SEPTIC TANK AND 5 LEACHING POOLS BOUNDED BY TWO [2] RETAINING WALLS. A CONCRETE WALL 8 FEET IN ELEVATION AND A T1MBER WALL ALSO 8 FEET 1N ELEVATION. THIS SYSTEM WILL BE LOCATED IN A CLASS I WETLAND AREA. THE PROPOSED ADMENDMENT, 1F GRANTED, WILL CREATE IRREPARABLE DAMAGE TO THE FRAGILE ECOSYSTEM PRESENT IN THIS AREA THE ADDIT1ON OF 650 CUBIC YARDS OF FILL COUPLED WITH THE PROPOSED RETAINING WALLS IN THlS LOW LYING SITE WILL CHANGE THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THE AREA AND THREATEN THE EXISTING WETLANDS ON THIS SITE THE PROPOSED SEWAGE SYSTEM WILL SERIOUSLY AFFECT THE CLEANSING AND RENEWAL FUNCTIONS THESE WETLANDS PROVIDE FOR "GREAT POND". THE PROPOSED SEWAGE SYSTEM WILL ALSO AFFECT PRIVATE WELLS ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE PROPERTY WE STRONGLY URGE THE BOARD TO DENY THIS APPLICATION NAME ADDRESS /5'70 pA.,Z,._ NAME ADDRESS 'N ~ 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. NAME. ADDRESS JULY 16,2003 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PO BO×1179 SOUTHOLD NYl1971 RE: REQUEST TO ADMEND PERMIT #5631 SCTM~1000-59-1-21.6 & 21.7; GREGORY MAZZANOBILE CC: SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPT OF HEALTH SERVICES OFFICE OF WASTE MANAGEMENT ATT: CHARLES BRIGHAM COUNTY CENTER RIVERHEAD NY 11901 DIANE RADKE N.Y.S. DEPT OF ENVIORNMENTAL CONSERVATION BLDG 40 SUNY STONYBROOK NY11790-2345 DEAR SIRS: I RECENTLY RECEIVED A COPY OF A LE~-~ER ADDRESSED TO YOUR BOARD FROM "PROPER -T PERMIT SERVICES IN WHICH MR. JAMES FITZGERALD INDICATES THE REASON HIS REVISED SURVEY WAS DELAYED WAS THE REFUSAL OF SEVERAL OF THE NEIGHBORS TO PROVIDE HIM WITH THE LOCATIONS OF THEIR WELLS AND SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS THUS NECESSITATING THE RELOCATION OF THE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM. I AM RELUCTANT TO QUESTION MR FITZGERALD'S VERACITY BUT HIS STATEMENT IS NOT FACTUAL. I AM ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS AS IS MY SON AND MR FITZGERALD NEVER CONTACTED US. I ASKED MY OTHER NEIGHBORS AND NONE WERE CONTACTED BY MR. FITZGERALD. I BELIEVE THE REASON THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO PERMIT # 5631 IS AS FOLLOWS: THE ORIGINAL LOCATION OF THE SEPTIC SYSTEM WAS LESS THAN 100 FEET FROM AN EXISTING PRIVATE WELL ON SCTM~ 1000-59-5-9.THIS LOT IS DIRECTLY ACROSS LAKE DRIVE FROM THE APPLICAN3~S LOT AND THE WELL HEAD IS READILY VISABLE FROM THE STREET. THE ADJACENT LOT ALSO HAS A PRIVATE WELL. BOTH LOTS DO NOT USE TOWN WATER. BY RELOCATING THE SEPTIC SYSTEM TO THE NEW LOCATION AS SHOWN ON THE REVISED SURVEY [INGEGNO, LAST DATED 6/6/03] THE SEPTIC SYSTEM WOULD THEN BE MORE THAN 100 FEET FROM THE PRIVATE WELL. UNFORTUNATELY THE NEW RELOCATED SEPTIC SYSTEM IS NOW IN THE MIDDLE OF A CLASS 1 WETLAND .IF YOU RECALL THE APPLICANT ERRONEOUSLY INDICATED ON HIS ORIGINAL SURVEY THAT ALL DWELLINGS ACROSS FROM HIS LOT HAD TOWN WATER THIS WAS NOT THE CASE. HIS WETLAND CONSULTANT FAILED TO OBSERVE THE NATURAL CRANBERRY BOG ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY ON HIS ORIGINAL SURVEY AND HAD TO RE-FLAG THE BOG IN JULY 2002. ONCE AGAIN THE APPLICANI~S DOCUMENTS FAIL TO INDICATE OBVIOUS WETLAND AREAS WHERE HE PROPOSES PLACING HIS REVISED SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM. I WISH TO GO ON RECORD THAT I AM OPPOSED TO THE GRANTING OF THIS ADMENDMENT TO PERMIT #5631 SCTM#1000-59-1-21.6& 21.7 GREGORY MAZZANOBILE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON: THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS SEWAGE SYSTEM IN THIS VERY FRAGILE ECOSYSTEM OF WETLANDS WHICH IS FREQUENTLY UNDER WATER AS SEEN IN THE SERIES OF PHOTOS THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD DURING THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL PROCESS WILL CAUSE IRREPARABLE DAMAGE TO THE WETLANDS AND" GREAT POND'S" NATURAL DRAINAGE OUTLET AND RENOURISHMENT SOURCE PLEASE KEEP ME ADVISED OF THE STATUS OF THIS APPLICATION YOURS TRULY, GEORGE BAMBRICK PO BOX 1064 SOUTHOLD NY 11971 ELIZABETH A. NEV~,I,F, TOWN CLERK REOISTR~ OF V~TAL STATISTICS IvlARI~GE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFOP. MATION OFFICER OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 southoldtown.nort hfork.net APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC ACCESS TO RECORDS INSTRUCTIONS: Please complete Section I of this form and give to Town Clerk's Office (agency Freedom of Information Officer). One copy will be returned to you in response to your request, or as an interim response. SECTION I. -{Depart~ment or Offic'er, if know~, that has the information you are requesting.) RECORD YOU WISH TO INSPECT: (Describe the record sought. If possible, supply date, file title, tax map numbe, r, and any other pertinent information.) Add res s: _~' ~ ~,g:~ ,/~__ ~ ~4 ' Mailing Address (if different from above):/~- Telephone Number: ?~ ~---- /~ Date: APpROvED RECEIYED APPROVED WITH DELAY* [ ] DENIED* Elizabeth A. ~~ Freedo~ of Information Officer JUL t 4 2003 Date e~k So.thola Town CI * If delayed or denied see reverse side for explanation. Albert J. Krupski, president James King, Vice-President Artie Foster Ken Poliwoda Peggy A. Dickerson BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF soUTHOLD Town Hall ~ 53095 Route 25 t P.O. Box 1179 Sou~%~ld, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-1366 IRED TO CONTACT THE OFFICE OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES YOU ARE REQU ....... ,-. ,,~= -r,, WORK, TO MAKE AN 72 HOURS PRIOR TO_~TMREuNcTTiOoFNTII~I~PECTION. FAILURE TO DO SO APPOINTMENT FOR A SHALL BE CONSIDERED A VIOLATION AND POSSIBLE REVOCATION OF THE PERMIT. MAZZANOBILE INSPECTION SCHEDULE Pre-construction, hay bale line 1st day of construction % constructed Project complete, compliance inspection. Two Inspections @$5.00 each $10.oo S.C. TAX No. IO00-59 01-21.7,~11, £OT Q I ~ ~_ LOT ~ ~_ SURVEY OF LOTS 6 & 7 SUBDIVISION M.4P FOR CONSTANTINE P. GEORGIOPOULOS SITUATED AT SOUTHOLD TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK s.c. TAX No. 1000-59-01-21.6 1000-59-01-21,7 SCALE 1 "=50' MARCH 28, 2002 AREA = 80,154.86 sq. ff. 1.840 ac. SEPTIC SYSTEM ~ RETAINING FALL DESIGN BK' JOSEPH FISCHETTI, PE 1725 HOBART ROAD SOUTHOLD, NY 11971 631-765-2954 PROPOSED SEPTIC SYSTEM DETAIL Joseph A. Ingegno Land Surveyor Board Of $outhold 'Town Trustees SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK GREGORY MAZZANOBILE ISSUED TO ............................................ ~ ....................................................................................... Authurizatimt the St~ of New Y~, 1893; ~ ~pt~ ~ o~ ~ ~ m ~ St~ of New Yo~ 19521 ~nd ~e ~ To~ ~e e~ t~ ."R~U~TIN~ AND ~E P~CIN~ OF OBSTRU~ONS IN AND ON TOWN ~ATERS AND ~BLI~ ~DS e~ t~ RE~OVAL OF SAND, ~VEL'OR O~ER ~ATERIA~ ~O~ ~DS UNDER TOWN'WA~RS~. ~ in ~c~e ~h the Re~l~ion of ~e ~erd ~dopted et · meeting h~ ~ ..~.~-=..~-~- 2.~.~.~.., ~nd In c~slder~tlon of the sum of $...~.~.~.:.~ ....... ~id by Gregor~ Mazzanobile .............................................. ~ ........ of .......... .~....~.?.K~......; ............................................ N. Y. and subi~t to the Te~s 'end ~n~h~s tisted on ~e reve~ ride ~f, of ~hdd To~ T~s ed~s e~ ~ ~ f~ng: W~d P~t ~ ~ct a sing~-f~ly dwelling ~d d~k ~d s~ng ~ ~1 ~ ~e ~difi~ of a ~' n~ buffs, ~ ~d ~1~ ~ ~1~ ~ c~in ~e ~f runoff, ~y b~ ~ p~ do~ prior to co~efi~, ~d ~ d~ic~ on sum~ ~ by Jos~h A. ~ge~o, ~t mvi~ J~ 12, 2~, ~d ~f~eing ~tl~d lines delinea~ by ~o~ul~, Mc. dat~ M~h 4, 2~2 ~d July 16, 2~2 only. a~ in a~orda~e wi~~ t~ defa~ s~Hicat~ns as ~nfed in .~e ~glmflng a~fi~. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The s~id Boerd of Trustees by ~..~, ~ co~o,,~, s..~ ~o ~, ,~.-?. ,,~ ~,-.l'.r'""~?