Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-452 *Of soar Michael J.Domino,President Town Hall Annex O� y�l John M.Bredemeyer III,Vice-President 54375 Route 25 P.O.Box 1179 Glenn Goldsmith Southold,New York 11971 A.Nicholas Krupski �p� Telephone (631) 765-1892 Greg WilliamsCOUNV Fax(631) 765-6641 S BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD September 13, 2018 Clifford & Karen Cid 675 Meadow Lane Mattituck, NY 11952 RE: 675 MEADOW LANE, MATTITUCK SCTM# 1000-115-5-7 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Cid: The following action was taken at the Southold Town Board of Trustees regular meeting held on Wednesday, August 15, 2018: RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Board of Trustees APPROVE the request for a Transfer of Wetland Permit#452 from William Moore/Cramer to Clifford & Karen Cid, as issued on September 17, 1985. Please be advised that on September 13, 2018 the President of the Trustees approved the planting plan submitted on this date. Please be advised that any other activity within 100' of the wetland boundary requires a permit from this office. This is not a determination from any other agency. If you have any questions, please contact our office at (631) 765-1892. Sincerely, k Michael J. Domino, President Board of Trustees MJD/dd i Clifford&Karen Cid 675 Meadow Ln Mattituck,NY 11952 kbartell@optonline.net 631-924-4437 (H) 516-287-6662 (C) September 13, 2018 Board of Trustees Town of Southold PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Dear Sir or Madam, We would like to submit a planting plan from Trimble's Nursery for our property located at 675 Meadow Lane,Mattituck,NY 11952. In the 30 foot non-disturbance area,native plants will be planted and any existing nonnatives will be removed including 15 privet All trees on plan are existing trees. Below is a list of native plants to be considered. Bayberry Aronia Hay-scented Fern Lady Fern Clethra Inkberry Blueberry Baptisia Attached is a planting plan previously submitted. We are only looking to approve the planting of plants in the 30-foot non-disturbance area at this time. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, FSEP E 1 3 2018 ' Karen Cid :5 Eonrd of!I,-, - _ .- 1 __-__-•-♦•-_... ^ ..\� - , r ._.. _r., �f- ... C;y'tyh'-_..'-,.may` - _- ,I- _ ,N----�L`'-'--..._ _�-L.-._�,_....�-r = ,-_ -�=_-- —.__�__ _ =- _ __ ---_ - _ f_�_�- f A!i8P(A , - - - . - - - ��,_ `�-.� �� r�t✓Y F�&'�.�}.IBJ f"� t�� � rt�,�- ' - :- . '- ,t;�,:`\'aaC1�=�'t'a--�---- _11���'�—y44 _ - '� �- � '• � 7 t'-�'l�.�l A'r t•/—�� ,t - = - - tofSF f� A t F'F'Y Hf;�3fti;r t�16l,e .4Ci {^z�lil Fh:,Utq Alid - _ "=� rP -- `j 3f _ j� fi = _0 -6RCf?04tr-I-, vin�tnI�Ailt -- .� ,�—� � - Gar, ix: i SEP 1 3 i Michael J. Domino,-President c'r�� Gym Town Hall Annex John M. Bredemeyer, 111, Vice-President 9 N x Y 54375 Route 25 Glenn Goldsmiths o ti' P.O. Box 1179 A Nicholas Krupski Southold, NY 11971 Greg Williams ' ` Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: f ) per Please be advised that your application dated `'2` � - '"has been reviewed by this Board at the regular meeting of 9j15X6 and your application has been approved pending the completion of the following items checked off below. Qc u�G— PLA-9 yak V OF AfAVv5 V66e _704 Revised Plans for proposed project— �M .. -0 Th5- UJ��M1D, Pre-Construction Hay Bale Line Inspection Fee ($50.00) 1't Day of Construction ($50.00) % Constructed ($50.00) Final Inspection Fee ($50.00) Dock Fees ($3.00 per sq. ft.) 30-Year Maintenance Agreement (complete original form enclosed and submit to Board of Trustees Office) The Permittee is required to provide evidence that the non-turf buffer condition of the Trustee permit has been recorded with the Suffolk County Clerk's 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. Permit fees are now due. Please make check or money order payable to Town of Southold. The fee is computed below according to the schedule of rates as set forth in Chapter 275 of the Southold Town Code. The following fee must be paid within 90 days or re-application fees will be necessary. You will receive your permit upon completion of the above. COMPUTATION OF PERMIT FEES: TOTAL FEES DUE: $ BY: Michael J. Domino, President Board of Trustees Michael J. Domino, Presiden o��SOFFO(,�C Town Hall Annex John M. Bredemeyer I11,Vice-Presiaem ,`�` �� 54375 Route 25 Glenn Goldsmith y P.O.Box 1179 A.Nicholas Krupski a Southold,NY 11971 Greg Williamsy�0 Ol,� Telephone(631)765-1892 1 !' ' Fax(631)765-6641 trz- BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Date/Time: 6k A 0/ 12A8 S{3O Completed in field by: G , Go 1.1sr� CLIFFORD & KAREN CID request a Transfer of Wetland Permit#452 from William Moore/Cramer to Clifford & Karen Cid, as issued on September 17, 1985. Located: 675 Meadow Lane, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-5-7 CH. 275-3 - SETBACKS WETLAND BOUNDARY: Actual Footage or OK=q Setback Waiver Required 1. Residence: 100 feet 2. Driveway: 50 feet 3. Sanitary Leaching Pool (cesspool): 100 feet 4. Septic Tank: 75 feet 5. Swimming Pool and related structures: 50 feet 6. Landscaping or gardening: 50 feet 7. Placement of C&D material: 100 feet TOP OF BLUFF: 1. Residence: 100 feet 2. Driveway: 100 feet 3. Sanitary leaching pool (cesspool) 100 feet: 4. Swimming pool and related structures: 100 feet Public Notice of Hearing Card Posted: Y / N Ch. 275 Ch. 111 SEQRA Type: 1 II Unlisted Action Type of Application: Pre-Submission Administrative Amendment Wetland Coastal Erosion Emergency Violation Non-Jurisdiction Survey <_ 5 years: Y/N Wetland Line by: C.E.H.A. Line Additional information/suggested modifications/conditions/need for outside review/consultant/application completeness/comments/standards: p40es CNA O.Pmela.s' �a �a✓a Q-1\y ��.✓ ®�S'•1'ruc�idn w; f�;n b C�et . I have read & acknowledged the foregoing Trustees comments: Agent/Owner: Present were: J. Bredemeyer M. Domino V G. Goldsmith N. Krupski G. Williams Other Michael J.Domino,President �� SDUrjyO Town Hall Annex John M.Bredemeyer III,Vice-President �� lQ 54375 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Glenn Goldsmith Southold,New York 11971 A.Nicholas KrupskiG Q �► � �O Telephone (631) 765-1892 Greg Williams Ol �v Fax(631) 765-6641 � r �, CO WN E ill ;.i L UNTY, ir,II�, _.. l JUL _ 9 2018 DD BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Snnthalrl Tewin Board of Tniit^es _J APPLICATION FOR A TRANSFER OF A WETLAND PERMIT DATE OWNERCUffoIP - VRVJ (tel D PHONE 63)� %a7- T 37 MAILING ADDRESS t /ii�f�7�� LA . M4n-i� Jn CK ., AGENT PHONE ADDRESS PROPERTY LOCATION 10,�_ Ma bt j 0761- 7VCK , D,I y119�a TAX MAP NO. 1 5 - =-� -4- ZL -Y I/We Li q w- .Wl ed (II'D request a Transfer of Permit# from p (3 Cg r ,�.g j rT Signed By: Dard of Trustees App at( AFFIDAVIT BEING DULY SWORN D POSES AND AFFIRMS THAT HE/SHE IS THE APPLICANT FOR THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PERMIT(S) AND THAT ALL STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE TRUE TO THE BEST OF HIS/HER KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF,AND THAT ALL WORK WILL BE DONE IN THE MANNER SET FORTH IN THIS APPLICATION AND AS MAY BE APPROVED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF TRUSTEES. THE APPLICANT AGREES TO HOLD THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD AND THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES HARMLESS AND FREE FROM ANY AND ALL DAMAGES AND CLAIMS ARISING UNDER OR BY VIRTUE OF SAID PERMIT(S), IF GRANTED. IN COMPLETING THIS APPLICATION,I HEREBY AUTHORIZE THE TRUSTEES,THEIR AGENT(S) OR REPRESENTATIVES,INCLUDING THE CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL,TO ENTER ONTO MY PROPERTY TO INSPECT THE PREMISES IN CONJUNCTION WITH THIS APPLICATION, INCLUDING A FINAL INSPECTION. I FURTHER AUTHORIZE THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES TO ENTER ONTO MY PROPERTY AND AS REQUIRED TO INSURE COMPLIANCE WITH ANY CONDITION OF ANY WETLAND OR COASTAL EROSION PERMIT ISSUED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES DURING THE TERM OF THE PERMIT. YZ V=e2 t 6 W� Signature of Property Owner Signature of Property Owner SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS qHI DAY OF , 20 19 A49#rr Notary Public DIANE DISALVO NOTARY PUBLIC-STATE OF NEW YORK No. OID1475593 Au011fied in Suffolk County My Commission Expires April 30, 20 7i7i' F = i I'�j rE C' J _� i1 Clifford&Karen Cid JUL _ 9 201 �` 675 Meadow Ln P Mattituck,NY 11952 kbartell@optonline.net Southold Town 631-924-4437 (H) Board of Trustce5 _..1 516-287-6662 (C) July 9, 2018 Board of Trustees Town of Southold PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Dear Sir or Madam, We would like to request the following Permits to be transferred into our-names: Permit#452 -Trustee Wetland permit to build the house dated 7/17/85 from the name of Baumgartz to Clifford and Karen Cid. Permit 45638-Trustee Permit for sunroom dated 10/18/02 from the name of Robert Lobick to Clifford and Karen Cid. Sincerely, Karen and Clifford Cid TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BOARD OF SOUTHOLD -TOWN TRUSTEES SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK WETLANDS PERMIT' This Wetlands Permit No 452, ..... has been granted by.the Town Trustees,, according to information furnished in Application No. 312 .... filed by Applioant ..William. Moore/ ra='r, I _ ........................................ on .ne ..AX ..... ..... 19.K..... A map of the proposed work will be kept on file in the Trustee Office under the application number given. Permit granted to do the following work ....To construct a single family dweilin t attached garage: deck: well and. sanitary system Location of property on which work to be done......Meadow Lanel„Matntuck; .................................................................................................................................... ...................... Creek, Bay or Harbor fronting ro er tributarX of Deep Hole„Creek ....................... ...... .........................................................I..................... ................ Size of work: Length... 154 „s9,.,.15,...hRlz e....Q.44 std...fk....dack................................................ Width garage & house 56', deck 18' ........................................ Height Above High Water ......Atat..f129;„12, . .,.A4..dis£uzbance_ DepthBelow Low Water ................................................................................................. Yardsto be Excavated ..................................................................................................... Yardsto be Filled ......................................................................................................... ,! Manner in which material is to be removed or deposited ....................................................;.................... ................................................................................................................................................................. Intended use ofroe Residential - Pp rtY ............ .................. ................................... ..................................... Conditions ifany ,Subaect to„the„preferred„site„set,back...4Aj,,,Cr,,. in the findings and subject„to,the„proper„language„of, tJie,..C. Ws,..by. the„Town Attorney (findings annexed hereto), Expiration Date .ElR.1?1..7,9,,..13RB..i#..vark..bas..xaot..nommen&.ed..k2Y.sai.d..date........................ Number of Inspections Required ,2.Trustces are to be notified upon„the,,,gq,pglgl},gn,,pf,the work. u Inspection Fees $10.00 ................... Liability Policies in the Amount of ............................................ ......... .. ....._. The validity of this permit is or may be subject to the approval of other governmental or municipal authorities. The Town accepts no responsibility in applying for or obtaining such approval. In the event that such approval is necessary;-the holder of this permit shall not commence operations here- under until such approval has been obtained in writing. The failure to obtain such other approval when required shall subject this permit to immediate revocation by the Trustees upon receipt by the Trustees of written notice from such other governmental or municipal authorities of its refusal or disapproval, The applicant does by the acceptance of this permit, assume all responsibility for operations under- taken pursuant to this permit, and shall take all 'precautions for the prevention of injuries to persons and property resulting from such operations. By such acceptance, the applicant also agrees to indemni- fy and save harmless the Town, and its officers, agents and employees from any and all claims arising from operations under this permit and any and all acts or omissions of applicant, his agent and employees. The applicant and the owner and occupants of the premises upon which the operations authorized by this permit are being conducted, do, by the acceptance of this permit, give consent to the Town, and its officers and employees to enter upon the premises where such operations are being conducted to make such inspections as the Town may deem necessary to insure that such operations are being con- ducted in conformity with this permit. This operation will not substantially: A. Adversely affect the wetlands of the town. B. Cause damage from erosion, turbidity or siltation. C. Cause saltwater intrusion into the fresh water resources of the town. D. Adversely affect fish, shellfish or other beneficial marine organisms, aquatic wildlife and vege- tation or the natural habitat thereof.' E. Increase the danger of flood and storm-tide damage. F. Adversely affect navigation on tidal waters or the tidal flow of the tidal waters of the town. G. Change the course of any channel or the natural movement or flow of any waters. H. Weaken or undermine the lateral support of other lands in the vicinity. I. Otherwise adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the town. Signed ......� .` '. :.^...�YL..... President Board of Southold Town Trustees Date............... r fi i! I, Ii i n INTENT OF PERMIT (Subjectto proper language of C .