~ be subse~'bed by a'majorfly of the satd Board as of fhts dafm Kenneth P~llWoda - NAY 'P.egg¥ Dickerson- NAY _ - Tmaeet TERUS and CoNDmONS Gregory Mazzanobile 230 East 4$th St., New York ldcfnentsl to this permit which sm2' be subject to revolGe upon faih~e m ~b~,l,, same. Albert J. Krupski, President James King, Vice-President Artie Foster Ken Poliwoda Peggy A. Dickerson Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fe_x (631) 765-1366 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD September 25, 2002 Mr. James E. Fitzgerald, Jr. Proper-T Permit Services, Inc. P.O. Box 617 Cutchogue, NY 11935 GREGORY MAZZANOBILE 1460 LAKE DR., SOUTHOLD SCTM#59-1-21.6&21.7 Dear Mr. Fitzgerald: The Board of Town Trustees took the following action during its regular meeting held on Wednesday, September 25, 2002 regarding the above matter: WHEREAS, Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of GREGORY MAZZANOBILE applied to the Southold Town Trustees for a permit under the provisions of Chapter 97 of the Southold Town Code, the Wetland Ordinance of the Town of Southold, application dated May 3, 2002, and, WHEREAS, said application was referred to the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council for their findings and recommendations, and, WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held by the Town Trustees with respect to said application on September 25, 2002, at which time all interested persons were given an opporturdty 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 conceming this application, and, WHEREAS, the structure complies with the standards set forth in Chapter 97 of the Southold Town Code, WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the project as proposed will not affect the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the town, NOW THEREFORE BE IT, RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees approve the application of GREGORY MAZZANOBILE to construct a single-family dwelling and deck and swimming pool, all with the condition of a 50' non-disturbance buffer, gutters and drywells are installed to contain the roof run-off, hay bales are placed down prior to construction, and as depicted on survey prepared by Joseph A. Ingegno, last revised January 12, 2004, and referencing wetland lines delineated by En-Consultants, Inc. dated March 4, 2002 and July 16, 2002 only. Permit to construct and complete project will expire two years fi.om the date the permit is signed. Fees must be paid, if applicable, and permit issued within six months of the date of this notification. Inspections are required at a fee of $5.00 per inspection. (See attached schedule.) Fees: $10.00 Very truly yours, Albert J. Krupski, Jr. President, Board of Trustees AJK/lms Board Of $outhold Town Trustees SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK qmld~ ~1 DATE: ..Sep'. gS...., g.00g PERMIT NO ..... ISSUED TO ................ GI:LEGOR.Y..MAZZANOBILE ................................... Autl rizati n Pursuant to the provisions of the State of New York, 18931 and State of New York 1952: and titled ."REGULATING AND THE IN AND ON TOWN REMOVAL OF SAND, ~ LANDS UNDER TOWN Resolution of The -200g--, and 15 of the Laws of of the ~nce eh- OF ,BSTRUCTIONS and the kTFRIALS FROM nee with the held on ..,~pt..g5 .... of $ ...g0.0.~OO- paid by of .......... C~ Terms an~ of Southold Town Wetland Permit to construct offthat back stringer to make that consolidate the activity and there be - instal pla e submitted - haybales be placed at the 50 foot non-disturbance barfer during construction, all in accordance with the detailed specifications as presented in the originating applicafion. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The said Board of Trustees J~ere- by causes its Corporate. Se. al to be aff~.~xed, and these p.resenfs to be subscribed by a 'malority of the setd Board as of thts dat$. Trustees 6f C~'~'~3~:~ '"~ i'~'~ ~bile N. Y. and SU~lect to the the reverse side hereof, and permits ~e deck - with pool ClOSer to me flouse -cut no overall loss in buft~r it would buffer around the cranberry bogue TERMS and CONDmONS for ~oa ~y~to ~ st a ~ ~ o~ Albert J. Krupski, President James King, Vice-President Artie Foster Ken Poliwoda Peggy A. Dickerson Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-1366 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD October 8, 2002 Mr. James E, Fitzgerald, Jr, Proper-T Permit Services PO Box 617 Cutchogue, NY 11935 RE: SCTM# 59-1-21.6 & 21.7 Gregory Mazzanobile 1460 Lake Drive Southold, NY Dear Mr. Fitzgerald: The following action was taken by the Board of Town Trustees during a Regular Meeting, held on September 25, 2002, regarding the above matter. WHEREAS, Proper-T Services. on behalf of Gregory Mazzanobile Town Trustees for a permit under the provisions of the Wetland Ordinance of the Town of Southold, application dated May 3, 2002 WHEREAS, said application was referred to the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council for their findings and recommendations, and WHEREAS, a Public Heating was held by the Town Trustees with respect to said application on September 25, 2002 at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard, and, WHEREAS, the Board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question and the surrounding area, and, WHEREAS, the Board has considered all the testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application, and, WHEREAS, the structure complies with the standard set forth in Chapter 97-18 of the Southold Town Code. WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the project as proposed will not affect the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the town, NOW THEREFORE BE IT, RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees approved the application of Gregory Mazzanobile for a Wetland Permit to construct single family dwelling and deck - with pool closer to the house - cut off that back stringer to make that a non-disturbed area no overall loss in buffer it would consolidate the activity and there be 50 foot non-disturbance buffer around the cranberry bogue - install on site sewage disposal system with a new plan to be submitted - haybales be placed at the 50 foot non-disturbance buffer during construction. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this determination should not be considered a determination made for any other Department or Agency, which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. Fee must be paid, if applicable and permit issued within six months of the date of this notification. If inspections are required, at a fee of $5.00 per inspection (See attached schedule). FEES: $10.00 Very truly yours, ~ Albert J. Krupski, Jr. President, Board of Trustees AJK/cjc cc DEC 9uilding Department Standish, Lauren From: Terry, Mark Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 10:18 AM . To: Standish, Lauren Subject: Greg Mazzanobile SCTr~ 59.-1-21.6 and 21.7 auren ~. LAs we discussed I had a telephone conservation((11/1~1/03) with Greg M~.zanobile regarding the setback to the septic system. Mr. Mazzanobile questioned my recomh~endafion that the setbacks be set to the maximum extent possible pursuant to Chapter 97. I explained to Mr. Mazzanobile that the community he has chosen to build within is adjacent to and most likely within; is a rare community and that all mitigative measures to reduce impacts "habitat loss, erosion, water quality impacts etc..." will be taken. Mr. Ma:,zanobile acknowledged that he was aware that the community is unique. He proceeded to explain his situation with the neighbors well. The well location is unknown and therefore in an attempt to meet SCDOH standards, has requested that the Trustees decrease the setbacks to the wetlands. I explained to him that the Trustees have already compromised the setbacks and the distance to the well is solely under SCDOH jurisdiction and a Board of Appeals variance from that department should be sought. He agreed. I pointed out to him that he already holds a valid permit for the septic system in the front yard from the Trustees and based upon the sensitive nature of the communities it would be difficult to justify a decrease in setbacks. The house could be re-sized or re-oriented He indicated that he would pursue the SCDOH route. Based upon such, I would recommend that the Trustee's not produce an impact assessment report for the septic system at this time. I would recommend that the Trustees issue a letter to the agent referencing this telephone conversation and verifying the intent of the applicant. Albert J. Krupski, President James King, Vice-President Artie Foster Ken Poliwoda Peggy A. Dickerson Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-1366 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Mark Terry, Senior Environmental Planner Board of Trustees November 21, 2003 Gregory Mazzanobile SCTM#59-1-21.6&21.7 In accordance with your memorandum dated November 18, 2003, please justify how a septic system in the proposed area would have adverse impacts on the wetland system. As always, thank you very much for your cooperation. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. Chairman RICHARD CAGGIANO WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN H. SIDOR P.O. Box 1179 Town Hall, 53095 State Route 25 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1938 Fax (631) 765-3136 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD To: Town of Southold Trustees From: Mark Terry, Senior Environmental Planner NOV 1 8 ":'° Southold Town Board of Trustee~ Re: Mazzanobile, Gregory SCTM# 1000-59-1-21.6 1000-59-1-21.7 Date: November 18, 2003 A site visit was conducted on November 18, 2003 to assess the ecological community of the parcel. The parcel is comprised of secondary dune systems with Maritime Freshwater Interdunal Swales occurring in the northeast and southwest sections of the parcel. These systems are dominated by cranberry (Vaccinium spp.). The Maritime Freshwater Interdunal Swales are generally listed in Heritage Program Element Ranks as: Global Ranks G3- Either rare or local throughout its range, or found locally in a restricted range, or found vulnerable to extinction throughout its range because of other factors. G4 - Apparently secure globally, though may be quite rare in parts of its range, especially at the periphery. State Ranks S2 Typically 6 to 20 occurrences, few remaining individuals, acres or miles of stream, or factors demonstrably making it very vulnerable in New York State. In addition, to the above ranks, the communities are locally rare. All efforts to minimize adverse impacts from development should be applied including mandating the maximum setbacks pursuant to Chapter 97, Wetlands, of the Town of Southold Code. To insure the integrity of the wetland system in the southwest section of the parcel, I recommend that that the setbacks not be compromised and the amendment to Permit No 5631, as requested, be denied. The applicant should pursue a resolution through the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. I recommend that prior to any further approvals, the Board contact the New York Natural Heritage Program for further information regarding these significant communities. Proper- T Permit Servtces P.O. Box 617, Cutchogue NY 11935 Phone: 631-734-5800 Fax: 631-734-7463 FAX MEMO DATE: September 24, 2003 TO: Charlotte - Trustees FROM: Jim Fitzgerald SUBJECT: Gregory Mazzanobile; SCTM #1000-59-1-21.6 & 21.7 Please postpone the scheduled hearing on this project umil the October meeting. Pages attached: None Sep E4 03 04:~9p Proper-T Permit Services 63173~?~63 Proper- T Permit Services P.O. Box 617, Cutchogue NY 11935 Phone: 631-734-5800 FAX MEMO Fax: 631-734-7463 DATE: September 24, 2003 TO: FROM: Charlotte - Trustees Jim Fitzgerald SUBJECT: Gregory Mazzanobile; SCTM #1000-59-1-21.6 & 21.7 Please postpone the scheduled hearing on this project until the October meeting. Pages attached: None I Proper-T Permit ices Io.1 P.O Box 617, Cutchogue NY 11935 Phone: 631-734-5800 Fax:631-734-7463 FAX MEMO TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: July 22, 2003 Charlotte - Trustees Jim Fitzgerald Gregory Mazzanobile; SCTM #1000-59-1-21.6 & 21.7 Please postpone the scheduled hearing on this project until the August meeting Pages attached: None Telephoue (631) 765-1892 Town- H',dl. 53095 Maiu Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New Y~k 11971 SOUTHOLD TOWN CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIl, At the meeting of the Southold Town ConserVation Advisory Council held Tuesday, July 15, 2003, the following recommendation was made: Moved by Bob Ghosio, seconded by William Cook, it was RESOLVED to recommend to the Southold Town Board of Trustees DISAPPROVAL of the Amendment application of GREGORY MANZANOBILE to Amend Permit #5631 to allow the location of the sewage disposal system and the necessary fill and retaining wall. Located: 1450 Lake Dr., Southold. SCTM#59-1-21.6&21.7 The CAC recommends Disapproval of the amendment application and the previous application for the Wetland Permit because the CAC has a concern with the proposed change in the grade elbvations and the negative impact due to the run-off into the freshwater wetlands. There is also a concern with the elevations up to the edge of the wetlands. This project requires a 75' non-disturbance buffer. Vote of Council: Ayes: All Motion Carried Prol er- T Perrni Services POST OFFICE BOX 617, CUTCHOGUE, NEW YORK 11935-0617 (631) 734-5800 June 18, 2003 Presidem Board of Town Trustees Town of Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: SCTM #1000-59-1-21.6 & 21.7; Gregory Mazzanobile ', Dear Sir: ECE! Seuthold Town 9nafd ot T~ustees At the 9/25/02 meeting, the Trustees approved this application subject to the receipt of a new survey showing the pool relocated closer to the house. The revised survey is enclosed. The reason for the delay is the refusal of several of the neighbors to provide the locations of their wells and sewage disposal systems, and this necessitated relocating our sewage disposal system as shown~ If you need anything else, please call. Enclosure: ~es E. Fitzgeral5 Survey (Ingegno, last dated 6/6/03) (3 copies) a subsidiary of THE PECONIC EASTERN CORPORATION KENNEY'S BEACH CIVIC ASSOCIATION P. O. Box 881 SOUTHOLD, NY 11971 October 5, 2002 Ref: SCTM #1000-59-01-21.6/ #1000-59-01-21.7 Mr. Charles Brigham Suffolk County Department of Health Services Office of Waste Management County Center Riverhead, NY 11901 uL;~ - 8~ Dear Mr. Brigham, The two above referenced lots are located in wetlands section of the Kenney's Beach area in Southold, NY, north of (3reat Pond, a Class 1 Wetland. The area of the proposed construction is in a very fragile ecosystem of wetlands, frequently under water and contains a natural cranberry bog (approximately 55 feet east of the proposed dwelling). The proposed building site will place cesspools in lot #59-01-21.7, adjacent to Lake Drive and opposite two homes (lots 59-01-9 and 59-01-10, both of which have private wells. On September 25, 2002, the Southold Town Board of Trustees approved a wetland permit by a vote of 3 to 2, the dissenting Trustees were concerned that the proposed septic system was less than 100 feet from wetlands. Since the proposed cesspool site is less than 100 feet fi.om wetlands and two private wells are also nearby, we feel that granting this permit application will threaten this fragile area and expose neighbors to unnecessmy risk. Therefore, we encourage you to deny this application. Very truly yours, President Cc: Ms Diane Radke, NYS DEC /Mr. Al Krupski, TOS BoTT BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES POBOX 1179 SOUTHOLD NY 11971 9/6/02 REF: APPLICATION FOR WETLAND PERMIT BY GREGORY MAZZANOBILE 1460 LAKE DRIVE SOUTHOLD NY SCTM# 59-1-21.6 & 21.7 DEAR SIRS: I WAS GIVEN A COPY OF A REVISED SURVEY AT THE YOUR LAST HEARING WHICH NOW REFLECTS THE LOCATION OF THE NATURAL CRANBERRY BOG IN THE EAST PORTION OF THE PROPERTY. THIS SURVEY SHOWS A 50 ff UNDISTURBED BUFFER FROM THR EDGE OF THE BOG TO THE CORNER OF THE HOUSE. I DID NOTICE THAT THE BLUE WETLAND MARKERS ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE NATURAL CRANBERRY BOG APPEAR TO BE APPROX 2 FEET INTO THE BOG AND NOT ON THE WESTERN MOST BOUNDRY OF THE BOG [THE START OF THE PROPOSED BUFFER ZONE] PLEASE KEEP IN MIND THAT DURING YOUR ORIGINAL DELIBERATIONS WHEN THE 50 FT. UNDISTURBED BUFFER WAS ORIGINALLY MENTIONED 1T WAS BEFORE THE EXISTANCE OF THE NATURAL CRANBERRY BOG WAS BROUGHT TO YOUR ATTENTION. THE DECISION TO GRANT A 50 FT UNDISTURBED BUFFER MUST NOW BE RE-EVALUATED. THE PROPOSED HOUSE IS NOW IN EFFECT 75% SURROUNDED BY WETLANDS. THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE PROPOSED DWELLING[THE ROAD SIDE] HAS THE ONLY MATURE TREES IN THIS AREA OF THE LOT,THESE TREES WILL HAVE TO BE REMOVED THE PROPOSED 650 CUB1C YARDS OF FILL TO BE DUMPED INTO THIS FRAGILE AREA WILL DESTROY THE WETLANDS ADJACENT TO THE PROPOSED DWELLING AND POOL THE NATURAL CRANBERRY BOG AREA IS EXTREMELY LOW IN RELATION TO THE REST OF THE PROPERTY. I HAVE GIVEN YOU PHOTOS OF THIS ENTIRE AREA WHEN IT 1S COMPLETELY UNDERWATER WHICH OCCURS FREQUENTLY AFTER HEAVY RAINS. IMAGINE WHAT THE INTRODUCTION OF THIS FILL WILL DO TO THIS AREA IF THIS PERMIT IS GRANTED. YOURS TRULY GEORGE J. BAMBRICK PO BOX 1064 SOUTHOLD NY 11971 Albert J. Krupski, President James King, Vice-President Henry Smith Artie Fester Ken Poliwoda Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1892 Fax (516) 765-1823 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: Proper-T Services on behalf of Gregroy Mnzznnnhil~ Please be advised that your application, dated May 3, 2002 has been reviewed by this Board, at the regular meeting of September 25, 2002 and the following action was taken: ( X) Application Approved (see below) (__) Application Denied (see below) (__) Application Tabled (see below) If your application is approved as noted above, a permit fee is now due. Make check or money order payable to the Southold Town Trustees. The fee is computed below according to the schedule of rates as set forth in the instruction sheet. The following fee must be paid within 90 days or re-application fees will be necessary. COMPUTATION OF PERMIT FEES: Two Inspections @$5.00 $10.00 TOTAL FEES DUE: $ 10.00 S I GNED: BY: PRESIDENT, BOARD OF TRUSTEES CLERK, BOAR~ OF TRUSTEES ~/ 4~98 - .q Albert J. Krapski, President James King, Vice-President Artie Foster Ken Poliwoda Peggy A. Dickerson Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-1366 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES ToWN OF SOUTHOLD YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE OFFICE OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OURS PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE WORK, TO MAKE AN ^ PRE O,ST.UCT O" ,.SPECT,O". F LURE. _"2._SO ~I~d~.['I~I~'~I~I-DEREO A VIOLATION AND POSSIBLE REVOCATION OI- / PERMIT. INSPECTION SCHEDULE J Pre-construction, hay bale line st day of construction constructed ~""Project complete, compliance inspection. BOARD OF- APPEALS' 'FOW OPSOUT.O To~m Huff. S'~JOg~ bititt itoed Sou~ lqewYod~ l ACTI~ OF ~' ~OAP~. OF' ~ App1. No. ~941 Suffol~ County T~x ~ap No. 1000, ~tiOn 59, B10~ ':~,"~ot<2t.6 & '. 21.7 ........ - . . let~t-~-l. pa~e 3 - Xpp1. No. 3941 ~t~er 'of CC~STANI~NE G~C~I1KTdLOS. Decision rendered ~ay 30, 1990 Rc~extuk Van Tu~1 ~ated July 10, 1989 an~ £t. at its. closest poin~ ~o ~ke Drive. ' 2. That there ~e a alvision .o~ TaX ~ap iot&:21~6 a~ .21.7 ' · *" That ~:.he. M11ing ~e l~ca~ed ~ show~ c~ Y-~E m3.cveF ~/r . . Proper-TPermit Services P.O. Box617, CutchogueNY 11935 Phone: 631-734-5800 Fax: 631-734-7463 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: 7/24/02 Charlotte - Trustees' Office Jim Fitzgerald Mazzanobile; SCTM #1000-59-1-21.6 & 21.7 Please postpone the hearing scheduled for tonite's meeting. Thanks! Telephone (631) 765-1892 Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New Y~'k 11971 SOUTHOLD TOWN CONSEP, VATION ADVISORY COUNCII, At the meeting of the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council held Monday, May 20, 2002, the following recommendation was made: Moved by Scott Hilary, seconded by Bill McDermott, it was RESOLVED to recommend to the Southold Town Board of Trustees DISAPPROVAL of the Wetland Permit Application of GREGORY MAZZANOBILE to construct a single- family dwelling with pool and decks; install on-site sewage disposal system. Located: 1450 Lake Dr., Southold. SCTM#59-1-21.6&21.7 The CAC has a concern with the proposed change in the grade elevations and the negative impact due to the run-off into the freshwater wetlands. There is also a concern with the elevations up to the edge of the wetlands. This project requires a 75' non- disturbance buffer. Vote of Council: Ayes: All Motion Carried I 56 RF_AD AVENUE CRESTWOOD, NEW YORK TEL: (9 I 4) 79..3-6 144 May 18, 2002 Board of Trustees Town of Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 In the Matter of: GREGORY MAZZANOBILE Contract Vendee: SCTM 1000-59-1.21.6 & 2.17 Dear Members of the Board of Trustees: We are the owners of adjacent property SCTM 1000-59-1-21.8 and refer to your NOTICE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER dated May 10, 2002. We have no objection and consent to the application of Gregory Mazzanobile as described above which you are scheduled to review at a public hearing at or about 7:00 PM on Wednesday, May 22, 2002 for the construction of a single family dwelling with pool and decks at 1300 & 1460 Very truly yours, Lake Drive, Southold, New York. Constmntine P. Georgiopoulos Copy to: Steve Llorens, Esq. Attorney for Gregory Mazzanobile 'BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PO BOX 1179 SOUTHOLD NY 11971 22002 RE: APPLICATION FOR WETLAND PERMIT BY GREGORY MAZZANOBILE 1460 LAKE DRIVE SOUTHOLD NY 11971 SCTM #5%1-21.68,:21.7 DEAR SIRS: THE FOLLOWING RESIDENTS OF THE KENNY'S BEACH AREA WISH TO GO ON RECORD AS STRONGLY OPPOSING THE GRANTING OF A WETLAND PERMIT FOR THE ABOVE APPLICATION. THE PROPOSED DWELLING, POOL AND SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM IS LESS THAN 100 FEET FROM EXISTING WETLANDS AND WILL, IF GRANTED, CREATE IRREPARABLE DAMAGE TO THE EXISTING FRAG1LE ECOSYSTEM PRESENT IN THE THIS AREA ADJACENT TO GREAT POND'S NATURAL DRAINAGE OUTLET AND RENOURISHMENT SOURCE THE REMOVAL OF AN ESTIMATED 650 CUBIC YARDS OF FILL tN THIS LOW LYING SITE AS PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT WILL CHANGE THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THIS DEPRESSED AREA DISRUPTING THE EXISTING NATURAL FLOW OF SURFACE WATER AND THREATENING THE EXISTING WETLANDS THIS ENTIRE AREA IS A VERY VALUABLE RESOURCE FOR GREAT POND AND SHOULD BE VIGOROUSLY PROTECTED BY THE TOWN TRUSTEES WlY2 2~ NAME. ADDRESS 34. 35. '~__~"~ ~(~e~ ~l~[t0 36. ~ ~ i~'~ Vt~G/ AJt )(I .~r/I~o'~A.) I q 5'0 A tE F~7'Ot,/ NAME 40. '(~1 47. U,~ S~e-~_ ADDRESS S. oo+t.,o I~ 05.'20/2002 11:99 5164850958 ARLINE AND KEN PAGE 0i IlBIIILqr$ gF. iigN eltllC ASSOCI 'I1611 P.O. Box ~1 SOU~LD, IxP/ U97! Maq 20, 2002 Re: SCTM# 59-1.21.6 & 21.7 Gregory M~,~nobile 1460 Lake Drive Southold, NY 11071 Mr. Al Kxupski, Chairman Sou,hold Town Trustees P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Dear Mr. Krupski, The Kenney's Beas;h Civic Association is concerned with the above referenced application. The proposed structure will be less than 100 feet from existing wetlands and the removal of an estimated 650 cubic yards of fill from this low lying terrain may damage the very sensitive ecosystem present in this axe~. The proposed development could seriously affect the cleansing and renewal functions the existing wetlands provide for Great Pond, which as you are aware, is a Class I Wefl~md. Our Association strongly urges the Board of Trustees to review this application to ensure that no damage will occur either to our present environment or to Great Pond, which we consider the jewel in Southold Town's crown! Sincerely, Committee for lh'eser~tion of Fresh Water Kenneth E. Richter, PE Chairmm% Preservation of Fresh Water J kbc~wet Amy S. Agnesini 1075 Lake Drive P.O. Box 633 Southold, NY 11971 Board of Town Trustees P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Dear Board of Town Trustees, it has come to my attention that an Application for Wetland Permit has been submitted by a Mr. Gregory Mazzanobile for the property at 1460 Lake Drive, Southold (Southold County Tax Map #59-1-21.6 and 21.7). My sincere hope is that the Town will reject this application on the basis of its environmental impact. Southold prides itself on its concern for the natural beauty that is so abundant in our area. That is one of the main reasons I purchased a home here over ten years ago. Recently, I have heard of too many instances where perspective new home buyers purchase property with the expectations of building a structure which is detrimental to our sensitive surroundings. These individuals expect our elected officials to succumb to their pressure and forgo their values when it comes to our most precious resource. As our elected officials, I implore that you set the standard by which other towns should follow. Please do not allow this application, or any application that compromises our environment, to pass through the system without putting a stop to it. I am counting on all of you. Sincerely, Amy S. Agnesini ASA:hj Board of Southold Town Trustees P.O. Box # 1179 Southold New York 11971 Gentlemen I received a telephone call from George Bambrick, a neighbor, this evening, regarding a proposed building adjacent to wetlands on Lake Drive. As I understand it this is an application by Mr. Grego~/Mazzanoblle of 1460 Lake Ddve to build a dwelling which is located on the Sutfolk County Tax Map as 59-1-21.6 and 21.7. I live at 1205 Lake Drive and have a private well, which we have used for many years. As yet there is no public water installed and running into my propeity. The safety of my well water is of great concern to me. We use our well water for d;inking and bathin~, and for filling our swimming pool which is used by many people in our ama. I am concerned about potential well contamination from cesspools located on the property at 1460 Lake Drive, senicing this proposed new dwelling. I am therefore opposed to granting permits for such a dwelling that would be located as I understand it less than 100 feat from wetlands. I understand there is a meeting about this subject coming up in the next week, and it does not appear as though we will be back in Southold until a~er the me~ing. I would appreciate it if you would accept this letter to the Boa~d of Town Trustees,so that you can appreciate my concerns regarding this matter. Thank you for your cooperation. Jerome D. Silberstein 1205 Lake Drive Southold New York 11971 GEORGE BAMBBICK 1675 LAKE DRIVE PO BOX1064 SOUTHOLD NY 11971 May 13, 2002 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES PO BOX 1179 SOUTHOLD NY 11971 REF:APPLICATION FOR WETLAND PERMIT BY GREGORY MAZZANOBILE 1460 LAKE DRIVE SOUTHOLD NY SCTM# 59-1-21.6 & 21.7 DEAR SIRS: 1 AM WRITING IN OPPOSITION TO THE GRANTING OF A WETLAND PERMIT FOR THIS APPLICATION FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. THE PROPOSED DWELLING IS LESS THAN 100 FEET FROM WETLANDS ESTABLISHED BY THE APPLICANT'S OWN CONSULTANT. 