& R's by Town Attorney) House to be sited a minimum of 25' from the road. C & R's to protect in perpet 30' of the marsh fringe, excluding 4' wide path to wetland for water access/and or catwalk assembly. No use of inorganic fertilizers anywhere, no "Turf" area, no deck or patio areas to rear and rear window area no more than 1.33 times State Building Construction Code. Conditions of Permit: As described in siting, the various methods that were offered as far as crane excavation, removal of material from the site, the use of hay bales and geo-textile as depicted in the Soil Conservation Service - report. No sprinkler system on the site. (ingrc,- .9) . C & R's FOR NUTRIENTS: At the option of the Applicant(s) they may either: C & R future. upgrading of Sanitary System or upgrade current planned system to State of Art jl if approved by the County Health Department. - s Final wording of C & R's to be between Attorneys for the Town and Applicant with approval of Trustees. Details of Permit Fees, Building r Construction time frame and inspections required are to be set after } the C & R's are addressed. All permits are presently one (1) year duration. } 1 j 1 f 4 VOTE OF BOARD ON FINDINGS Moved by Trustee Bredemeyer seconded by Trustee Goubeaud it was RESOLVED to approve the Boards findings and reasons supporting the Findings regarding the Cramer/Moore Wetland Application for construction of a single family dwelling on Meadow Lane, Mattituck. Vote of Board Ayes: Trustee Smith, Trustee Krupski, Trustee Larsen, Trustee Bredemeyer, Trustee Goubeaud THIS RESOLUTION WAS DECLARE DULY ADOPTED. VOTE OF BOARD ON PERMIT C^ Moved by Trustee Bredemeyer seconded by Trustee Goubeaud it was RESOLVED to Approve the Wetland Permit in the matter of the application of Cramer/Moore for the construction of a single family dwelling on Meadow Lane, Mattituck subject to the preferred site set backs and C & R's as described. in the findings and subject to the proper language of the C & R's by the Town Attorney. i -Vote of Board: Ayes: Trustee Smith,. Trustee Bredemeyer, Trustee Goubeaud Nay: Trustee Krupski, Truste�e Larsen THIS RESOLUTION WAS DECLARED DULY ADOPTED. ' I i SUPREME COURT OF THE 'STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK -----------------------------------------X . WILLIAM D. MOORE and BENJAMIN L. HERZWEIG, Petitioners, against PETITION Index No. Assigned Judge: THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, Respondent; for Judgement pursuant to Article 78 of the CPLR. ------------------ X William D. Moore and Benjamin L. Herzweig allege as follows: 1) We are the petitioners in the above referenced matter. 2) We are the owners of Lot 442 of Mattituck Estates . situated in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New York designated on the Suffolk County Tax map as district 1000, section, 115, block 5, lot 7. 3 ) The subject parcel is one of the last four vacant lots -in a subdivision created in 1965 consisting of 59 lots. Annexed i; hereto as exhibit A is a photo copy of the subdivision map, which depicts the subject property. 4) The applicants have proposed a dwelling which has been the subject of lengthy scrutiny by the Southold Town Trustees as w the lead agency under the State Environmental Quality Review Act '. ( SEQRA) . This review began in December of 1985. art As 5) of the review ter p process a draft environmental impact statement and final environmental impact statement were prepared at great expense. Ultimately the final environmental � impact statement was accepted by the Southold Town _ Trustees in their role as lead agent under SEQRA. 6 ) on April 29, 1987, the Southold Town Trustees conditionally approved our application for the construction of a single family dwelling on the subject lot. A copy of the Trustee' s . decision is attached hereto as exhibit B. Final approval has not yet been received pending approval of permit conditions and required covenants and restrictions. 7) In their decision, the trustees mandated a rear yard setback of 38 feet from the wetland boundary. We are unable to comply with the requirements of the decision of the Town Trustees without violating the 35 foot frontyard setback required by the Southold Town Zoning Ordinance. We were, therefore, compelled to seek a frontyard setback variance from the Respondent Zoning Board of Appeals. 8 ) The decision of the Southold Town Trustees actually i created the "practical difficulty" necessary to justify legally our request for the frontyard setback variance from the Respondent. 9) on June 18, 1987, a public hearing was held before the Southold Town Zoning Board at which time we presented our case for the necessary area variance for the proposed single family dwelling. During the hearing, petitioners submittedevidence which included a letter from a licensed real estate broker, and a member of the New York State Society of Real Estate Appraisers, in which this broker provided his opinion that the- proposed 25 foot front yard setback as applied for would not adversely impact 2 values in the surrounding area. This evidence was uncontradicted at the hearing. : 10) A survey of the property was submitted into evidence I showing the present building setbacks in the Southold Town Code. This survey indicates that the frontyard " and rearyard setback lines required overlap on this property. - Thus we are entitled as of right to a variance, from the setback requirements. 11)? To establish that the variance as requested was reasonable, we submitted into evidence a prior 'decision of the respondent in Appeal # 3286.. In this earlier decision the Board granted a front yard setback of 20 feet for a house 38 feet in depth with a rear yard setback of 30 feet from a pond. In our application a 25 foot front yard was requested. The proposed house was to be 28 feet in depth with a 38 foot setback from the wetland boundary. In addition the Grasso application was for a home with road frontage of 210 feet. Our road frontage is 110 feet. The Grasso case was one of a custom designed home being submitted by a registered architect. We seekpermission for construction of a single family dwelling using stock building plans for a typical residence in the area. The variance we requested, then, was a lesser variance, and for a much smaller home than the variance requested and granted in Respondent's earlier decision. 12) In spite of the overwhelming evidence provided, in the Zoning Board decision dated June 30,1987, filed with the Southold Town Clerk July 8, 1987, the Zoning Board denied the requested is 3 S variance for a 25 foot frontyard setback. Instead, Respondent arbitrarily authorized a frontyard setback of 30 feet. In •so doing, the respondent reduced the depth of the proposed house by 5 feet from a maximum depth of 28 feet to a maximum depth of 23 feet and an average depth of 20 feet. At the same time respondent Zoning Board retained the 38 foot and 43 foot rear yard setbacks that accompanied our request for the 25 foot frontyard setback. Apparently no thought was given by respondent Zoning Board to the resulting building footprint by their decision to scale the house town by some 5 feet in depth. No evidence was presented at the hearing ;that reducing house depth by 5 feet to at its greatest point 23 feet with an average of 20 feet was in any practical or that such an alternative was in any way conceivable. In fact, the decision of the Southold Town Zoning Board renders the property impractical for its use. 13 ) In addition, the reduction of the front yard setback has absolutely no bearing to the environmental concerns which were the basis of the decision of the Southold Town Trustees to have a 38 foot rearyard setback for the proposed dwelling. The Respondent adopted and incorporated the findings of the Trustees in its decision, findings which express concern for potential environmental impacts of the proposed residence. Yet the Trustees did issue a permit for the house as it was presented to the Respondent Zoning Board of Appeals with :their insistence that the house be located 38 feet from the wetland area. This requirement was reasonable and made necessary the frontyard 4 setback of 25 feet. Instead, Respondent has exercised an overly mechanistic enforcement of front yard setbacks:- without considering that the application made and the variance requested was both reasonable and the product of practical difficulties created by the actions of other agencies within the Town. 14) At the close of the hearing on June 18th the petitioner had no idea that respondent would arbitrarily reduce j the depth of the house by,5 feet. 15) It is the experience of petitioner Moore, who is a practicing attorney beforetheSouthold Town Zoning Board that if the Zoning Board wishes the applicant to reconsider the dimensions of a proposed dwelling it will ask such applicants to redraw and submit additional surveys and other additional information. - No such request was made by the respondent in this case. Therefore petitioners were left with the impression that they had adequately and properly presented their request for the variance. 16) In fact, the respondent ' s decision has further compounded the hardships experienced by the petitioner necessitating this petition and additional appearances with the Zoning Board to resolve the matter. . By deviating from the practice of having applicants for appeals go back and have surveys redrawn and houses relocated at the request of the respondent, we were denied the opportunity to prove to the Respondent that the variance requested was reasonable and that the proposed increase from a 25 foot to a 30 foot frontyard 5 imposed by the Respondent rendered use of the property impractical. 17) The determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals is 'arbitrary and capricious and was made without substantial evidence and as such is illegal, arbitrary and abusive discretion. 18 ) No adequate remedy at law or otherwise exists unless the relief is granted we, as the property owners, will be aggrieved and wrongfully denied full use of our property. 19) Thirty days have not elapsed since the filing of the determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals. 20) Wherefore petitioners demand judgment as follow: (A) For an order annulling the determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold and granting the relief requested by this petition for a 25 foot frontyard setback variance. (B) And for such further and other relief as this court may seem just and proper. Dated: August 5 , 1987 William D. Moore Benjamin L. Herzweig 6 i1 STATE OF NEW YORK: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: ss. : WILLIAM D. 'MOORE and BENJAMIN L. HERZWEIG, being duly sworn, depose and say: Deponents are the: Petitioners in the within action; deponents have read the foregoing Verified Petition and know the contents thereof; the same is true to deponent's own knowledge, except as to those matters therein stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters deponents believe; them to be true. William D. Moore JI Benja4 n 'L. Herzweig k Sworn to before me August 1987 5 Bn�tde�oi gs i' Notafy�,Public ill 7 i I _ { NOTIOP. OF ENTRY uau... ave. tea, a"r 1 Sir:-Please take notice that the within is a (certified) SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK " f =a copy of a COUNTY OF SUFFOLK duly entered in the office of the clerk of the within named court on 19 WILLIAM D. MOORS AND BENJAMIN L. HERZWEIG, Dated, Yours, etc., Petitioners, 1 against Attorney far Office and Post Office Address THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, Respondent. for Judgement pursuant to Article 78 of the CPLR To ,.,. Attorney(s) for NOTICE OF PETITION AND PETITION NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT • sir:—Picase take notice that an order of which the within is a true copy will be presented William D. Moore and Benjamin _ .. L. H2r.ZWelg, EscjS . for settlement to the Hoa - - Attorney for Pro Se one of the judges of the within named Court, at Office and Post Office Addrsrs, Telephone 3 iv Suite 3 Clause Commons on Main Road, PO Box 23 at M Mattituck, NY 11962 Dated, (516) 298-5674 Yours, etc., . . To Attorney for 4 - Office and Past Office Address Attorney(,) for i - q. t , F I Service of a copy of the within is hereby admitted. Dated, .., TO ._._...._..... ........ ..`_......,....._ > Attorney(s)for Attorney(s)for iiCOPyaUYY 6VME[KO.MGu LAW�L,..NK N[Lt[M[M[.M.Y.C.,Oo,K SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK -----------------------------------------X WILLIAM D. MOORE and BENJAMIN L. HERZWEIG, Petitioners, against NOTICE OF PETITION Index No. L Assigned Judge: THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLDr I Respondent, for Judgement pursuant to Article 78 of the CPLR. -----------------------------------------X SIRS: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that upon the Petition of William D. Moore and Benjamin L. Herzweig, verified on the 5th day of August, 1987, and upon the Exhibits annexed thereto, an application will be made to this Court at the Courthouse located on Griffing Avenue, Riverhead, New York, on the 30th day. of September, 1987, at 9: 30 A.M. , or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard, for a judgement granting the relief demanded in the Petition. . A Verified Answer and Supporting Affidavits, if any, must be served at least five (5) days, before such time. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE, that pursuant to section 7804 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, you are directed to file with the Clerk. of the Court, your Answer; Answering Affidavits, etc. , together with a certified transcript of the proceeding, together with the entire official file containing the records of -the fel it respondent Zoning Board of Appeals. ii Suffolk County is designated as the place of trial since ii respondent made its determination in Suffolk County. _ Dated: August 5, 1987 Mattituck, New York Yours, etc. William D. Moore and Benjamin L. Herzweig, Esgs. Appearing Pro Se Suite 3 Clause Commons Main Road - Box 23 Mattituck, New York 11952 (516) 298-5674 TO: CLERK Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Southold Main Road Southold, New York 11971 i r_ 2 i - •h e 1 I tgV � 3�s lK± t 7 DECLARATION OF COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS This Declaration, made the day of 1987, by BENJAMIN L. HERZWEIG, residing at Maple ,Shade Lane, Stony,Brook, New York and ;WILLIAM D. MOORE, residing at Terry Lane, Southold, New York. WITNESSETH WHEREAS, BENJAMIN L. HERZWEIG. and WILLIAM D. MOORE, are the owners in fee simple of certain premises situate at Mattituck and known as "Lot 42" on a subdivision map entitled' "Mattituck Estates, Inc." which map was filed with the clerk of the County of Suffolk on September 8, 1965 as. file number 44553 , described on the Suffolk County Tax Map as District 1000, Section 115, Block 05, Lot . 