2. ENCLOSED ARE A SERIES OF PHOTOGRAPHS WHICH DOCUMENT THE FLOODING WHICH OCCURS ON A REGULAR BASIS IN THE AREA OF THIS LOT,THE PICTURES ARE REFERENCED BY NUMBERS [IP THRU t3P] ON COPY OF APPLICANTS MAP AND TRAFFIC SIGNS AND UTILITY POLE #S IN THE PHOTOS 3. THE AREA TO THE IMMEDIATE EAST OF THE PROPOSED DWELLING IS A NATURAL CRANBERRY BOG AND WILL BE DESTROYED BY PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION.THE AREA TO THE WEST OF THE PROPOSED DWELLING IS FREQUENTLY FLOODED, 4. ENCLOSED ARE TWO [2] LETTERS: A. THE FIRST,DATED 11/8/82 WOULD SEEM TO IND1CATE THAT THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF MR GEORGIOPOLUS[WHICH THIS LOT IS PART OF] DID NOT MEET THE STANDARDS OF THE SUFFOLK COUNTY HEALTH DEPT. B. THE SECOND DATED 7/1/83 SEEMS TO INDICATE THAT MR GEORGIOPOULOS DID NOT MEET THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD ZONING REQUIREMENTS ENACTED ON MAY 20,1983 THUS THE VERY STATUS OF HIS SUBDIVISION MAY BE IN QUESTION I DO NOT HAVE ACCESS TO ALL THE DOCUMENTS CONCERNED WITH THIS SUBDIVISION SO POSSIBLY THESE QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED. 5 APPLICANT'S SURVEY INDICATES DWELLINGS ACROSS LAKE DRiVE ALL USE PUBLIC WATER WHEN IN FACT ALTHOUGH PUBLIC WATER 1S AVAILABLE NOT EVERY DWELLING HAS ELECTED TO HOOK UP TO THE MAIN AND STILL USE WELL WATER 6. THIS APPLICATION IF APPROVED WILL PRESENT A SERIOUS THREAT TO POLUTE A WETLAND AND GREAT POND ITSELF WHICH BORDERS THE PARCELL ON THE SOUTH AND WEST.GREAT POND IS A CLASS 1 WETLAND AND IS CONSIDERED THE MOST VALUABLE TYPE OF WETLAND. FLOODING CONDITIONS MAY BE ALTERED OR CREATED. THE NATURAL MOVEMENT OF WATER IN SEASONAL FLOODING WILL BE ALTERED. THE PUBLIC SAFETY,HEALTH AND WELFARE MAY BE JEOPARDIZED BY THE DISCHARGE OF TOXIC CHEMICALS AND BIOLOGICAL WASTE OF DOMESTIC ORIGIN IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO A WETLAND AND A BODY OF WATER CURRENTLY USED FOR SWIMMING THE PLACEMENT OF FILL AS CONTEMPLATED BY THE APPLICANT WOULD LESSEN THE WETLAND'S FLOOD CONTROL AND FILTRATION CAPAClTYAND WOULD REDUCE WILDLIFE HABITAT 8. TEN [10] SPECIES OF WETLAND VEGETATIONARE PRESENT ON THIS SiTE AS FOLLOWS BUTTONBUSH,MARSH MALLOW,PANIC GRASS,PHRAGMITES,PURPLE LOOSESTRIFE RED MAPLE,RUSH,SEDGE,SWAMPROSE AND TUPELO 9. THIS SITE PROVIDES HABITAT FOR SEVERAL SPECIES OF W1LDLIFE INCLUDING UPLAND BIRDS,WATERFOWL,RED FOXES,DEER AND OSPREYS PLEASE ADVISE ME OF YOUR DECISION IN THIS MATTER YOURS TRULY, GEORGE BAMBRICK 1675 LAKE DRIVE PO BOX 1064 SOUTHOLD NY 11971 Page 1 of 1 Subj: Building proposed adjacent to wefland~ Date: 5/13/02 8:50:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: JRa_inberry TP:. DrgeorgeO George Bambrick Lake Drive Southold, New York Dear George; Thank you for your telephone call of this evening regarding the proposed building adjacent to wetlands on Lake Drive. As I understand it this is an application by Mr. Gregory Mazzanobile of 1460 Lake Drive to build a dwelling which is located on the Suffolk County Tax Map as 59-1-21.6 and 21.7. I have a private well, which we have used for many years, and as yet there is no public water installed and running into my property. We use our well water for drinking and bathing and I am concerned about potential well contamination from cesspools located on the property at 1460 Lake Drive, servicing the proposed dwelling. I am therefore opposed to granting permits for such a dwelling that is located as I understand it less than 100 feet from wetlands. I understand there is a meeting about this coming up in the next week, and it does not appear as though we will be back in Southold until after the meeting. I would appreciate it if you would give a copy of this letter to the Board of Town Trustees,so that they can appreciate my concerns regarding this matter. Thank you for your cooperation. Jerome D. Silberstein 1205 Lake Drive Southold New York 11971 Monday, May 13, 2002 America Online: Drgeorge0 HENRY E. RAYNOR, Jr., C/~Yman JAMES WALL BENNETT ORLOWSKI, Jr. GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, Jr. WILLIAM F. MULLEN, Southold, N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE 765-1938 July 1, 1983 MS. Abigail Wickham Wickham, Wickham & Bressler P.O. Box 1424 Mattituck, New York 11952 Re: Constantine Georgiopoulos Dear Ms. Wickham: Please be advised that to date there has been no com- pliance with Article 6 of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services regarding your major subdivision proposal cap- tioned above. The Town Board has legislated two-acre zoning within the township. Because your proposal does not meet the present zoning requirements enacted on May 20, 1983, we would request that you contact our office for an appointment to dis- cuss revisions for compliance with the present zoning regulations. Very truly yours, sel Henry E. Raynor, Jr., Chairman Southold Town Planning Board DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES OUNTY OF SUFFOLK PETER F. COHALAN SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE DAVID HARRIS. M.D.. M.P.H. November 8, 1982 M~. Constantine P. Georgiop{~ulos 111 Broadway New York, New York 10006 Re: Proposed Subdivision of Property Situate N/S Lake Drive, E/O West Drive, Southold Dear Mr. Georgiopoulos: Your application has been rejected by the General Engineerihg office because it does not meet the standards of this Department (Article 6, Section 605, Paragraph 1.b.). A review of your case has been scheduled at the County Center building, Riverhead, in the Suffolk £ounty Department of Health Services Conference Room, 2nd floor, North Wing, on December 3, 1982, at 11:30 a.m. You and interested parties are requested to appear, with or without counsel, .and you may produce any information or evidence concerning the above refer- enced subdivision. Very truly yours, Aldo Andreoli, P.E., Chairman Board of Review AA:cah cc: Mr. James L. Corbin Mr. William C. Roberts Mr. Royal R. Reynolds Mr. Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. Ms. Abigail Wickham, Esq. Town of Southold Planning Board~ Mr. Charles G. Lind (516) 548-3317 TAX MAP Application of contract vendee Gregory Mazzanobile, SCTM #1000-59-1-21.6/21.7 Represented by PROPER-T PERMIT SERV1CES P.O. Box 617, Cutchogue, NY 11935 James E. Fitzgerald, Jr. 631-734-5800 Aoril 30, 2002 THE AREA OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS CIRCLED / /' SOUTHOLD .... BA Y~. Cf. HOG NECK BAY VICINITY MAP Application of contract vendee Gregory Mazzanobile, SCTM # 1000-59-1-21.6/21.7 Represented by PROPER-T PERMIT SERVICES P.O. Box 617, Cutchogue, NY 11935 James E. Fitzgerald, Jr. 631-734-5800 Aoril 30, 2002 Ms. Lauren Standish Town of Southold Town Hall Annex Building 54375 Route 25 PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Greg Mazzanobile 184 Warren Street; Apt 2 Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: 347-306-7851 April 6, 2010 Ms. Standish, Thank you for your help in answering my questions regarding the permit for our property at 1460 Lake Drive, lot number 59-1-21.9 (new tax lot number - was previously 21.6 and 21.7 but combined now into one). As per your recommendation, please accept this letter as a request to extend the permit (Permit Number 563 l) for another year. We are mid-construction with foundation completed, framing, siding, roofing, and windows all in place. It is principally the interior of the house that remains to be completed. Enclosed is a payment of $50.00 as requested so that this request can be part of the April meeting. Ms. Lauren Standish Town of Southold Southold Board of Trustees 54375 Route 25 Southold, NY 11971 Gregory F. Mazzanobile 184 Warren Street, Apt 2 Brooklyn, NY 11201 gregmazzanobile~yahoo.com March 31, 2009 Ms. Standish, Please accept this letter as a request for an extension to our permit (permit number 5631), dated April 28, 2008, and issued to Gregory Mazzanobile, for property address 1460 Lake Drive, SCTM # 59-1-21.6 & 21.7. This letter is a follow-up to our conversation of a few weeks ago when you noted that this letter is required for the routine extension of the aforementioned permit. Also enclosed is the $50 fee for this extension. Please note that building permit which was issued February 18, 2009 recognizes these two lots as a new single lot with a new tax ID. The two lots have been combined at the request of the tax assessor and building department and are now assigned the single tax SCTM#: 59-1- 21.9. We are requesting that this request for extension be addressed at the April 2009 Trustee meeting. Thank you very much for your assistance. Sincerely, Gregory F. Mazzanobile Albert J. Krupski, President oJan~es King, Vice-President Artie Foster Ken Poliwoda Peggy A. Dickerson Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971~e~ Telephone (631) Fax (631) 765-136~ .?~ BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO ~ DATE Sept 29, 2004 OWNER Gregory Mazzanobile PHONE_ ADDRBSS 230 E. 48th Street, Apt 5C, AGENT ~ames E. Fitzgerald, J~P~IONE ADDRESS New York~ 73~-~8o0 FO BOX 617, Cutchogue, NY 11935 NY Ioo17 PROPERTY LOCATION TAX MAP NO. 1300 & 14.60 Lake Drive, Southold 1000-59-1-21.6 & 2~.7 I/~Ve Jamee E. ~-A~-~ukaent~Pe~nit ~ 5631 As per my 1 ew~ming pO~l has bee, eliminated and thema~i~ary eyetem leaching poole have been moved ~ feet fur*~" froa the wetlands line.~. SignedBy~~~ AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING TO THE SOUTHOLD BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF: Gregory Mazzanobile; SCTM #1000-59-1-21.6 & 21.7 STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK I, James E. Fitzgerald, Jr., residing at 385 Haywaters Drive, Cutchogue, NY 11935, being duly sworn, depose and say that on the l0th day of January, 2005, I personally posted the property known as 1300 and 1460 Lake Drive, Southold, 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, whi~c~h date is note~thereon to be Wednesday, January 19, 2005 at or about 7:00 PM. [,/~/~~~/~//7/~. , ~ _ /d~mes E. Fit~g~ra~)t~ Jr: '7 7' Sworn to(l~fore me this day of \ ~ Notary ~ LYNDA M BOHN NOTARY PUBLIC, State of New York NO. 01B06020932, Suffolk Cou,,lly Term Expires March 8, ~ -- AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING TO THE SOUTHOLD BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES iN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF: Gregory Mazzanobile; SCTM #1000-59-1-21.6 & 21.7 STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK James E. Fitzgerald, Jr., residing at 385 Haywaters Drive, Cutchogue, NY 11935, being duly sworn, deposes and says that on the 11th day of January, 2005, deponent mailed a tree copy of the Notice set forth in the Board of Trustees Application, directed to each of the named persons at the addresses set opposite their respective names; that the addresses set opposite the names of said persons are the addresses of said persons as shown in the current assessment roll of the Town of Southold; that said Notices were mailed at the United States Post Office at Cutchogue, NY 11935, that said Notices were mailed to each of said persons by Certified Mail/Return Receipt Re- quested. . .lC ~/('~ ~ Sworn t~,before me this I '~ day of ~ _ ,200 Notary Pt~blic LYNDA M ~T~ ~UC, S~ of ~ Y~rk ~ nl~, 8~k ~ TO: Date.'~January 7, 2005 Adjacent Property Owners (Names and addresses are listed on the attached sheet.) BOARD OF TRUSTEES, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD NOTICE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER In the matter of: Gregory Mazzanobile, Contract Vendee; SCTM #1000-59-1-21.6 & 21.7 YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN NOTICE THAT: 1. An application is being submitted to the Board of Trustees for a permit to: Amend Permit No. 5631 to eliminate the swimming pool and portions of the deck and move the sanitary system further from the wetlands. The project described above is proposed on property adjacent to yours. The street ad~ dress of that property is as follows: 1300 & 1460 Lake Drive, Southold, NY 11971 I The project, which is subject to Environmental Review under Chapters 32, 37, or 97 of the Town Code, is open to public comment. The Trustees will review the application at Town Hail, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York 11971 at or about 7:00 PM on Wednesday, January 19, 2005. If you wish to comment you may call the office (631-765- 1892), or applications may be reviewed and comments may be submitted in writing up to 24 hours prior to the heating. The project described above will be reviewed by the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold. The project may require independent review and approval by other agencies of the Town, State, or Federal governments. CONTRACT VENDEE'S NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: PHONE NO.: Gregory Mazzanobile 200 E. 48th Street, Apt 5C New York, NY 10017 212-838-3776 A copy of a portion of the survey showing the proposed project is enclosed for your convenience. January 5, 2005 MAZZANOBILE: ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS NOTICE NOT SENT (PROPERTY OWNER) 1000-59-1-21.6 & 21.,7 Constantine Georgiopolous 156 Read Avenue Crestwood, NY 10707 NOTICE SENT 1000-59-1 - 15 Mary G. Rogers 1305 Leeton Drive Southold, NY 11971 1000-59-1-16 Gerald M. McCavera 130 Mansion Drive Upper Providence Media, PA 19063 1000-59-I-17 Brian & Marfina Faerber 441 E. 20th Street, Apt 6A New York, NY 10010 1000-59-1-18 John Georgio 228-05 Hoxie Drive Bayside, NY 11364 1000-59-1-21.5 Suffolk County 330 Center Drive Riverhead, NY 11901 1000-59-1-21.8 Constantine Georgiopolons 156 Read Avenue Crestwood, NY 10707 1000-59-5-8.3 George J. Bambrick PO Box 1064 Southold, NY 11971 1000-59-5-8.1 Brian & Brendan Bambrick 48 Washburn Place Caldwell. NJ 07006 1000-59-5-9 Maria Bustamante 18 Marshall Avenue Brentwood, NY 11717 1000-59-5-10 Richard E. McNally & Virginia I. Tang 32-13 153rd Street Flushing, NY 11354-3347 Proper- T Permit Services POST OFFICE BOX 617, CUTCHOGUE, NEW YORK 11935-0617 President Board of Town Trustees Town of Southold Town Hail, 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 (631) 734-5800 September $, 2004 ECEi E 8EP - 8 2O04 Re: Permit No. 5631; SCTM # 1000-59-1-21.6 & 21.7; Gregory Mazzanobile Dear Sir: At the request of NYSDEC, certain changes were made to the survey/project plan which was approved by the Trustees (Ingegno, last dated 1/12/04). A copy of that survey/project plan is enclosed for your ready reference. In addition, an originai copy of the survey/project plan (Ingegno, last dated 7/7/04) approved by NYSDEC is enclosed, along with a copy of that same version showing the NYSDEC approval stamp. Further, an acetate copy of the 7/7/04 map is enclosed to facilitate comparison of the two maps. The substantive changes, as reflected in the survey/project plan approved by NYSDEC, are more restrictive and presumably favorable from an environmental standpoint: · The swimming pool has been eliminated. · The leaching pools have been moved approximately 10 feet to the northeast, further from the wetlands area in the southwest comer of the property. In addition, the line of the non-disturbance buffer has been extended in the southwest comer of the property. If you feel any further action is necessary on the part of the Board, we would appreciate receiving administrative approval of these changes which are all "friendly". · S'mqerely, ~ ~ a subsidiary of THE PECONIC EASTERN CORPORATION JOSHUA Y. HORTON 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: Re: Board of Town Trustees Supervisor Joshua Y. Horton August 20, 2004 Great Ponds Wetlands & Dunes On August 20th members of the Kenny's Beach Civic Association met with me to express concerns about a trustee permit issued for the property at 1300 and 1460 Lake Drive in Southold. In addition to numerous environmental concerns relating to the unique ecosystem of the area, they noted discrepancies between information provided to the board and information provided to the New York State DEC. Attached is additional information provided by the association for your review. Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter. /rbw attachment AU0 2 0 2004 SoutholdTow~ 8ozrd of Trustees Proper- T Permit Services POST OFFICE BOX 617, CUTCHOGUE, NEW YORK 11935-0617 (631) 734-5800 July 14, 2004 President Board of Town Trustees Town of Southold Post Office Box 1179 Southold, New York 11935 Re: Request for Extension of Permit #5631, Gregory M~zzanobile; SCTM #1000-59-1-21.6 & 21.7 Dear Sir: Because of delays in obtaining a permit from NYSDEC, it is necessary that we ask for a one-year extension to this permit which is due to expire on 9/25/04. The $50 fee is enclosed. Proper-T Permit Servioes. - POST OFFICE BOX 617, CUTCHOGUE, NEW YORK 11935-0617 (631) 734-5800 June 27, 2003 President Board of Town Trustees Town of Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Request to Amend Permit No. 5631; SCTM #1000-59-1-21.6 & 21.7; Gregory_ MazTanobile Dear Sir: We wish to apply for an amendment to Permit No. 5631 to allow the location of the sewage disposal system and the necessary fill and retaining wall as shown in the survey by Joseph Ingagno, last dated 6/6/03, three copies of which were provided to you on June 18, 2003. If you need anything else, please call. Enclosure: Amendment fee (check, $40) Sinqerely, ~T'., /~. a subsidiary of THE PECONIC EASTERN CORPORATION APPLICANT/AGENT/REPRESENTATIVE TRANSACTIONAL DISCLOSURE FOR~ The Town 0f Southold's Code of Ethics vrohibits conflicts ofinterea on fl~e oatt of town officers and ertmlovees. The ouroose of this form is to orovide information which can alert the town of vossible conflicts of interest and allow it to take whatever action is YOURNAME: James E. Fitzgerald, Jr. (Last name, first name, middle initial, unle~ you are applying in the name of someone dsc or other entity, such as a company. If so, indicate thc other person's or company's name.) NAME OF APPLICATION: (Check all tha~ apply.) Variance Change of Zone Approval of plm Exemption from plat or official map (If"Othcr', name the activity.) Trustees' Wetlands' Permit Do you pe~onally (or through yo~ company, spout, sibling, p~rem, or child) have a relationship wi~h any officer or employee of the Town of Sou~hold? "Relationship" inclodez by blood, man'iage, or business interest. "Business interest" means a business, including a partnership, in which thc town officer or cn~loyee has eve~ a partial ownership of(or employment by) a corporation in which the town officer or c.