07 and WHEREAS, the Southold Town Trustees, by resolution made on April 29, 1987 approved the application for a wetland permit for the construction of a single family dwelling; on the above described premises and WHEREAS, the Southold Town Trustees approved said application subject ,to certain Covenants and Restrictions to be filed in the Office of the Clerk of the County of Suffolk, NOW, THEREFORE,; in compliance with the resolution of said Southold Town Trustees, Declarants herein declare that the aforesaid land is held and shall be conveyed subject to the following covenants and restrictions which shall run with the land: 1. The house is to be set back from the front property line no more than 25 feet. 2. There shall be no disturbance within 30feetof the marsh fringe as shown on the survey made a part of the application for the wetland permit on file in the office of the Southold Town Trustees except a 4 foot wide path shall be permitted to the wetlands for water access and/or catwalk assembly. 3 . There shall be no use of inorganic fertilizers on the property. Nor shall there be any managed turf areas. 4. There shall be no decks or patios constructed at the rear of the property. 5. No inground sprinkler systems are permitted on the property. 6 . If it is determined that the cumulative impacts of residential development on other lots in Mattituck Estates which border the headwaters of Deep Hole Creek, which at this date are undeveloped, has caused the pond area north of New Suffolk Avenue which borders this property to become anaerobic, then the sanitary disposal system presently approved by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services will be upgraded to the method of sewerage disposal then being approved by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services 'provided that the development of said unimproved lots, if permitted, is accompanied by a covenant` and restriction to upgrade sanitary disposal systems as agreed to herein. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the foregoing Declaration has been 2 s S.E.Q.R.A. FINDINGS IN THE MATTER OF CRAMER/MOORE MEADOW LANE, MATTITUCK The following subjects represent the major impacts and their mitigation developed through the initial .D.E.I.S. , Trustee scoping list leading. to Response Comments, Public Hearings (2) , Work-Sessions (2) review by experts, additional field studies and the F.E.I.S. Incorporating the relevant areas above. c _ Each area will be briefly. described with reference to three general categories as it might affect permitting; those areas being: 1. SITING: Includes physical protection of the Wetland, the Soil and Water Conservation and Wildlife values. 2. COMMUNITY VALUES 3. NUTRIENT ENRICHMENT OF POND All these will be described with reference to the scope and the relief requested of an impact. The degree of mitigation offered through the process. The degree of mitigation preferred by the Board, and the reasons supporting i the determination. _1 SITING: Siting which includes the physical protection of the marsh, soil and water conservation and wildlife values. A. Relief is sought to place a house within 75' of the Wetland Boundary. Three alternatives offered are: 13' , 28' and 38' from this boundary. Extensive pre, during and post construction mitigative measures are described by the Applicant, Town Planner and Soil Conservation Service. Also included are the Applicants offer to protect the fringe with restrictive covenants ( C & R's) . Extensive wildlife inventory on site by Applicant and experts revealed no animals receiving special legal protection, but many which are hardly "door yard" varieties and should be protected by maximum mitigation to any impacts to the fringe and protecting it. B. The mitigation offered is for three distances: 13' , 28' and/or 38' from the marsh and house size alternatives. C. Mitigation perferred: The Trustees. interpret their 75' - jurisdiction distance under Chapter 97 as a zone within which upland land use is to mitigate as.many impacts as practical impinging on Wetlands. While the Board has a policy of minimum 50' buffer zones where practical, it has provided buffers of much less with properly mitigated upland land use. Construction controls offered by the Applicant and Town Planner including protective C & R's for most all land seaward of the rear of the house is .preferred for maximum protection of the pond and to mitigate land useon site. Also preferred with respect to nutrient values is the no fertilizer option and containment of run off during and post construction. Protective plantings out side the C & R's Zone as described by the Soil Conservation Service, and no deck'or patio at the rear of the house as described by the New York State D.E.C. Permit for Renate Reidel for the same lot are all indicated. Additionally, the Board prefers windo" area on the rear of the house be limited to no more than 113 greater than the minimum required by the New York-StateBuildingCode. There shall be no pets housed out side of 'the house for obvious reasons. The Boards preferred location - is the 38' set back with essentially all land to the rear protected by. C & R ' (except a buffer around the house for protective planting and/or fire control) as i -2- the most 2-themost responsible alternative in light of the wildlife values associated with the pond. Similar pond set backs exist for other houses inthe area and this would permit a uniform buffer 'around the pond should the owners follow suit. D. Reasons supporting the siting are: 1. Optionsoffered by the applicant are practical and -mitigative.. 2. Past history of permits on the site. 3. Extensive value community places on wildlife. 4. Mitigation of impacts will be total; possibly positive beneficial impacts if road noise can be reduced by plantings. COMMUNITY VALUES: The aforementioned siting contravenes the private subdivision front yard set back C &,R's by 50% resulting in a set back of 25' from the,road which will require additional consideration by the Zoning Board of Appeals under Town- Code. Additional mitigation to minimize the visual impact of house size should be addressed by the Z.B.A. who has more experience in this type of action. The Trustees feel the health of the pond ecosystem should take precedence in any set back decision particularly asthis is a head water of acreek which is poorly flushed but has a diverse and abundent wildlife population as found in theF.E.I.S... The Trustees also want minimized, the managed turf areas consistant. . with this approach to minimize the apparent size of the house. It should be notec that the relief sought from both Public Law (Chapter 97 Wetlands) and Private C & R's with the 25' front yard set back is 509. The intensity and number of persons raising concerns at the public hearings clearly weighed in favor of wildlife values. Any decision by the Z.B.A. or Court of Competent jurisdiction to set back. the house further would require additional review by the Board as to potential impact. NUTRIENT ENRICHMENT: A. While applicant_employed State.'of .Art Methodology to compute- -3- Nitrogen impact, to groundwater; simple recalculation using methodology they provided, using an average of four locally available fertilizers at recommended rates for that front yard area of approximately 2500 sq. ft. and using a four person residency which is not unexpected(they used 4.54) would result in nitrogen loading of approximately 15 parts per million when put on the annual rain fall basis. While the major component of the sanitary system nutrients is expected to miss the pond as per the applicants F.E.I.S. and the Suffolk County Dept. of Health, this can not be said for the turf areas North - West of the pond. which may combine with avector of unknown magnitude to the East from the sanitary system as described by Barbara Royce, in the expert review. This concern is substantive enough to limit all fertilizer nutrients on the site as offered in the D.E.I.S. to insure a maximal attenuation of any Vector that has not been described. No further permits should be granted for neighboring lots until a total nitrogen assessment is made. This applicants refusal to perform such cumulative nitrogen _ calculations, .based on incorrect speculation that the New York State D.E.C. routinely denies applications below the 10' contour and that the Town Planner could legally prevent building on neighboring lots are not substantive The other ,reasons given above do indicate that it is not expected there would-be a significant impact from the construction with 'mitigated upland land use. This applicants failure..to perform such cumulative nitrogen calculations should resultin a C & R burden for this site to upgrade - sanitary system nutrientremoval capabilities should applications for neighboring lots determine more removal is necessary. I _ I ` INTENT OF PERMIT (Subject to proper language of C & R's by Town Attorney) House to be sited a mini:au_n of 25' from the road. C & R's to protect in perpet 30' of the marsh fringe, excluding 4' wide path to wetland for water access/and or catwalk assembly. No use of inorganic fertilizers anywhere, no "Turf" area, no deck or patio areas to rear and rear window area no . more than 1.33 times State Building Construction Code. Conditions of Permit: As described in siting, the various methods that were offered as far as crane excavation, removal of material from the site, the usd"of hay bales and geo-textile as depicted in the Soil Conservation Service report. No sprinkler system on the site. (ingrr,_%.i) . C & R's FOR NUTRIENTS: At the option of the Applicant(s) they may either: C & R future upgrading of Sanitary System or upgrade current planned system to State of Art if approved by the County Health Department. Final wording of C & R's to be between Attorneys for the Town and Applicant with approval of Trustees. Details of Permit Fees, Building Construction-time frame and inspections required are to be set after the C & R's are addressed. All permits are presently one (1) year duration. VOTE OF BOARD ON FINDINGS Moved by Trustee Bredemeyer seconded by Trustee Goubeaud it was RESOLVED to approve the Boards findings and reasons supporting the Findings regarding the Cramer/Moore Wetland Application for construction of a single family dwelling on Meadow Lane, Mattituck. Vote of Board: Ayes: Trustee Smith, Trustee Krupski, Trustee Larsen, Trustee Bredemeyer, Trustee Goubeaud THIS RESOLUTION WAS DECLARE DULY ADOPTED. VOTE OF BOARD ON PERMIT Moved by Trustee Bredemeyer seconded by Trustee Goubeaud it was RESOLVED to Approve the Wetland Permit in the matter of the application of Cramer/Moore for the construction of a single family dwelling on Meadow Lane, Mattituck subject to the preferred site set backs and C & R's as described in the findings and subject to the proper language of the C & R's by the Town Attorney. Vote of Board: Ayes: Trustee Smith, Trustee Bredemeyer, Trustee Goubeaud Nay: Trustee Krupski, Trustee Larsen THIS RESOLUTION WAS DECLARED DULY ADOPTED. �g. S.E.Q.R.A. FINDINGS IN THE MATTER OF CRAMER/MOORE . MEADOW LANE, MATTITUCK The following subjects represent the major impacts and their mitigation developed through the initial D.E.I.S. , Trustee scoping list leading to Response Comments, Public Hearings (2) , Work Sessions (2) review by experts, additional field studies and the F.E.I.S. Incorporating the relevant areas above. Each area will be briefly. described with reference to three general categories : as it might affect permitting; those areas being: 1. .SITING.: Includes physical protection of the Wetland the Soil and Water Conservation and Wildlife values. 2. COMMUNITY VALUES 3. NUTRIENT ENRICHMENT OF POND All these will be described with reference to the scope and the relief requested of an impact. The degree of mitigation offered through the process. The degree of mitigation preferred by the Board, and the reasons supporting the determination. 1 SITING: . Sitingwhich includes the physical protection of the marsh, soil and water conservation and wildlife values. A. .Relief is sought to place a house within 75' of the Wetland Boundary. Three alternatives offered are: 13' , 28' and 38` from this boundary. Extensive pre, during and post construction mitigative measures are described by the Applicant, Town Planner and Soil Conservation Service. Also included are the Applicants offer to protect the fringe with restrictive covenants ( C & R's) . Extensive Wildlife inventory on site by Applicant and experts revealed no animals receiving special legal protection, but many which are hardly "door yard" varieties and should be protected b}-:daximum mitigation to any impacts to the fringe and protecting it.. B. The mitigation offered is for three distances: 13' , 28' and/or 38' from the marsh and house size alternatives. C. Mitigation perferred: The Trustees interpret their 75' jurisdiction distance under Chapter 97 as a zone within which upland landuse is to mitigate as many impacts as practical impinging on Wetlands. While the Board has a policy of minimum 50' buffer zones where practical, it has provided buffers of much less with properly mitigated upland land use. Construction controls offered by the Applicant and Town Planner including protective C & R's for most all land seaward of the rear of the house is preferred for maximum protection of the pondand to mitigate land use on site. Also preferred with respect to nutrient values is the no fertilizer option and containment of run off during and post construction. Protective plantings out side the C & R's Zone as described by the Soil Conservation Service, and no deck ,or patio at the rear of the house as described by the New York State D.E.C. Permitfor Renate Reidel for the same lot are all indicated. Additionally, the Board prefers window area on the rear..of the house be limited to no more than 1/3 greater than the minimum required by the New York State Building Code. There shall be no pets housed out side of the .house for obvious reasons. The Boards preferred location is the 38' set back with essentially all land to the rear protected by C & R - (except a buffer around the house for protective.- planting and/or fire control) as -2- the most responsible alternative in light of the wildlife values associated with the pond. Similar pond set backs exist for other houses in the area. and this. would permit auniform-buffer -around -the pond:-should. the owners follow suit. D. Reasons supporting the siting are: 1. Options offered by the applicant are practical and ,mitigative. 2. Past history of permits on the site. i 3. Extensivevalue community places on wildlife. 4. Mitigation of impacts will be total; possibly positive beneficial impacts if road noise can be reduced by ' plantings. COMMUNITY VALUES: The aforementioned siting contravenes the private subdivision front yard set back C & Res by 50% resulting in a set back of 25' from the road which will require additional consideration by the Zoning Board of Appeals under Town- Code. Additional mitigation to minimize the visual impact of house size should be addressed by :the Z.B.A. who has more experience in this type of action. The Trustees feel the health of the pond ecosystem should take precedencein any set back decision particularly as this is a head water of a creek which is poorly flushed but has diverse and abundent wildlife population as found in the E.E.l.S. . The Trustees also want minimized, the managed turf areas consistai with this approach to minimize the apparent size of the house. It should be not( that the relief sought from both Public Law (Chapter 97 Wetlands) and Private C & R's with the 25' front yard set back is 50%. The intensity and number of persons raising concerns at the public hearings clearly weighed in favor of wildlife values. Any decision by the Z.B.A. or Court of Competent jurisdiction to set back the house further would require additional review by the Board as potential impact. NUTRIENT E :RICRMENT: A. !,Bile app3dcant_ employed .State of Art Methodology to compute -3- Nitrogen impact to groundwater; simple recalculation using methodology they provided, using an average of four locally available fertilizers at recommended rates for that front yard.area of approximately 2500 sq. ft. and using a four person residency which isnot unexpected'(they used 4.54) would result in nitrogen loading of approximately 15 parts per million when put on the annual rain fall basis. While the major component ,of the sanitary system nutrients is expected to miss the pond as per the applicants F.E.I.S. and the Suffolk County Dept. of Health, this can not be said for the turf areas North West of the pond which may combine with a vector of unknown magnitude . _ to the East from the sanitary system as described by Barbara Royce, in the expert review. This ed.riern is substantive enough to limit all fertilizer nutrients on the site as offered in the D.E.I.S. to insure a maximal attenuation of any Vector that has not been described. No further permits should be granted for neighboring lots until a total nitrogen assessment is made. This applicants refusal to perform such cumulative nitrogen calculations, based on incorrect speculation that the New York State D.E.C. routinely denies applications below the 10` contour and that the Town Planner could legally . prevent building on neighboring. lots are not substantive The other reasons given above do indicate that it isnot expected there .. would be a significant impact from the construction with mitigated upland land use. This applicants failure to perform such cumulative nitrogen calculations should result in a C & R burden for this site to upgrade i sanitary system nutrient removal capabilities should applications for neighboring lots determine more removal is necessary. VOTE OF BOARD ON FINDINGS . Moved by Trustee Bredemeyer seconded by Trustee Goubeaud it was RESOLVED to approve the Boards findings and reasons supporting the Findings regarding the Cramer/Moore Wetland Application for construction of a single family dwelling on Meadow Lane, Mattituck. Vote of Board: Ayes: Trustee Smith, Trustee Krupski, Trustee Larsen, Trustee Bredemeyer, Trustee Goubeaud THIS RESOLUTION WAS DECLARE DULY ADOPTED. VOTE OF BOARD ON PERMIT Moved by Trustee Bredemeyer seconded by Trustee Goubeaud it was RESOLVED to Approve the Wetland Permit in the matter of the application of Cramer/Moore for the construction of a single family dwelling on Meadow Lane, Mattituck subject to the preferred site set backs and C. & R's as described in the findings and subject to the proper language of the C & R's by the Town Attorney. Vote of Board: Ayes: Trustee Smith, Trustee Bredemeyer, Trustee Goubeaud '.. Nay: Trustee Krunski, Trustee Larsen .THIS RESOLUTION WAS DECLARED DULY ADOPTED. INTENT OF PERMIT .(Subjectto prosper language of C & R's by Town Attorney) House to be sited a minimum of 25' from the road. C & R's to protect inperpe 30' of the marsh fringe, excluding 4' wide path to wetland for water access/and or catwalk assembly. No use of inorganic fertilizers anywhere, no "Turf" area, no deck or patio areas to rear and rear window area no . more than 1.33 times State Building Construction Code. Conditions of Permit: As described in siting, the various methods that were offered as far as crane excavation, removal of material from the site, the use of hay bales and geo-textile as depicted in the Soil Conservation Service report. No sprinkler system on the site. (ingrc,_ d) . C & R's FOR NUTRIENTS: At the option of the Applicant(s) they may either: C & R future upgrading of Sanitary System or upgrade current planned system to State of Art if approved by the County Health Department. Final wording of C & R's to be between Attorneys for the Town and Applicant with approval of Trustees. Details of Permit Fees, Building '.. Constructiontime frame and inspections required are to be set after the C & R's are addressed. All permits are presently one (1) year duration. y (Formerly) Natural Resources Conservation Service f " United States Soil Riverhead County Center � Department of Conservation Agriculture Service 300 Center Drive, Room $-16 Riverhead, New York 11901-3398 516-727-2315 FX:516-727-3160 March 28, 1996 Mr. Fred Baumgratz 105 6th-Street Garden City, New York 11530 Dear Mr. Baumgratz: A site inspection has been completed to develop a planting plan for your property at 675 Meadow Lane. The entire area surrounding the house slopes steeply toward Deep Hole Creek. Erosion and sediment deposition into the creek is a major concern until vegetation is established. Action must be taken immediately to protect thecreekfrom sedimentation. In— stall a silt fence and or straw bale sediment barrier along the edge of the cleared area bordering the creek according to the en- closed standards and specifications. Extend the barrier up the j slope on the north and south sides of the property_a minimum of 10 feet to prevent runoff from traveling around the ends of the bar- rier. The gutters and downspouts on the house must outlet into indi- vidual dry wells to reduce the amount of runoff traveling down the slope and into the creek. This action will be very helpful as you try to establish a lawn, since it will eliminate concentrated flow of runoff and prevent gully or rill erosion from occurring. The lawn area should be seeded as early in the spring as condi- tions permit but no later than May 15th. Due to the sensitivity of the area, grass species that require little or no maintenance should be considered. Grasses that fit this category include creeping red fescue, chewing fescue, fine fescue and perennial ryegrass. A suitable seed mixture would include: SEED TYPE VARIETY RATE lbs./1000 sq. ft. 15% Creeping red fescue Ensylva 0.75 30% Chewings fescue Agram, Checker 1.50 30% Hard fescue Relient, Tournament 1.50 15% Perennial ryegrass Blazer) Pennant 0.75 10% Kentucky bluegrass Adelphi, Rugby 0.50 (Formerly) The.SON Conservation service SCS-AS-1 U The Natural* Conservation Service (NRC5) Vis an aowent of the 10-79 Department of Agriculture AN EOUAI OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 2 - Apply lime to raise the pH to 6.0. When starting a new lawn, some fertilizer is required. Apply 20 lbs. of 5-10-10 or equivalent per 1000 square feet at planting. Since the slope is relatively steep, you may want to hydroseed the grass seed onto the area. This process applies the seed, fertil- izer, lime and mulch onto the soil in one operation. The fibrous mulch holds the seed in place, helps protect the soil from erosion during establishment and retains moisture. I have included a de- scription of the various seeding options available to you. If plans are to wait until the fall to establish the lawn, a tem- porary seeding of annual ryegrass should be planted in the spring at a rate of 1 lb./1000 sq. ft. If you have any questions concerning this report, or need further information or assistance, you may reach me at 516-727-2315. Sincerely, Allan S. Connell ASCjms encs. cc: Southold Trustees I ra \ r e-�.�•.d�6-. ..v ;,j� 1 4-1 \R _ 1 � ��, _ �K��_ (.{ ""'•••••1..."44444 I v t..,r Vic. d P ek+mm�hcavum.asa:.:,a � la Yo'<asygg�a„ttyu R� n nwn•rer us�.wrq Watrai . atl Me+.mMM4ex..Avjasw-maea. Ul FCvtSNY&X: YAfM�Y(i$EiE,IPATkti t ru.c \ .z.-:o 9�v a �' �I�F r tr us++� v,e vvcwa�a..mo7 �M ua:g•�. vrn�a �'. WF.4'1 Y Vvi• Ma4+rrx"a=. n .,w.y zw-»,aewwc.:` a. Qin 2a eap:�yfPltSq ��5:�9lLiS Kr-+a ky�,erea+v-t v - , Ftexvw 3'�'M Fxw,i�w 19 90-,9 t'.. ¢ ",Qe �rr6Pl A ttS.e ss Vs¢ b'6 I • (��arsaarl �� °""" twine k4='S 'fi41 9 ;. rr_n z a,er,,,K..v,elzuKt+ar W:xau,Maks: �9v s�.aAS 9• . � 3�Rams �'W�c"✓6t4�a 4� � �K -< . 1*'�Area in the building ,envelope �� above the 10' contour line, as approveelw � 4:aw++c r eny vq�yrs><vns.T Ary F�1Att�x'cxs^.,��i�.BT`'-^-'tel !l®LP and outlined on the attached map, dated t1" Yam w August- 24, 1985 M1.14; `� ftrr./ 'tlS-GfmX. $� �FryN��.� IL*,.:3.iM1Y. , 4An5�'ny.�.0 ACHn6w' p@9 Mf+,"�Y#tt Kvi I W ttrpm�z� esx¢ceam-y mosswxn r.--;- ntrty `/asac s Figine 5A 9; , Silt F��ice'L�fai[s WOOVENVEN GI WIRE FENCE (MIN 141112 GAUGE,MAX.6"MESH - 10 MAX.C TO C. 3MiFN. ENCE POSTS,DRIVEN MI 1 167 INTO;GROUND 77�^ I 6A1 1 n Y I J �1. 'F ,hr � Y „S /� 1 � _ n f yy 8'MIN. �y PERSPECTIVE VIEW Jr 36"MIN. FENCE POtT WOVEN WIRE SPACING) WITH FI GA.MIN.,O MAX. WOVEN SPACING)WITH FILTER GA. CLOTH XVER�+ 20'MIN. . FLOW �� UNDISTURBED GROUND EMBED FILTER CLOT, MIN,:$'INTO GROUND IS"MIN. SECTION CONSTRUCTION NOTES FOR FABRICATED SILT FENCE 1. WOVEN WIRE FENCE TO BE FASTENED SECURELY TO FENCE POSTS POSTS: STEEL EITHER 'T'' OR 'U' WITH WIRE TIES OR STAPLES. TYPE OR 2' HARDWOOD 2. FILTER CLOTH TO BE TO BE FASTENED SECURELY TO WOVEN WIRE FENCE: WOVEN WIRE, 14 1/2 GA. FENCE WITH TIES 'SPACED EVERY. 24' AT TOP AND MIO SECTION. 6' MAX. MESH OPENING 3> WHEN TWO SECTIONS OF FILTER CLOTH ADJOIN EACH OTHER FILTER CLOTH: FILTER X. THEY SHALL BE OVERLAPPED BY SIX INCHES AND FOLDED. MIRAFI 100X, STABILINKA 'T140N OR APPROVED EQUAL. 4, MAINTENANCE SHALL BE PERFORMED' AS NEEDED AND MATERIAL PREFABRICATED UNIT: .GEOFAB. REMOVED WHEN "BULGES'.DEVELOP IN THE SILT FENCE ENVIROFENCE. OR.APPROVED EQUAL. -:U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE- C STANDARD SYMBOL SOIL `CONSERVATION SERVICE SILT FENCE SYRACUSE, NEN YORK New York'Guidelines for Urban , Pap 5A.20 . October 1"I-Third.Printing Erosion and Sediment Control ------------- STANDARD AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR SILT FENCE Definition Where ends of filter cloth come together, they shall be overlapped, folded and stapled to prevent sediment A temporary barrier of geotextile fabric(filter cloth)used bypass.See Figure 5A.9 on page 5A.20 for details. to intercept sediment laden runoff from small drainage Criteria for Silt Fence Materials- areas of disturbed soil. 1.Silt Fence Fabric:The fabric shall meet the following Purpose specifications unless otherwise approved by the ap- propriate erosion and sediment control plan approval The purpose of a silt fence is to reduce runoff velocity and authority. Such approval shall not constitute effect deposition of transported sediment load.Limits im- statewide acceptance. Statewide acceptability shall posed by ultraviolet stability of the fabric will dictate the depend on in field and/or laboratory observations and maximum period the silt fence may be used evaluations. Conditions Where Practice Applies Minimum Acceptable A silt fence maybe used subject to the following conditions: Fabric Properties Value Test Method 1.Maximum allowable slope lengths contributing runoff Grab Tensile 90 ASTM D1682 to a silt fence are: Strength(lbs) Slope Maximum Slope Elongation at 50 ASTM D1682 Std Lcnzh(W Failure(%) 2:1 50 Mullen Burst 3:1 75 4:1 175 Strength(PSI) 190 ASTM D3786 5:1 175 Puncture Strength(lbs) 40 ASTM D751 Flatter than 5:1 200 (modified) 2. Maximum drainage area for overland,flow to a silt Slurry Flow Rate 03 fence shall not exceed 1/2 acre per 100 feet of fence; (gal/min/so and 3. Erosion would occur in the form of sheet erosion;and Equivalent Opening Size 40-80 US Std Sieve CW-02215 4. There is no concentration of water flowing to the barrier. Ultraviolet Radiation 90 ASTM G-26 Design Criteria stability(%) Design computations are not required.All silt fences shall be placed as close to the area as possible, and the area 2•Fence Posts(for fabricated units):The length shall be below the fence must be undisturbed or stabilized. a minimum of 36 inches long.Wood posts will be of sound quality hardwood with a minimum cross sec- A detail of the silt fence shall be shown on the plan,and tional area of 3.0 square inches. Steel posts will be ` contain the following minimum requirements: standard T and U section weighing not less than 1.00 1.The type,size,and spacing of fence posts. Pound per linear foot. 3.Wire Fence(for fabricated units):Wire fencing shall 2.The size of woven wire support fences. - i be a minimum 14-1/2 gage wither maximum in.mesh 3.The type of filter cloth used. opening,or as approved. 4.The method of anchoring the filter cloth. 4.Prefabricated Units: Envirofence or approved equal 5.The method of fastening the filter cloth to the fencing maybe used inlieuofthe above method providingthe support. unit is installed per details shown in Figure 5A.9. October 1991-Third Printing f :Page 5A.19 New York Gilldeliims for'Urban Erosion and Sediment Control Figure SA-�& Straw Bate Dike Details FLOW , 9- --4"VERTICAL -4 1. 1 FACE J BEDDING DETAIL DRAINAGE AREA NO MORE THAN iM oc.PER.100 FEET OF STRAW BALE DIKE FOR SLOPESLESS THAN 25"/e ANGLE FIRST STAKE TOWARD :.. PREVIOUSLYLAID BALE S A +' `FLOW �3 BOUND BALES PLACED ON CONTOUR •� 2 RE-SARS,STEEL PICKETS,OR 2x2STAKES 1 I/2•. TO 2' IN GROUND,DRIVE STAKES FLUSH WITH BALES. 