~,ioyee owns more than 5% of~he shaxez. YES NO X If you answered "YES", complete the balance of this form and date and sign where indicated. Name of person employed by the Town of 5outhold Title or position of tha~ person Describe the relationship between yourself(the applicant/agent/rel~s~tative) and the !own ot~cer or employee. Either check the appropriate line A) through D) and~or describe in the space provided. Thc town officer or employee or his or her spouse, sibling, parent, or child is (check all that apply): __A) the owner of greater than 5% of~he shares of~he coq~orate stock of the applicant (when the applicant is a corporation); B) the legal or beneficial owner of any inter~ in a non-corporate entity (when the applicant is not a corporation); __.C) an officer, direct, patmer, or employee of the applicant; or __D) lhe actual applicant. DESCRIPTION OF RELATIONSHIP OCT 1 0 20O3 $outhold Town Beard of Trustees Form #E2 ~1; z-~ el,'a £~/;' Jr. )ove ) AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING TO THE SOUTHOLD BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES 1N THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF: Gregory Mazzanobile STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK I, James E. Fitzgerald, Jr., residing atth385 Haywaters Drive, Cutchogue, NY 11935, being duly sworn, depose and say that on the 15 day of July, 2003, I personally posted the property known as 1300 and 1460 Lake Drive, Southold, 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, Febru- ary 20, 2002 at or about 7:00 PM. Sworn to before me this c~'~ day of ~(~y.~ , 2003. Nota~,Public ~ AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING TO THE SOUTHOLD BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES 1N THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF: Gregory Mazzanobil¢ STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK James E. Fitzgerald, Jr., residing at 385 Haywaters Drive, Cutchogue, NY 11935, being duly sworn, deposes and says that on the 14t~ day of July, 2003, deponent mailed a true copy of the Notice set forth in the Board of Trustees Application, directed to each of the named persons at the addresses set opposite their respective names; that the addresses set opposite the names of said persons are the addresses of said persons as shown in the current assessment roll of the Town of Southold; that said Notices were mailed at the United States Post Office at Cutchogue, NY 11935, that said Notices were mailed to each of said persons by Certified Mail/Return Receipt Re- Sworn4o before me this ~og9 day of _'k~(~X.X,'X~ ~'~200~ . Notary Publi~ '~ ~ I~.: Fitzg~ald~ ~r. t~o~iNIE W. MAZZAFERRO TO: · Date: July 10, 2003 Adjacent Property Owners (Names and addresses are listed on the attached sheet.) BOARD OF TRUSTEES, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD NOTICE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER In the matter of.' Gregory Mazzanobile, Contract Vendee; SCTM #1000-59-1-21.6 & 21.7 YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN NOTICE THAT: 1. An application is being submitted to the Board of Trustees for a permit to: Amend Permit No. 5631 to relocate the sewage disposal system with retaining walls and fill as shown in the attached survey by Joseph Ingegno, last dated 6/6/03. The project described above is proposed on property adjacent to yours. The street ad- dress of that property is as follows: 1300& 1460 Lake Drive, Southold, NY 11971 ] The project, which is subject to Environmemal Review under Chapters 32, 37, or 97 of the Town Code, is open to public commem. A public heating will be held at Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York 11971 at or aborn 7:00 PM on Wednesday, July 23, 2003. If you wish to comment you may call the office (631-765-1892), or applications may be reviewed and comments may be submitted in writing up to 24 hours prior to the hearing. The project described above will be reviewed by the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold. The project may require independent review and approval by other agencies of the Town, State, or Federal governments. CONTRACT VENDEE'S NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: PHONE NO.: Gregory Ma77anobite 200 E. 48t~ Street, Apt 5C New York, NY 10017 212-838-3776 A copy of the survey showing the proposed project is enclosed for your convenience. .MAZZANOBILE: ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS NOTICE NOT SENT (PROPERTY OWNER) 1000-59-1-21.6 & 21.,7 Constantine Georgiopolous 156 Read Avenue Crestwood, NY 10707 NOTICE SENT 1000-59-1-15 Mary G. Rogers 1305 Leeton Drive Southold, NY 11971 1000-59-1-16 Gerald M. McCavera 130 Mansion Drive Upper Providence Media, PA 19063 1000-59-I-17 Brian & Martina Faerber 441 E. 20t~ Street, Apt 6A New York, NY 10010 1000-59-1-18 John Georgio 228-05 Hoxie Drive Bayside, NY 11364 1000-59-1-21.5 Suffolk County 330 Center Drive Riverhead, NY 11901 1000-59-1-21.8 Constantine Georgiopolous 156 Read Avenue Crestwood, NY 10707 1000-59-5-8.3 George J. Bambrick PO Box 1064 Southold, NY 11971 1000-59-5-8.1 Brian & Brendan Bambrick 48 Washburn Place Caldwell. NJ 07006 1000-59-5-9 Theodore Manolakos 1595 Lake Drive PO Box 1454 Southold, NY 11971 1000-59-5-10 Richard E. MeNally & Virginia I. Tang 32-13 153~a Street Flushing, NY 11354-3347 LOT ~ 7 / SURVEY OF LOTS 6 & 7 ' SUBDIVISION MAP FOR CONSTANTINE P. GEORGIOPOULOS SITUATED AT SOUTHOLD TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK S.C. ]'AX No. 1000-59-01-21.6 1000-5g-01-21.7 SCALE 1 "=50' MARCH 28. 2002 ~'~, SEPTIC SYSTEM ~ RETAININC FALL DESICN BY' JOSEPH FISCHETTI, PE 1725 HOBART ROAD $OUTHOLD, NY 11971 651-765-2954 PROPOSED SEPTIC SYSTEM DETAIL PROPOSED CONC. RETAINING WALL DETAIL Land Surveyor P~OHE (S51)727-20~0 F~x (6~1)727-1727 Albert J. Krupski, President Jaraes King, Vice-President Henry Smith Attic Foster Ken Poliwoda Office Use Only ,Coastal Erosion Permit Application v Wetland Permit Application Major __ Minor Waiver/Amendmen~Ch~}nges. Received pplica on: Received Fee:$ ~:~f~' ' Completed Application ~/&/O Incomplete SEQRA Classification: Type I Type H Unlisted Coordination:(date CAC Referral Sent: -~ / ~ 0 '~ . ~¥ ? ,.~ Date of Inspection: ..~][q 0 Receipt of CAC Report: Lead Agency Determination:__ Technical Review: ~ Pubhc Heanng Held:4 l'O~O Resolution: Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-1366 Name of Applicant Address Gregory Mazzanobile 230 E. 48th Street, Apt 5C, New York NY 10017 Phone Number:( ) 212-838-3776 Suffolk County Tax'Map Number: 1000- 59-1-21.6 & 21.7 Property Location: 1460 Lake Drive, Southold (provide LILCO Pole #, distance to cross streets, and location) AGENT: (If applicable) Address: James E. Pitz~erald, Jr. / Prooer-T Permit Servi PO Box 617, Cutchogue i~ 11935 Phone: Board of Trustees Application Land Area (in square feet): Area Zoning: GENERAL DATA 80,135 sq ft R-40 Previous use of property: Intended use of property: UndeveloDed Single-family residence Prior permitffapprovalsforsiteimprovements: Agency Date X No prior permits/approvals for site improvements. Has any permit/approval ever been revoked or suspended by a governmental agency? X No__ Yes If yes, provide explanation: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct single-family dwelling with pool and decks; install on-site sewage disposal system. Board of Trustees Application WETLAND/TRUSTEE LANDS APPLICATION DATA ~rpose of the proposed operations: Construct single-family residence. Area ofwetlands on lot: est 26,960 square feet Percent coverage of lot: 33 · 6 % Closest distance between nearest existing structure and upland edge of wetlands: N/A feet Closest distance between nearest proposed structure and upland edgeofwetlands: feet (to be determined) Does the project involve excavation or filling? No X Yes house foundation If yes, how much material will be excavated? 