1 ANCHORING DETAIL OxV5WION SPECIFICATIONS 1. BALES SHALT_ BE PLACED AT THE TOE OF A SLOPE OR ON THE CONTOUR AND IN A RDW WITH ENDS TIGHTLY ABUTTING TIE ADJACENT BALES. 2. EACH BALE SHALL BE EMBEDDED IN THE SOIL A MINIMUM OF (4) maim AND PLACED SO THE BINDINGS ARE HORIZONTAL, 3, MUS SHAH.. BE SECIY ANOMED M PLACE BY EITHER TWO STAKES OR RE-BARS DRIVEN TH(NO M THE BALE. I HE FIRST STAKE IN EACH BALE SKILL BE DRIVEN TOWARD THE PREVIOUSLY LAID BALE AT AN ANGLE TO FORCE THE BALES TOGETHER. STAKES SHALL BE DRIVEN FLUSH WITH SHE BALE. 4. INSPECTION am-L BE FREQUENT AND REPAIR REPIJVcmw SHALL BE MADE PROMPTLY AS NEEDED. S. BALES SHALL BE RDIOVED WEEN THEY HAVE SERVED THEIR USEFULNESS SO AS NOT TO BLACK ` OR IMPEDE STORM FLOW OR DRAINAGE. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE STANDARD.SYMBOL SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE STRAW BALE DIKE SYRACUSE, NEW YORK ` SBD New York Guidelines for Urban , Page 5A.18 t)etober t99I Thir*1 Printing Erosion and Sediment Control STANDARD AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR STRAW BALE DIKE Definition 4. Length of slope above the straw bale dike does not exceed these limits. A temporary barrier of straw or similar material used to Constructed Percent Slope Length intercept sediment laden runoff from small drainage areas Slope Slooe (ft.) of disturbed soil. 2:1 50 25 Purpose 2-1/2:1 40 50 3:1 33 75 :1 The purpose of a bale dike is to reduce runoff velocity and 3-1/2 430 100 4:1 25 125 effect deposition of the transported sediment load.Straw bale dikes have an estimated design life of three(3)months. Where slope gradient changes through the drainage area steepness refers to the steepest slope section contributing Conditions Where Practice Applies to the straw bale dike. The straw bale dike is used where: The practice may also be used for a single family lot if the slope is less than 15 percent. The contributing drainage 1.No other practice is feasible. area in this instance shall be less than one acre and the 2.There is no concentration of water in a channel or other length of slope above the dike shall be less than 200 feet. drainage way above the barrier. Design Criteria 3.Erosion would occur in the form of sheet erosion. A design is not required. All bales shall be placed on the contour with cut edge of bale adhering to the ground. See Figure 5A.8 on page 5A.18 or details. I_ i i October 1991-Third Printing ..Page SA.17 New York Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control r Cool Season Mixtures Warm Season Mixtures Good results are usually attained from Seed should be planted on droughty, seedings or plantings that are established sandy or gravelly-sites as early in the in the spring before May 20 or in late spring as possible and prior to May 1. On summer after August 15. Spring seeding sites where soils have a high percentage of legumes is recommended, however, of fines (greater than 15% silt and clay) late summer seedings prior to September 1 plant by June 1. April or early May seed can also be made. When crownvetch is ings are frequently more successful than seeded inIate summer at least 35 percent late May seedings. of the seed should be hard seed (un- scarified) , to provide additional germination in the spring. Seeding Or Planting Temporary seedings of annual ryegrass, groper seeding and planting techniques spring oats,or a combination of them are important to insure successful plant- may be made any time during the early or Ings on critical areas. The slope ofahe mid-spring season. Sudangrass or an- land, soil .texture, moisture regime and nual ryegrass may be used for late spring and summer seedings. Annual ryegrass plant species all need to be evaluated or wetter grains may be used for late before selecting the most appropriate summer and.fall temporary seedings. system and equipment. Temporary seedings of spring grains and Drill annual ryegrass maybe made in August. A grass drill (not a grain drill) or a Permanent seedings of perennial grasses cultipacker-seeder are the best methods and/or legumes may then be overseeded of seeding. But the preferred method in the spring. For other temporary seed will depend on slope and conditions of ings, where regrowth is desired in the the planting site. Grasses must be spring, winter hardy grains or perennial planted no more than 1/4 to 1/2 inch ryegrass may be seeded in August or deep. If the drill does not have a packer early September. attachment, a packer/roller should be trailed behind the drill. If seedings or plantings are made during dry periods(May 15-August 10), irriga- Tracking tion may be necessary to insure a successful seeding. Irrigation generally On steep slopes or where drilling is not is not recommended on steep slopes. feasible, broadcasting and tracking with a. 7 t a bulldozer is an alternative method. or mulch materials with the hydroseeder, r Tracking is performed by running a dozer do not use more than 100-150 pounds of up and down the slope, offsetting each solids per 100 gallons of water. pass so that the entire area is covered 1 with tracks. This technique is especially When legume seed is to be included in a valuable on droughty sites and wherever slurry mixture containing fertilizer, the flatpea or warm season grasses are used. amount of inoculant addedto the tank should be four times the rate prescribed Hydroseeder by the inoculant manufacturer. A low solution pH is detrimental to the legume This method is best for steep, inaccessible inoculant. If inoculant is in a seed, fer- j areas where a drill or other mechanized tilizer, and lime slurry, it should be used equipment is difficult or impossible to within 3-4 hours, or a fresh supply of I use. When applying seed, lime, fertilizer inoculant should be added. If there are A Hydroseeding/Hydromulching -Applying seed,fertilizer and mulch. i Nl S . i $y- .. •.�.- -.. .�......, �uivs�6fuuw..o:„eY.�.„rnW.iil" g V^ t e .,. ti no legumes in the seed mixture,the seed Sprigging may be mixed in a slurry with the lime and fertilizer. Hydrated lime should not This is done by planting a shoot, root,or be used if seed is to be mixedinto the sprout of a plant. It is a costly method, slurry. but may be necessary to establish some plants on critical erosion areas. Broadcast Sprigging should be done in the early: Seed may be broadcast by using a spring,just before the time that normal whirlwind or cyclone seeder,or by hand. plant growth begins. Lime and fertilizer If spread by hand, seed may be mixed should be applied in accordance with the with sawdust to help achieve an even needs of the species to be planted. distribution. This is helpful for seeding small quantities of very small or light Sodding' seeded species such as redtop lovegrass, or little bluestem. This consists of covering an area with sections of sod in order to provide quick One half of the seed should be applied by soil protection. Select a dense s o d walking in one direction, the other one containing suitable varieties for half by walking at 90 degrees to the first the site to be sodded. Sod must be free direction. This yields a much more of problem weeds. Use "certified" uniform seeding with fewer "missed" varieties of grasses. Additionally, sod areas. Incorporate seed by cultipacking should be at least one year old, but not or raking,or tracking with a bulldozer. older than 3 years. The sod should be placed within 12 hours of cutting. Frost seeding is"a technique which promotes seed incorporation by the frost Lay strips of sod across the slope, action of daily freezing and thawing. beginning at the bottom. Strips This takes advantage of the frost cracks may be anchored using 6-12 inch wire in the soil by broadcasting seed from staples that are spaced 2 feet apart along February through April when snow isnot the up-hill edge of the sod strip. Stagger present. Some of the seed will move into joints and make sure the ends are butted the frost cracks as the ground repeatedly up tightly. Roll the sod after placement freezes and thaws. Success depends to improve contact with the soil surface. greatly on timing. Round seeds work Irrigate after rolling and during dry better than light fluffy seeds when using periods, this technique. s Maintenance Mulching In spring of the second year bf new seed- Mulching is a very important step in es ings apply 300 - 400 lbs/ac of 5-10-10 of tablishing vegetation on critical areas. A fertilizer or equivalent. When seedings mulch cover will help hold moisture, or plantings consist of only grasses, an application of nitrogen fertilizer should Protect soil from erosion hold seed in be appliedannually at the rate of 40 place, and keep soil temperatures more constant. Mulch reduces the"frost heav- pounds per acre, or, approximately 1 ing" of small plants during the early pound per 1000 square feet. Where spring freeze/thaw periods. It should be legumes are included in the planting, applied uniformly by mechanical means nitrogen applications are usually not or by hand. Somebare soil should still be necessary nor recommended. If nitrogen visible through the mulch, applications' are made they can be in- jurious to the legume. Obtain a soil test Hay, straw or other fibrous mulches are and apply phosphorus and potassium as the best for newly seeded areas. Some tests indicate. mulches are subject to blowing and must be kept moist or "tied' down. Mulch materials may also be used alone as a Mulching - Proper mulch rate and uniform temporary ground cover measure for distribution." reducing soil erosion. .. Hydromulching T t�G y Hydromulching is a process by which water and various combinations of seed, �. fertilizer, ground limestone, inoculants, wood cellulose and even compatible in- secticidesi and fungicides are mixed in a tank to form a slurry. The slurry is main- tained by continuous agitation until used. ain- tainedbycontinuousagitationuntilused. F ,7U The material is sprayed over the area to be seeded, under high pressure. Wood r`rA cellulose mulch is suitable for.use only in , 1irr a slurry. It cannot be used for dry ap- .� ab Plications. Dry straw or hay materials may be ap- plied using a straw chopper or bedding chopper. Rotating blades chop the hay t t or straw and a blower propels the mulch 10 4. Remove all undesirable stones and other debris depending on anticipated y , land use. i 5. Compacted or crusted soil surface should be loosened to at least two inches ` _Z I :' ' by disking or other suitable methods. k tr I V 6. When mulching new seedings, apply x mulch immediately after seeding, the same day as seeding or within 48 hours. Do not mulch if germination is occurring. S "" Mulching Materials 1. Select from Table 3,the type of mulch Strawmutching machine. and application rate that will best meet out a,spout directed towards the area the need and availability of material. being mulched. Hay or straw frequently 2. If required, select the anchoring requires anchoring to prevent the mulch method from Table 6 that will work best. from being blown away. See Table S for guide to mulching materials, rates and 3. The best combination of mulching uses, and Table 6 for mulch anchoring. material for critical areas is straw(small Planning Considerations grain) mulch applied at 2 tons/acre (90 lbs/1,000 sq.ft). Anchor the straw mulch 1. Consider mulching equipment with wood fiber mulch (hydromulch) at availability, i.e.: hydromulchers, straw 750 lbs/acre(17-20 lbs/1,000 sq.ft.). The mulchers,etc. Some mulch materials re- Food fiber mulch must be applied quire specialized equipment to apply a through a hydroseeder immediately after product properly. straw mulching. 2. Prior to mulching, install the neces- sary temporary or permanent water erosion control(structural)practices and drainage systems within or adjacent to the area to be mulched. 3. Slope, grade and smooth the site if conventional equipment is to be used in applying and anchoring the mulch. 11 TABLE 5 GUIDE TO MULCH MATERIALS, RATES AND USES Application Rates Depth of Mulch Quality per 1000 per Applica- Material Standards Sq. Ft. Acre tion Remarks Sawdust Free from ob- 83=500 ' -- 1-711 Most effective as a green, or jectionable cu. ft. mulch around orna- composted coarse material mentals, small fruits & other nursery stock. Requires 30-35 lbs. N/ton to prevent N deficiency while decaying mulch. One cu. ft. weighs 25 lbs Wood Chips Green or air 500-900 10-20 2-7" Has about the same use or dried. Free of lbs. tons and- application as saw- Shavings objectionable dust, but requires less coarse materials N/ton (10-12 lbs. ) . Resistant to wind blow- ing. Decomposes slowly. co Wood Green or airdried 90 lbs. 2 tons -- Decomposes slowly Excelsior burred wood fibers (1 bale) Subject to some r wind blowing. Packaged. r in 80-90 lbs. bales. Wood Fiber Made from natural 50 lbs. 2000 -- Apply with hydromulcher. Cellulose wood usually with lbs. No tie-down required. (Partly di- green dye & dis- Less erosion control gested wood persing agent provided than 2t hay or fibers) added. straw. Compost or Well shredded, free 400-600 8-10 -- Use straw manure where Manure of excessive lbs. tons erosion control is coarse materials needed. May create f problem with weeds`. Excellent moisture conserver.. Resistant to wind blowing. TABLE 5 - GUIDE TO MULCH MATERIALS, RATES AND USES (Cont.) Anplication Rates Depth of Mulch Quality per 1000 per Applica- Materia 1 Standards Sq. Ft. Acre tion Remarks Cornstalks, Air-dried, shred- 150-300 4-6 tons - Effective for erosion shredded or ded into 8" to lbs. control, relatively chopped 12" lengths slow to decompose. Excellent for mulch on crop fields. Resistant to wind blowing. Gravel, Washed; Size 2B 9 cu. -- 3" Excellent mulch for Crushed or 3A - 1 1/2" yds. short slopes and Stone or around woody plants Slag and ornamentals. Use 2B where subject to foot traffic. (Approx. — 2000 lbs./cu.yd. ) . Frequently used over black plastic for better weed control tow Hay or Air-dried; free 90-100 2 T cover Use straw where mulch Straw of undesirable 1bs.2-3 100-120 about is maintained seeds & coarse bales bales 90% for. more than three . materials surface months. Subject to _ wind blowing unless j anchored. Most commonly used mulching material. Best micro environment for germinating seeds. Peat Moss Dried, com- 200-400 1/2-1 2"-4" Most effective as a pressed free cu. ft. mulch around ornament- of coarse als. Subject to wind blowing unless kept wet. j, 100 lbs. bales (6 cu. ft. ) . Excellent moisture holding capacity. - 7 ` Board of Trustees - Page 14 - April 29, 1987 27. RICHARD A. HALL WAIVER - APPROVAL Moved-by tfusrde Bredemeyer seconded by Trustee Krupski WHEREAS,."the Board members have personally viewed andare familiar with the premises in question and the surrounding area, and WHEREAS, the Board consiC7ted all the documentation submitted concerning this request, and WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact: 1. By this request appellant requests permission to register a deck 24' x 32' which replaced an existing deck on the subject ,property. 2. The subject property is located at 15 Midway Road, Southold property is identified as 1000-90-2-4 on the Suffolk County Tax Map.- 3. 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 Richard A. Hall be and hereby;is granted a waiver of the Wetland Ordinance as requested to register a deck (24' x 32') on property located at 15 Midway Road, Southold. 27. Vote of .Board: .:Ayes: All - This resolution was declared duly adopted. 28. OTTO SCHOENSTEIN - LEAD AGENCY DECLARATION Moved by Trustee Goubeaud seconded by Trustee Krupski it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Trustees declare itself lead apencv in'reQard to the State Environmental Quality Review Act in the matter of the application of Otto Schoenstein for a Wetland Permit on certain propertvloc.ated on Gull Pond, Greenport. 28. Vote of Board: Ayes: All - This resolution was declared duly adopted. Mr. Schoenstein requested an'emergency permit for the dredging on the above referenced application. Trustee Bredemeyer advised that the Board should take a careful look at the dock in this area to be sure that it does not extend out any further than the existing docks in the area. As far as the dredging was - concerned Trustee Bredemeyer advised that this does not constitute an emergency to the extent that you are providing access to safe harborage or navigation or protecting property or life or limb. 29. S.E.Q.R.A. DETERMINATION FOLLOWED BY VOTE OF BOARD ON APPLICATION NO. 312 FOR CRAMER/MOORE - MEADOW LANE, MATTITUCK. The following was read by Trustee Bredemeyer: Board of Town Trustees - Page 15 - April 29, 1987 S.E.Q,R.A. FINDINGS IN THE MATTER OF CRAMER/MOORE MEADOW LANE, MATTITUCK The following subjects represent tile..-major impacts and their micjgat ion developed through the initial D.E.I.S., Trustee scoping list leading cc Response Comments, Public Hearings (2), Work Sessions '(2) review by experts, additional field studies and the F.E.I.S. Incorporating the relevant areas above. Each area will be briefly described withreference to three general- ---categories as it might affect permitting; those areas being: 1. SITING: Includes physical. protection of the Wetland, the Soil and Water Conservation and Wildlife values. 2. COMMUNITY VALUES sy '3. NUTRIENT ENRICHMENT OF POND All these will be described with reference to the scope and the relief requested of an impact. The. degree of mitigation offered through the process. The degree of mitigation preferred by the.Board, and the reasons supporting the determination. •Board of Town Trustees - Page 16 — April 29, 1987. SITING: Siting which includes the physical protection of the marsh, soil and waterconservation and wildlife values_ A. Relief is sought to place ahouse within 75' of the Wetland Boundary. Three alternatives offered are: 13', 28' and 38' from this boundary. ExtgZ::°ve pre, during and post construction mitigative measures are described by the Applicant, Town Planner and Soil . Conservation Service. . Also included are the Applicants offer to protect the fringe with restrictive covenants ( C & R's). Extensive Wildlife inventory on site by Applicant and experts revealed no animals receiving special legal protection, but many which are hardly "door yard" varieties and should be protected by maximum mitigation to any impacts to the fringe and protecting it. B. The mitigation offered is for three distances: 13', 28' and/or 38' from the marsh and house size alternatives. C. Mitigation perferred: The Trustees interpret their 75' jurisdiction distance under Chapter 97 as a zone within which upland land use is to mitigate as many impacts as practical impinging on Wetlands. While the Board has a policy of minimum 50' buffer zones where practical, it hasprovided buffers of much less with properly mitigated upland land use. Construction controlsoffered by the Applicant and Town Planner including protective C & R's .. for most all land.seaward of the rear of the .house is preferred for maximum protection of the pond and to mitigate land use on site. Also preferred with respect to nutrient values is the no fertilizer option and containment of run off during and post construction. Protective plantings out side the C & R's Zone as described by the Soil Conservation Service, and..no deck or patio at the rear of the house as describedby the New York State D.E.C..Permit for Renate Reidel for the same lot are all indicated. Additionally, the Board prefers window. e-1 area on the rear of the house be limited to no more. than. 1/3 greater tlian the minimumrequired by the New York.State Building Code. . There shall be no pets housedoutside of the house for obvious reasons. The Boards pre coed 'location is the 38' set.back with essentially all land to the rear protected by C & R (except a buffer around the house for protective planting and/or fire .control) as - -205 Board of Trustees - Page 17 April 29, 1987. the most, responsible alternative in light of .the wildlife values associated with the. pond. Similar pond set backs exist for other houses in the area and this would permit uniform:buffer around the pond should the owners follow -suit. D. Reasons siC:- _�rtiag the siting are: 1. Options offered by the applicant are practical and .mitigative. 2. Past history of permits on the site. 3. Extensive value community places on wildlife. 4. Mitigation of impacts will be total;. possibly positive beneficial impacts if road noisecanbe reduced by plantings. COMMUNITY VALUES: The aforementioned siting contravenes the private subdivision front yard set back C & R's by 507> resulting in a setback of 25' from.the road which will.require additional consideration by the Zoning Board of Appeals under Town Code. Additional mitigation to minimize the visual impact of house size should be addressed by the Z.B.A. who has more experience in this type of action. The Trustees feel the health of the pond ecosystem should take precedence in any set back decision particularly as this is a head water of a creek which is poorly flushed but .has a diverse and abundent wildlife population as found in the F.E.I.S.. The Trustees also want minimized, the managed turf areas consistent .with this approach to minimize the apparent size of the house. It should be noted that the relief sought from both Public Law (Chapter 97 Wetlands) and Private C & R's with .the 25' front yard set back is 507,. The intensity and numcer of persons raising concerns at the public .hearings clearly weighed in favor of wildlife values. Any decision by the Z.B.A. or Court of Competent jurisdiction to set back the house further would require additional review by the Board as to potential impact. (/ NUTRIENT ENRICHMENT:A. While applicc: t employed State of Art Methodology to compute _ L Board of Trustees —Page 18 - April 2-9, 1987. Nitrogen. impact to groundwater; simple recalculation using methodology they provided,using an .average of four locally available fertilizers at recommended. . . .rates for that front yard area of approximately 2500 sq. ft. andusing a. four person residency which is not unexpected(they used 2.54) would result in nitrogen loading of approximately 15 parts per million when put on the annual rain fall basis. While the major component of the sanitary system nutrients is expected to miss the pond as per the applicants F..E.T.S. and the Suffolk. County Dept. of Health, this can not be said for the turf areas North West of the pondwhich may combine with a vector of unknown magnitude to the East from the sanitary system as described by Barbara Royce, in the expert review. This concern is substantive enough to limit all fertilizer nutrientson the site as offered in theD.E.I.S. to insure a maximal attenuation of. any Vector that has not been described. No further permits should be granted for neighboring lots until a. total nitrogen assessment is made. "This applicants refusal to perform such cumulative nitrogen calculations, based on incorrect speculation that the New York State D.E.C. ,routinely denies applications below the 10' contour and that the Town Planner could legally prevent building,on neighboring lots are not substantive ',. The other reasons gives abovedo indicate that it is not expected there would be significant impactfrom the construction with mitigated upland land use. . This applicants failure to perform such cumulative nitrogen calculations should result in a C & R burden for this site to upgrade sanitary system nutrient removal capabilities should applications for neighboring lots determine more removal is necessary. 70 Board of Trustees - Page 19 —April 29, 1987. INTENT OF PERMIT (Subject to proper language of C & R's by Town Attorney) House to be sited amfn)-gum of 25' from the road. C- & R's to protect in perpetuity 30' of the marsh fringe, excluding 4' wide path to wetland for water access/and or catwalk assembly. Nouse of inoTganic fertilizers.;anywhere,:. no "Turf" area,.;no deck or. patio areas to rear and rear window area no - more.. than 1.33 times State BuildingConstruction Code. Conditions of Permit: Asdescribed in siting, the various methods that were offered as far as crane excavation, removals of material from the site, the use of hay bales and geo—textile as depicted in the Soil Conservation .Service report. No sprinkler system on the site. (ingr, i). C & R's FOR NUTRIENTS: At the option of the Applicant(s) they may either: C & R future upgrading of Sanitary System or upgrade current planned system to State of Art if approved by the County Health Department. Final wording of C & R's to be between Attorneys for the Town and Applicant with approval of Trustees. Details of Permit Fees, Building Construction time frame and inspections required are to be set after the C & R's are addressed. All permits are presently one (1) year duration. ? °1 ' Board of Trustees — Page 20 - April 29, 1987, VOTE OF BOARD ON'FINDINGS Moved.by Trustee Bredemeyer seconded by Trustee Goubeaud it was RESOLVED to approve the Boards findings and reasons supporting the Findings regarding the. Cramer/Moore Wetland Application for construction of a single family dwell ng"'on Meadow Lane, Mattituck. Vote of Board: Ayes: Trustee Smith, Trustee Krupski, Trustee Larsen,. Trustee Bredemeyer, Trustee Goubeaud THIS RESOLUTION WAS DECLARE DULY ADOPTED. it VOTE OF BOARD ON PERMIT Moved by Trw ted B,odemcyer socnnded by Trusted Gouhonud it was RESOLVED to. Approve the Wetland Permit in the matter of the application of Cramer/Moore for the construction of a single family dwelling on Meadow Lane, Mattituck subject to the preferred site set backs and C & R's as described is the findings and subject to the proper language of the C & R'sby.the Town Attorney.. Vote of Board:. Ayes: Trustee Smith, Trustee Bredemeyer, Trustee Coubeaud Nay: Trustee Krupski, Trustee Larsen - THIS RESOLUTION WAS DECLARED DULY ADOPTED. .. President Smith called for a recess of the regular meeting at 8:25 P.M. in order to hold the following public hearings: 7:30 P.M. ,- In the matter of the application of Henry & Deborah Stasiukiewicz to fill with 150 cu. yds. of fill to level depression on property located on Cases Lane Extension, Cutchogue. 7:32 P.M. - In the matter of Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of Helen Reiter/Original Barge to install 1314 lin. ft. of retaining wall approx. - 5' landward of meadow fringe, expand existing float to 110' , install a 16' ramp and a .6' x 40' float. Run 1314' x 12' catwalk landward of retaining wall and fill with 4,000 cu, yds. of trucked in fill. Property is on Main Rd. , Southold. kedPsuc.� J� �cz urre� [ F fop IT. 105 SIXTH STREET,GARDEN CITY, LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK 11530 JUL 2 6 TOWN OF SOU OLD rr: July 24, 1995 k r z., Village of Southold Board of Trustee P.O. <Box 1179 Southold, N.Y. 11971 Gentleman: W I am in possession of permit # 452 which 'O kk expired in March 1995. I was planning on t. building, but due to the economy I was unable to sell my house in Laurel until now. �s I hereby request a one year extension to my permit. ` Trusting you will give this your utmost s� attention. IK rte; remain, Ve y Truly u s s FB:nb Frederick G. Baumgr tial yx S1. fry. � 5���- � i'1C • i�. c�3 K 5�-E {� I Tata a+ve-tea_ �'df _. G3{ ''i w$1' JOHN-A. OCCHIOGROSSO ATTORNEY AT LAW 1600 HILLSIDE AVENUE -NEW HYDE PARK, NEW YORK 11040 016 488-5770. April 15 , 1993 pR 19 ' Attn: Mr . John M. Btedemeyer � S1� Board of Town Trustees Town of Southold P.O. Box 1179 Southold , NY 11971 RE: Meadow Lane, Mattituck Southold, New York SCTM 1000-115-5-7 Dear Mr. Bredemeyer: This is to advise that Mr . & Mrs . Frederick Baumgratz acquired title to the above listed property. They look forward to working with you and the other members of the Town Board in the future . Very trul yours, ohn A. Occh' gross JAO:ao Copy to : Mr . & Mrs . F. Baum z -- aer) lei 0 '� � �'✓Lo• �2G''92� � �-O-YU"�/3 a�gj�e - /G'J7j(1`-1 a �M Crrz� gUFFO(,�- TRUSTEES ��4 CO SUPERVISOR John M. Bredemeyer, III, President �� Gym SCOTT L.HARRIS Albert J. Krupski, Jr.,Vice President o .s Henry P.Smith Town Hall John B. Tuthill �?, �� 53095 Main Road William G. Albertson '7Oj �a0 P.O. Box 1179 Telephone (516) 765-1892 Southold, New York 11971 Fax(516) 765-1823 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD April 2, 1993 I Mr. James Fisher 68 Fox Hollow Lane j Southampton, NY 11968 Re: "SCTM# 1000-115-5-7 Dear Mr. Fisher: As per our conservation on April 1,-1993, the Southold Town Trustees will not require a permit to take down a tree(s) for the installation of a' test well, in the location noted on the survey dated August 24, 1984 ( attached) . If you have any questions on the above or need additional information, please give me a call. Sincerely, John M. Bredemeyer, III v ' President, Board ofTrustees - L_, Y -���n.+_••_.�^.'.•... syn ._s.•wae._ - It (� - - !'_ _ )' 41 4' cs ,As ,sr{� �Lta lo'eevi'R.aft L:Nc-" �' I.F:TI.'(O fRl•W11 41kLLM'L 1 I.LI CIWIMNQxR KJ+IaT tCYx. VI Out\NIKb YIrtM C.