650 cubic yards estimated · How much material will be filled? -0- cubic yards Depth of which material will be removed or deposited: 8 Proposed slope throughout the area of operations: 0 Manner in which material will be removed or deposited: backhoe, ete, f~t approx Statement of the effect, if any, on the wetlands and tidal waters of the town that may result by reason of such proposed operations (use attachments if appropriate): It is expected that the project will have no significant effect on the wetlands and tidal waters of the Town. r PROJECT I.D. NUMBER 61T.21 Appendix C State Environmental Quality Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only PART I--PROJECT INFORMATION (To be completed by Applicant or Project sDonsor) 1, APPMCANT/SPONSOR 2. PROJECT NAME James E. Fitzgerald, Jr. Mazzanobile house 3. PROJECT LOCATION: Mumc~,a,~ Southold . Cou~W Suffolk SEQR 4. PRECISE LOCATION (Street address and rosa intersections, Prominent ~andmarKs, etc., or provide 1460 Lake Drive Southold NY 11971 See attached.maps. 5. IS PROPOSED ACTION: ~'] New [] Ex,ansion [] Modification/alteration 6. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct single-family dwelling with pool and decks; install on-site sewage disposal system. 7. AMOUNT OF LAND Inltl&ily 2.0 acres Ultimately 2. O e~es 8. WILL PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER EXISTING LAND USE RESTRICTIONS? 9. WHAT IS ~,~.NT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT? [] Residential [] Industrial [] Commercial [] Agriculture Descri~e: Medium-~ize private residences.. [] Parki~o~eii~O~ ~'~C~ .... [] Other 10. DOES AC~ON INVOLVE A PERMIT AP~'HUVAL, OR FUNDING, NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY (FEDERAl_ STATE OR LOCAL)? [~] Yes [] No If yes, list agency(s) and Dermtt/a,provals Required: h~YSDEC, Southold Trustees 11. DOES ANY A~P~-~ OF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLy VALID PERMIT OR APPROVAL? [] Yes [] No If yes, list agency name and Derm/t/&D,~oyal 12. AS A RESULT OF PROPOSED ACTION WILL EXISTING PERMIT/APPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATION? [] Yes [] NO I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION "ROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE James E. Fit~E~r~ld, Jr. ~ ~ , ' ~ Date: / ' II the ~n is in the Coas~l Area, and you are a state agency, comp ere the C~astal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment OVER 1 TO: Date: May I0, 2002 Adjacent Property Owners (Names and addresses are listed on the attached sheet.) BOARD OF TRUSTEES, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD NOTICE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER In the matter of.' Gregory Ma77~nobile, Contract Vendee; SCTM #1000-59-1-21.6 & 21.7 YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN NOTICE THAT: I. An application is being submitted to the Board of Trustees for a permit to: Construct single-family dwelling with pool and decks; install on-site sewage disposal system_ The project described above is proPOsed on property adjacent to yours. The street ad- dress of that property is as follows: 1300 & 1460 Lake Drive, Southold, NY 11971 The project, which is subject to Environmental Review under Chapters 32, 37, or 97 of the Town Code, is open to public comment. A public hearing will be held at Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York 11971 at or about 7:00 PM on Wednesday, May 22, 2002. You may contact the Trustees Office at 631-765-1892 or in writing if you wish to comment The project described above will be reviewed by the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold. The project may require independent review and approval by other agencies of the Town, State, or Federal governments. CONTRACT VENDEE'S NAME: , MAILING ADDRESS: PHONE NO.: Gregory Ma77anobile 200 E. 48th Street, Apt 5C New York, NY 10017 212-838-3776 A copy of a sketch or plan showing the proposed project is enclosed, for your convenience. AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING TO THE SOUTHOLD BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES 1N THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF: Gregory Mazzanobile STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK I, James E. Fitzgerald, Jr., residing at 385 Haywaters Drive, Cutchogue, NY 11935, being duly sworn, depose and say that on the 10th day of May, 2002, I personally posted the property known as 1300 and 1460 Lake Drive, Southold, 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, which date is noted thert~-(o~, ~-! }/Wednesday, May 22, 2002 at or about 7:00 PM. ..~& ~ 7' . ~ ~/a?es E. Fitzgera~' /~/~ff~ ~ '/' Sworn to before me this ? ~ ~ day of ~'~ ,2002. AFFIDAVIT OF MAll,ING TO THE SOUTHOLD BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF: Gregory Mazzanobile STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK James E. Fitzgerald, Jr., residing at 385 Haywaters Drive, Cutchogue, NY 11935, being duly sworn, deposes and says that on the 13th day of May 2002, deponent mailed a true copy of the attached Notice set forth in the Board of Trustees Application, directed to each of the named per- sons at the addresses set opposite their respective names; that the addresses set opposite the names of said persons are the addresses of said persons as shown in the current assessment roll of the Town of Southold; that said Notices were mailed at the United States Post Office at Cut- chogue, NY 11935, that said Notices were mailed to each of said persons by Certified Mail/Return Receipt Requested. Sworn to before me this day of -~?x~'~ ,2007. N6ta~yV~bli"e ~3 \} - ~ May 9, 2002 MAZZANOBILE: ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS NOTICE NOT SENT (PROPERTY OWNER) 1000-59-1-21.6 & 21.,7 Constantine Georgiopolous 156 Read Avenue Crestwood, NY 10707 NOTICE SENT 1000-59-1-15 Mary G. Rogers 1305 Leeton Drive Southold, NY 11971 1000-59-1-16 Gerald M. McCavera 130 Mansion Drive Upper Providence Media, PA 19063 1000-59-1-17 Brian & Martina Faerber 441 E. 20* Street, Apt 6A New York, NY 10010 1000-59-1-18 John Georgio 228-05 Hoxie Drive Bayside, NY 11364 1000-59-1-21.5 Suffolk County 330 Center Drive Riverhead, NY 11901 1000-59-1-21.8 Constantine Georgiopolous 156 Read Avenue Crestwood, NY 10707 1000-59-5-8.3 George J. Bambrick PO Box 1064 Southold, NY 11971 1000-59-5-8.1 Brian & Brendan Bambrick 48 Washburn Place CaldweH. NJ 07006 1000-59-5-9 Theodore Manolakos 1595 Lake Drive PO Box 1454 Southold, NY 11971 1000-59-5-10 Richard E. McNally & Virginia I. Tang 32-13 153~a Street Flushing, NY 11354-3347 STATEMENT TO THE SOUTHOLD BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES County of Suffolk ) State of New York ) I, Gregory Mazzanobile, being duly sworn, depose and affirm that I am the comract vendee of the property located at 1300 and 1460 Lake Drive, Southold, New York 11971, and identified by Suffolk County Tax Map Nos. 1000-59-1-21.6 & 21.7, and that all work will be done in the manner set forth in the present application and as may be approved by the Southold Board of Town Trustees. I agree to hold the Town of Southold and the Town Trustees harmless and flee from any and all damages and claims arising under or by virtue of said permit(s), if granted. I hereby authorize the Town Trustees or their agent(s) or representative(s) to enter upon the property to inspect the premises in conjunction with the review of the present application. Sworn to before me this .[~' 9,~.~ay of...~.~.......~2.{ ...... 2001. IW6t ary Public ANIELA WILLIAMS NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAR 31, 2005 230 East 48th Street, Apt 5C New York, New York 10017 Presidem Board of Town Trustees Town of Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Dear Sir: Please be advised that I hereby designate and authorize James E. Fitzgerald, Jr. of Proper-T Per- mit Services to act in my behalf as my agent in the submission and processing of a permit application for the construction of a single-family dwelling and associated structures on property of which I am the contract vendee located at 1300 and 1460 Lake Drive, Southold, and designated by Suffolk County Tax Map Nos. 1000-59-1-21.6 and 21.7, and to furnish, upon request, supple- mental information in support of the application. Sincerely, Gregory Mazzanobile Proper: T Permit Services POST OFFICE BOX 617, CUTCHOGUE, NEW YORK 11935-0617 (631) 734-5800 April 30, 2002 Presidem Board of Town Trustees Town of SouthoM Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Application for Permit on Behalf of Gregory Mazzanobile; SCTM #1000-59-I-21.6 & 21.7 Dear Sir: Attached are documents which have been prepared in support of the application for a permit to construct a single family dwelling on the property of which Gregory Mazzanobile is the comract vendee in the Town of Southold. Proper-T Permit Services represents Mr. Mazzanobile in this matter, and a letter of authorization is part of this submission. If there are any questions, or if additional information is needed, please call me. Enclosures: Application Fee ($200) Letter of Authorization Notarized Statement of Applicant Survey of Property/Project Plan (3 copies) Application Form (3 copies) Short EAF (3 copies) Vicinity Map (3 copies) Tax Map (3 copies) itzgeral~?. ,/ a subsidiary of THE PECONIC EASTERN CORPORATION