•+R6an�llJ.LMp I � •:Vyl khD CRYWCLL 4. vYFi Ax\cu1 .}Ify. EYh•/V OUTiY_<4 TFx MW+l4n^:R14: �crl�,�_na��rrrsresrurr urcur�o Ain. �„��•:,� �...�.�,o, i .. �rt'\oM1h\.+�..b.A SCc't1cVM1tL�4>c�•[w:leb � -.y,�bry �> (i! Y 6V W(` n `Mhl\Rt'/.N.E<!I!\hS.I^K..•� --� ,.. ,...q�.wc•K.Y. f4i AI A')MfM1 q! to ^.'{Z 41q' +,'4 yVWbSlF �TMSfSVICfS Lat:wV VA w n:�4... - ..� xvc feX.m 4•�)•50-Ib '^qYO b3 "0�1' Of LeT Attl.n+: _ - -_ :rluor�.naalf.4 VA.'S'CgrM .. � Qp,'�j'^lyy7 zz•557 aw.w� fe�,- �•ii9'ALLrn' IP.YoL>[- ( M4r� P9J r�.ea( Fes• sgryif r— '� �Ci.:_.r.�l f erornws-,e deertwe.-r4.me,.w!!s: TaloMas. Area in the building envelope, L"N 4?_ ab4ve,-,the 10 contour line, as approved n K^'tea Y »1` r" Memiv Txyrj�. x�rHo�b a TAVq Yom x� andpullined:on the attached map, dated }i� ycEK Au`gust •24„!'1985 �•�,�a„ t Aga • *�>.,..� �,•... ±C '� .�f'' 'W^W ' 'Tlkl�'nn M(�r1xY,t. xW uax>•w.m"tu-1 �l. L/Noe.�+�PMSMn-wT_ 117T6 ( w IY��yyryy yiJrry��i LL : Ati adn .. j_•M•TYl hr.,en-1_l,ltDS _ ,o TRUSTEES �4S11ff0(�Cp SUPERVISOR John M. Bredemeyer, III, President =yam Oy< SCOTT L.HARRIS Albert J. Krupski,Jr., Vice President y x Henry P. Smith ,i. rn, Town Hall O • 53095 Main Road John B. Tuthill William G. Albertson Oj �`D� PO. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1892 Fax(516) 765-1823 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD March 26, 1993 James E. Fisher 64 Fox Hollow Lane Southampton, NY 11968 RE: SCTM 41000-115-5-7 Dear Mr. Fisher: The following action was taken by the Southold Town Board of Trustees on Thursday, March 25, 1993: RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board of Trustees hereby reinstates Permit #452 to construct a one family dwelling on property located at Meadow Lane, Mattituck NY. Please note that all Covenants and Restrictions and conditions imposed by the Southold Town Trustees and the Zoning Board of Appeals still apply to this permit. The owner of this property shall discuss these conditions with the .Board of Trustees. prior\ to obtaining a building permit. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this of€ice. Very truly yours, 1��4John M. Bredemeyer, III President, Board of Trustees JMB:jmd CC: Bldg. Dept. ZBA John A.Occhiogrosso Gillbert Flanagan 14 5 J`J013N A. 0cci-no sR0SS0 f ATTORNEY AT LAW "9$'OWN OF S /('j} 4 1600 HILLSIDE AVENUE -NMI IIYUT-FAW. unjr -RlIl0'0 516 488-5770 March 3 , 1993 Board of Town Trustees P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 RE: Baumgratz from Fisher Meadow Lane , Mattituck Southold , New York Gentlemen: On February 12, 1993, 'I wrote to you requesting certain information regarding the above. A copy of my letter of that date is enclosed . I had also previously written to the Southold Board of Appeals . They replied to my letter and indicated that there wassome litigation involved regarding the above listed premises since ZBA deter- minations in 1987 . It would be appreciated if you would advise regarding the status of same . A copy of the Board of Appeals letter is enclosed . V y truly yours , hn A. Occhiogrosso JAO:ao Enc . Copy to : Mr. Baumgratz ��gDEFO(�co APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS 4 p SCOTT L.HARRIS W- Supervisor Gerard P.Goehringer,Chairman H Z Serge Doyen,Jr. p • Town Hall, 53095 Main Road James Dinizio,Jr. '!' p! P.O.Box 1179 Robert A.Villa �� t Southold,�qew York 11971 Richard C.Wilton Fax (516)765-1823 Telephone (516)765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS Telephone (516) 765-1800 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD February 22, 1993 John A. Occhiogrosso, Esq. 1600 Hillside Avenue New Hyde Park, NY 11040 Re: Appeal No. 3654 and Appl. No. 3412 Property at Meadow Lane, Mattituck Dear Mr. Occhiograsso: In reply to your inquiry concerning the above property, please note that the actions taken by the Board of Appeals under the above file numbers are still effective. You may wish to check further with the Town Trustees since there was litigation involved and our office is not familiar with the most recent updates concerning past activities at the site since these ZBA determinations in 1987 . Very truly ours, GERARD P. GOEHRiNGER CHAIRMAN' lk G �� '✓ � � r4 1f1 i >S JOHN A. QCCHIOGPOSSO '� 1 6 y ATTORNEY AT LAW @@@Q UD 1.600 HILLSIDE AVENUE - �. 1040 February 12, 1993 Board of Town Trustees P.O. Box 1179 Southold -NY 11971` RE: Baumgratz from Fisher Meadow Lane , Mattituck Southold, New York Gentlemen: I represent Frederick & Ruth Baumgratz who are under contract" of sale to purchase the above listed,vacant land . On January 29 , 1991 , you issued a letter to William Moore regarding Wetfands Permit #452 . A copy of this letter is enclosed- Please advise whether , the terms and' conditions of this letter are still in effect and will permit Mr. & Mrs . Baumgratz to construct a dwelling on said premises after acquiring title. Please advise further if there is any deadline date on construction. Thank you. Y-gry truly yours , dohn A. Occhiog sso JAO:ao Enc . Copy to: Mr . & Mrs . Baumgratz 1 �soFF©ix�o� TRUSTEES SCOTT L. HARRIS john M. Bredemeyer. III, President Oy Supervisor Henry P. Smith, Vice President. Albert J. Krupski Jr. 'J�' Town Ball, 53095 Main Road John L. Bednoski Jr. P.O. Sox 1179 John B. Tuthill Southold, New York 11971 BOARDOF TOWN TRUSTEES Fax (5t6);765-1823 Telephone (516)765-1892 TOWN OF SOUTHO .D Telephone(516) 765-1800 January 29, 1991 William Moore Suite 3 Clause Common' s Mattituck, NY 11952 RE: Meadow Lane, Mattituck - Permit 452 Dear Mr. Moore: Asper our conversation today, please.. note that as work was commenced prior to the February 16, 1989 expiration date of the permit, the permit is still valid. Also note that all the terms and conditions of the existing permit are still in effect. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Very truly yours, John M. Bredemeyer, III President, Board of. Trustees JMB:jmt President's Club - Phone:(516)283-0008 JAMES E. FISHER 64 Fox Hollow Lane Southampton,New York 11968 May 1. 1992 Southold Town Trustees Town Hall 53095 Main R(b&d PO, Box 1179 Southold NY 11971 Dear Board Members: I would like to file a formal complaint regarding the existence of the following items located in or near to the pond adjacent to my Meadow lane property. Therea e approximately 15 metal pipes running from the far shore of the pond out into the middle and then bearing off at an angle. There is a plywood tree house located close to the pond and admittedly build-without a pemtit by a neighbor directly across the pond from my property. There is occasionally a boat dock at the shoreline directly acrossthe pond from me. I say "occasionaay" because the dock seems to appear and,dissappear at various times. I would like to have these, items removed since I feel>;they have been illegally installed or constructed. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Cordially, aures E. Asher 1 NOTICEtl - Police Dept. - BayConstable Tows of Southold $ Peconic, New York 11958 MAY 2 U992 { NOTICE OF VIOLATION _ OWF SOUTHOLD Date:------ — ---- ----, 19--�-- To: - --- --- (Owner or authorized agent of owner) i 3 ox F#o rl c,.�e /L fin= 79 rn_~p�f A,, � __Tl�_9 -- Address, owner or authorized agent oz owner) Please take notice there, exists a violation of the Code of the ' Town of Southold, Chapter 97 Article----�---- Section--_L-------- at premises hereinafter described in that-7— -- 7----- -- I--_----------ars _-- ----�--°�-?--�-=-�-�-------- - You are therefore directed and ordered to comply with the following: s^cr ieaa �--Via `-------- r on or before ----= -----day of ----=)-u' ------, 19- 7 --- The premises to which this Notice of Violation refers are situated at: -__e- _-_____r ri luG Lown of Southold, . a� Suffolk County, ' N-.y . (Suff. County, Tax, Map Designation: Dist. /(500 C Section:—-- ---Block.-`= ---Lot: -=�---1- Failure 'to comply with' -the applicable provisions of the law may , constitute an offense punishable by 'fine or imprisonment or both. NOTICE: You have ;the right to apply for a hearing before the Board of Trustees of the Tows of Southold,, provided that you file a :written request with the Clerk of the Trustees within 10 ;days,after service .of the rNotice> of Violation. Such request shall have annexed thereto a ' copy, of the Notice of Violation upon which' a Hearing is requested and shall set forth the reasons why such notice of violation should be modified or rescinded' Bay Constable, Town of Southold, NY z? `�.u✓ President's Club Phone:'�516)283-0008 JAMES E. FISHER nip 64 Fox Hallow Lane 1J Southampton,New York 11968Xl p�8v - 4 1992 I May 1, 1992 TOWN OF SOUT OLD Southold Town Trustees Town Ball 53095 Main Road PO Lox 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Dear Board Members: I appreciate,the opportunity you afforded msi to meet with you and explain the circumstances relating to the lot on Meadow lane, Mattituck. Please be assured that I did not intend to violate the C&R's of the, Southold Town Trustee's Permit. My motive in clearing the` 'vines'out of the trees was to preserve the health of the trees. Since these vines were cut back but not removed, I am sure the vegetated buffer will be reestablished by-,'mid- summer. In addition, please be assured that no work will take place on this lot without the approval of your office. I feel that the meeting last evening, which was not supposed to be a re-hearing on this matter, turned into just that. It was not a pleasant experience ,for anyone. Much that was irrelavant was brought up, such as a particular persons health problems, the fact that a school bus could now be heard, and oregentlemans feelings about real estate speculation and developers in general. (I am not a 'real estate developer. ,By occupation, I am an insurance broker, a 'securities dealer and an occasional real estate investor.) President's Club Phone: (516)283-0008 JAMES E.FISHER - - 64 Fox Hollow Lane -' - Southampton,.New York 11968 Southold Town Trustees Page 2 i As S see it, ohe.parta-cular neighbor across the pond likes having a pristine view across the pond and will do whatever it takes to prevent me from building a house and exercising my rights as a property owner. Cordially, s EZr r OF O C 74to AL GAG " ox d l�fi titmrl/ ` . -�o v���► t�..c. , �. fat �'�� f ` bt�44 ;V ( le �uu i" f { ✓ l� AM- . a W.G d1�1l� 000 d UL F� A44 arra" fry l ,t� 4L.. ,6 rte` 4 -74t m.0 a 'na.Av,, MCAAv 7v . f Pio �Q..60 A.w a tJ' 11Gh.lt.G• �1 G/6tXiLc- /��'ditnt.Q.� i� ip 1,� v �� J% { JA t i il�L aur s (rH At mit Ac�,G�Cw�r,�� /W4ptc C Wile, riri { �zt't'o�� lez ti � � av � � �A Ov . \ Sat zi kie' Jo _ ll� 411t,(nt 3 o 46 A� �k2itrrrn aA L'Fi DS. C Z�LtaxcC� �J _ c u e ►a of�r i - 8 &afs —_ --------- f 1 Mme-- -;tW- ?hl,,, - i i { I { f 4 i t t y i i J i SERAFINA CORSE LO, M.D. 1 15 EAST MAIN STREET Telephone (516) 271-02Sa S 2# 11-2335700 RECEIPT rOR i SERVICES P° Q. PDX 307-NEW SUFF-OLK A T A7'7"ITUCK, NY 1195E H:298-6419 —_ TYPE CODE DETAIL DESCRIPTION AMOUNT PATIENT INSURA9+9CE Date BARBARA 043092 0.00 108.90 Plat: 0 0 OFFICE D.; ANX 300.02 GENERALIZED ANXIETY Prov 13 557961 SERAFINA E JRSELLO, MD Prot ITH 90944 INDIVIDUAL PSYCHOTHERAPY 95.00 �5.00 108.90 i Dx FSE 750.7 CHRONIC FATIGUE SYNDROME g'rov IV 557161 SERAr INA ''.ORSELL7. MD .I 9"uC I1I 10784 INTRAVENOUS INFUSION ?5,00 reg o . u0 1 .8x91) 'rot IMI 90782 INTRAMUSCULAR INJECTION 7E.00 ' .001 ;.05.90 Prov jS 55796! SERA=INA CORSE1. Lo, mD Pymt CK YOUR PAYMENT--THANK YOU 9'5.00 16.7.00 ?c ss.90 Pro'.' IV 557961. SER�'FINA `CORSt-"LLO, i�iD Py t CK YOUR PAYMENT-THANK YOU 167.00- 0.00 1c:2.910 r � Yon are responsible for this 73iarC£ - - 0.00 . We have asked your insurance carrier to :send his balance directly to us ------------> 108.90 I F i I 4 F''''. I. tE.TITION .... :. . ... .. ..... . March 14 , 1992 :) MAR 5 . . . ;. v �� u w wethe norriecwners_ of tilattituok Estates , 14 24 propei,tie s an cordcredresidents of aouthol,d •Town,, ask 4 ' the .Town- Board of Trustees to , demand that the _Present m_ E owners of Lot 42 (Meadow Lane , Mattituck) , I'lilliam Moore/Cramer restore the 30 ' natural wildlife barrier that was cleared by x the prospact,a.ve owner , Mr . James _Fisher of Southampton, °. allpwzn _ it to grgw bacKto its_nazural and, original state ra' I� - before the,_proosedhouse s• _built, on the lot . .° .. ,.,_ We understand this is an obvious disregard for_the __ ._.. community' s wildlife values and is in violation -of, the , I ; restrictions of Wetland Permit ; 45?,_granted the ,Board N,r ..- .... _. - __...._.d �. of Trustees dated September 17 , 1985 , .. Loi 4L pond large_he l (extending from the _. pond) destroyed, on th March ,.5— 6th and 8th , was the home of several permanent rbi — habitants such as _herons_ and kingfishers as well as numerous •i. � ll � '-"returning se al waterfowl . ;Pha.s 'is a small , fxagile �'Y42{ . ,wetZAWL,ecosystem that we wish to protect as Part of the.. w.__._- ` future of all such "marginal" wetland areas of our beautiful North `Fork, your continued ded cation _ Thank_ :y..ou for ?. +_o_ this r r mutual concern of ours , ta1 a `" ; INANE (please print) ADDRESS SIGNATURE ._. -t. j•.h37 el.:.. I _ � p JR �: a / Mas �L• �tC-lLLXdRcxs ,9zkcE4 D�JMA!/t,TvcrC G�ifH .,. a,M(N%/C i f �C (tLt � !•�G E A��( SAL � M7 a §� Y\s ZAi P— \ c AID C7� �r1 .r i�tC- L)Dwtx,l �7g���<�—�t'r%rflr�m� �jJLi i 4 Ado c✓ h�l`Jr f�9Yc'Poc �(�y9 ✓ J t - 'i .� L7 E�R IQi n!G .(low!/{rr.!✓.✓ lr�0 �EAda .✓ 6, _ 50 /9ec t,1W ANCMST �: �/� -C� zrGitl:asl _ ctts RFs�s� JtF)ztx .z - 3.Ee� (9 Curd 'via, al J'S V'y 1577— iL � PETITLCN )4 g 4 .' We , the- homeowners_of ,Mattituck Estates neighboring poper ,ies_and ;. oncerngd_r�s? lents o_f ,Southold Town, ask , co demand that ,the presey` the".Town Board._ofTTrus.tes - nt— OWne .: rs of 42 (Meadow _Lane , Mattztuek) , i,Jilliam Moore/Cramer. restore the 30 ' natural wildlife barrier that was------ cleared by,,., the PrQ,Pectiveowner ,_._ 'ir . James , Fisher of Scuthampton , _.by ` allowing__ :t._to. grow back. to _s_-naZural_.and,._ora.�inal _state before the proposed_ house. .is__buklt upon the lotl tihis is an oGv:.ous disregard__for community' s wildlife values..and , is in violation of the NA restrictions of Wetland Permit #452 granted„ the Board of Trustees dated September 1 , 198j . " The nesting area thicket , especially bordering: the ; Lot 42 pond (extending from lame, mord }_,_destroyed, on _ March 5th 6th , and 8th ; was the home of several permanent habitants such_as_ herons and kingfishersas well as numerous returning seasonal waterfowlThisisa small ' fragile " wetland__e,cosystem,. that we wish to protect..as part of the future_ of all such "marginal" wetland areas ofour_beautifui:_ North Fork. Thenk_._;youfor your continued ,dedicatx,onto this - ::,'• mutual concern of ours . ,1 ii NAME (please print ) ADDRESS SIGNATURE o4pTiaY_��l�I ti f— i1-4S -^� i n c e Y1 vto�te8 h c}l O 7�ZY lU Pfd. t e Iet I I r ele y` * IDI l `✓ py, Mlb Y tr , t s/t t t IX x`E�"12 Cllr m�a� ��i o.: q� lk.c, ,x w •„Y A"�� / � h4 A 4 6t ) g. PETITION March 14 , 1992. Vie , the homeowners_of, Natttuck Estates, neighboring ' propertis_�sand_ concerne�cl_residents of Southold Town,_ ask _'the c,Town Board -!ofTrustees to_demand__that the present r Downers of Lot 42 (Meadow Lane , Mattituck) , William Moore/Cramer '-"restore the 301 natural ^wildlife barrier that was cleared - , the �rospeotaYe, owner , Mr . James of Southampton, by allowing,_it._to.-grow back, _to its_,natural and orzganalT state___ before the .proosedhouse is ,_buxit upon the lot, ;' We unde + rs and +nis is an obvicus disregard for the " community' s w ldlifp vAl u P,s.._anL zs_ in violation of the restricta:onr t _s of Wetland Permit #452 gzed the Board ' Of Trustees dated September 17 , 1985 , ". The nesting area thicket , especially bordering the Lot!42Fpond_ (extending.._from_.the large,_,pond ).-� destroyed,_o_n th +h March 5 6 — , and 8th , was the home of several permanent r habitants such as_,herons _and kingfishers as well as numerous returning seasonal waterfowl This is a small , fragile _,.. Twe.tland _ecosystem., that we wish to protect as part of the-: % future, of _all suer; "marginal" wetland areas of our beautiful ;£ s FNorth `Fork. _- � ----._. Thank „you ,.for , yourcontnued dedication to this mutual concern of ours , NAME (please print ) ADDREaSSIGNATURE = ' 1-ct ✓, 5 �t� o "fie�� �(o(� L r `+'o Qox 11.3 �T -77 , ter;. K 7 4 1 u 7 , ' PETIT . . . . . .""` . March 14, 1992 x - . . _..._ y+u 4 Vie , the homeowners of Mattituck Estates neighboring ` prQgri and conce.med_resi,dets_.of aouthold Town, ask `vF the .Town Board .of-,'Trus tees to demand__.that the--Present ,___.;_ ` owners of Lot 42 (Meadow Lane , Mattituck) , William Moore/Cramer m {" , ' . restore. the 301 natural wildlife barrier that was. oleared, by the Prospective owner , Mr . James Fisher of Southaznpton , by allowing, it._to .grew �aax_-to its narur,al and original. state before -the „proposed house �s__.bu� lt upon the lot.$ 4 , m We understand this ,s an obvious disregard_,for the j community' s _v_✓z3.dii,fe values and, is in _violation of the restrictions of Wetland Permit granted by the Beard � of" Trustees dated September 17 , 198,x , f '� The nesting area thicket , especially bordering the _. ..__ mm Lot-42 pond (extending from the lame ,pond ),, destroyed -on March th 6th and 8 ; was the home of several permanent . _T..:5 , th A_ habitants such _as_ h,erons_and._kingfishers as well as numerous returning seasonal waterfowl . This is a small , fragile we-t _and_e-eo:systen, that we wish to protect future of all such "marginal" wetland areas of our beautiful.�� North Fork. _ _ R Thank � ou for ou �_�._.. ._ _�_. _. y._. . . ._r_ your c ntinued dedication to this _ mutualconcern of ours , '= NAME (Please print ) ADDRESSSIGNATURE 1 Po 8cy 157AeLjSat,4t4sltve,['�ccff. 2 I 4-10 rifR 'M 15KA_ PG &X Ill FFA-VE. ✓i177 tt- c � k r A ... S' i Siec2_k. 69, F5iTc<vS�t�ta 4,,-e A -ff,X,kmlt �/�,e�(✓� i� I t o 17jL,-35at,, 6GO MA i i,ivClc- �P ,. (.L. . _.�-._ tl ..; gJ J%-��S'...� ���%'v/-��t/ 71a d�G�.a�S dw �•$�•p L�aha t? a-,": L(/ , , V. 1. k We . the homeowners_ofMattiituck Estates, neighboring ,k „• E propertigp__and concern d_res ,dents_gf. Southold Town, ask x: thee-,Town Board of Trustees to demand that- the present owners of Lot 42 (Meadow Lane , Mattituck) , William Moore/Cramer 4 restore. the 30 ' natural wildlife barrier that was cleared by, r P p_ _ . ' . _• _ her of Southampton, by ,` a the ros ective owner, Mr James Fis allowing, .atto., grow back__to._its_ natural and original__,state__ u: before the proposed _house, .z s. built. uAon the `lot , ;U „____-_We_understar:d , this . is an obvious disregard, for the _ � Community' s wildlife values. and is in violation of the 11i restrictions of Wetland Permit ;#452 :granted__ tha Board &*yyyy of Trustees I-- dated Se 5-�--- --,-----.-......_ P t e m b e r ?71 19 8 =w. The nesting area thicket , especially .bordering, the Lot 42. pond,.(extending from the large_.pond ) �destroy_ed on ^March 5th .,.-_ 6th , and 8th , was the home of several permanent habitants such .-as herons and. kingfishers as well as numerous returnin seasonal waterfowl This_ 'is_a _small , #ragiZe W_..tland_ecosystem that we wish to protect_-as, part_ of the_.,. r' _,___future_ of .all such "marginal” wetlar:d _areas,of_our beautiful North Fork. Thank_..you ,for,._ycur__conti.nued dedication 24 to this _• . mmutual concern of ours . IINAME (please Print) ADDRESS�j Q SIGNATURE i4v l`h'nat t "u. Cjc.-r O_q r v r t PETITION march 14 , ,19>:, p S � f We , the hom@,ownerso _ Matt tuck Estates , neighboring 1 ppopgrties and ccncernedresidents_of Southold ,,Town, ask the Town Board„ of Trustees to .demand__.that_the__present_ _ owners of Lot 42 (Meadow Lane , Iviat tituck) , William Moore/ Cramer restore the 30 ' natural wildlife barrier that was ole are by , '. a, j . the prospgative owner , Mr _ James.mFisher of �Southamptoni allowing, it_ to grow back to its natural and__or�.g nal state before the .proposed_ house-_isbuzlt„_,upon . the lot . �. We understand, this Is an obvios_,da.sregard for the . community'.swildlfe values and in violation of the restrictions of Wetland Permit , 452 granted-_by the Board of Trustees dated September 17 , 1985 •_ -,The nesting area thicket , especially bordering the 14 v d F. Lot 42_por.d ,(exten ding from the large_pond ) ,,,_destroy�d _on Iviarch 5th , bth and 8t•"` ; was the home of several permanent„4 habitants such as _h_eron,s, and kingfishers as well as numerous ;� re turning_:seasonal waterfowl . .. This•. 1�s a small , fragzle _ '! ' tland--ecosystem, that we wish to protect_ as part of. the future�of-_all such "marginal" ,wetland areas of our beautiful > , : • Narth�Fork. , Thank .you for your continued de,d. cation to this , mutual concern of ours . :i NAME (please print) ADDRESS SIGNATURE N Poxlf l lLD C2en Lui CLQ !� '' i �-I, ; `v`�c. I ��r S'r/ ' '�%ti-• � . �ti'�� 'zc �?�E��S/`.t r77 - r NOTICE Police Dept. - Bay Constable Town of Southold Peconic; New York 51958 1,' f ^fir NOTICE OF VIOLATION 1OVU YU Date:----tPd j�=bg To: ---- LY�e_9� _ a ------------- - - -- --- --- -- ---- (Owner orfat�thoriaed agent of owner) t T 'ra At-,5 _gni s t3aS r Address:--------------- - ------- (Address of owner or authorized agent :of owner) Please take notice there exists' a violationof the Code of the Town of Southold, Chapter 97 Article---,—L�= ----- Section--- -------- at premises hereinafter described in that------------- --,--- - --- ___•„l,�__ You are therefore .'directed and ordered to copply with the following: ¢,yr'u �:.:.., '�L'i La.. 0;" e ��, �.. t,��•,s� ., .f7 _ �,.�f_y�.� �9= s':?;arr am" ----------------------------------------------------------------------- w on or before -----day of --- The 'premises to which this Notice of Violation refers are situated at: ----__ d - - __ Town of Southold, Suffolk County, `N.y. (Suff. County 'Tax I1ap, Designation: Dist. j,000 Section: -- ---Block:--_i-_-Lot:-Lz---� Failure to comply with the applicable provisions of the law nay constitute,an offense; punishable by fine or imprisonment or both. NOTICE:, You have :the right to apply for a ,hearing before the' .Board ' of Trustees of the Town of Southold;, provided that jou file a written request with the Clerk of the Trustees within 10 days after service, of the Notice of Violation. Such request shall have annexed thereto a' copy of the Notice of Violation upon which a Hearing ' is requested and shall set forth the, reasons why such notice of violation should' be modified or rescinded, Bay Constable, Town of Southold, NY NOTICE l Police Dept. -- Bay 'Constable Town of Southold Peconic, New York '11958 L MAR 1 6 1992 NOTICE OF VIOLATION __ +.. �A N Date:---- 4s? 9?__ ----. 19J� __ L- E9 + tom ----------------------------- (Owner or authorized agent of owner) Address--- Ottka---,- -L f €____ �_s�€z � c___a�t - ° - "-_-_--_- (Address of- owner or authorized agent of owner) , Please take notice there exists a violation of the- Code of the Town of Southold, Chapter 97 Article- ----- Section--__-_%,-ej--\----- at 'premises hereinafter described in that--�-- ,� --- -3du a_ - P_ __- s si ----= -w* =--------------------- You are therefore directed and ordered to .copply with the following: ---- - ---=- Y 25--z--- `---- Y --------------------- ----------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- on or before ---' ------day of ---- - =------a 19-°- =--- The premises to which this Notice of Violation refers are situated at: as- =Vice`=---- a '_* ------------------Down of Southold, Suffolk County, N".X'. (Suff. County, 9'ax Idap Designation: Dist. f ig Section:---`3 --^----Block:--- ----Lot.-=- ---) Failure to comply with the applicable provisions of the law may constitute an offense punishable by £ine or imprison4nent or,both,. NOTICE: You have the right to ,apply< for a hearing before the Board ' of Trustees of the Town of Southold, provided that you file a written request with the Clerk of the Trustees within '10 days after service of the Notice of Violation. Such request shall have annexed thereto a copy- of the Notice of Violation upon which a Hearing is requested and shall set forth the reasons why such notice ofviolation should be . modified or rescinded, Bay Cbnstable, `Town of Southold, NY S13fF4t&��® TRUSTEES 9 John M.Bredemeyer,III,President o '<� SUPERVISOR Henry P. Smith,Vice President ,Ze SCOTT L.HARRIS Albert J.Krapski,Jr. John L.Bednoski,Jr. O�fg7� ��� TOWnllall John B.Tuthill 53095 Main Road P.O.Box 1179 Telephone(516)765-1592 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES Southold,New York 11971 Fax(516)765=1823 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD March 12, 1992 Benjamin Herzweig 18 Mapleshade Lane Stony Brook, NY 11790 William Moore P.O. Box 23 Mattituck, NY 11952 RE: SCTM #1000-115-5-7 Wetlands Permit #452 Dear Mr. Herzweig & Mr. Moore: As a result of operations on your property which we believe are in violation of wetlands Permit #452 and associated restrictive covenants filed with the office of County Clerk on October 1, 1986 this Board has suspended your wetlands permit on March 12, 1992 and requested the Building Dept. suspend your building permit(s) if any. A hearing pursuant to Chapter 97-31(b) shall be scheduled at the earliest mutually agreeable time at a regularly scheduled trustee meeting at which time you may appear with or without counsal to explain what is going on. You can expect a separate violation of the wetland ordinance from the Bay Constable which may also be discussed at that time. M , t .rf,,€—3— the clerk of the Board to schedule your hearing SANDER:' cr.hcdt Linq a `tcaring by our April 30, 1992 1 ! consider a hearing in absentia Although minor in i,,,5 matter. : r ,.• . t r r, K. •� � r r 11 AN" $ , 51,. 0 Act,,; 7 ' 1990 • A_ Sieh ©Ib1E577G ESU R - ! RE�ElpT r ms's USTEES John M.Bred mey r,III,President o ' SUPERVISOR Henry P. Smith,Vice President SCOTT L. HARRIS Albert J.Krupski,Jr: John L.Bednoski,Jr. Town Town Hall John B.Tuthill 53095 Main Road P.O.Box 1179 Telephone(516)765-1892 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES Southold,New York 11971 Fax(516)765-1823 TOWN OF'SOUTHOLD TO: Southold Town Building Department FROM: Southold Town TrusteeAl RE: William Moore Property SCTM#1000-115-5-7 As a result of an unauthorized de-vegetation within 30' of tidal wetlands; as noted by representatives of the Southold Town Trustees on the above referenced property, the Board of Trustees has suspended wetlands permit #452. on March 12, 1992 in order to schedule a-hearing pursuant to 97-31 (b) . Since this violation indicates not only a breach of the wetland permit but a violation of a filed governmental restrictive covenant, we are asking that you suspend any building permit now in force for this property and/or defer action on granting any permits for this parcel until this violation and C&R infraction is fully adjudicated by the Board and/or courts. CC: Town Bay Constable Town Attorney William Moore �SA3FFfft It TRUSTEES $a�� John M.Bredetneyer,IH,President 's SUPERVISOR Henry P.Smith,Vice President W �? SCOTT L.HARRIS Albert J.Krupski,Jr. John L.Bednoski,Jr. Town Hall John B.Tuthill 53095 Main Road P.O.Box 1179 Telephone(516)765-1892 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES Southold,New York 11971 Fax(516)765-1823 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD " TO_ Matt Kiernan FROMA John Bredemeyer6»� RE:: SCTM#1000-115-5-7 Violation of C & R's wetland permit DATE* March 12, -1992 Pursuant our conversations on_ this date, please proceed with a Lis Pendens on SCTM #1000-115-5-7. In your conversations with Harvey Arnoff, please reiterate the grave nature of this violation and proceed to conclusion with a filing (if legal) of said Lis Pendens: ` If such a filing, cannot be properly made until a quilting finding is assessed, I am expecting your offices to head up this prosecution and direct the Bay Constable and Code Enforcement officer to effect a prompt successful prosecution. The Board of Trustees is in 100% agreement that this violation is most grave and as of this date voted a suspension of the wetland permit pending a hearing pursuant to 97-31 (b1 . cc: Bay Constable l FIELDREPORT - `.POLICEDEPT.;. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD,N.Y. Ce*al Complaint No. Hamlet of Occ. Sector Incident Or Cri e / f - Gfid No. (a�ntu E Viau4 tanl Q 19-7-2-06- Day of Occurrence Dat of pcc. Time of Occ. Date f port Tues � a�e9 I if=a7A &j889 Name Complainant Vict D.O.B. 'J Ni Fk^-ft C <uSRw C K! '� 10 F Address Phone i 2vs�EE� OGFIe�E. 176 1893- ' - .Place of Occurrence rJo02,E_ �eoPE+el TimemtTime In Founded Tour Obleared By Arrest 111:3S IO Yes Lq No'1 4—'5IO Exceptionally Cleared,. Yays��S�i' �'o /ems �� ibsst CIZ3's Cd au f fLO YS C. .,W ,C O Al %V-'t+f_ '�0022..E.. �lZQ pE.R„Z"Y U P10 JJ XwvWr1CPPM45M aLrt CD 'Te1 *T— t4Y 13at.s aw 1',tiC %PE&yy A*u*b Mb'l-Vu2 t // /) 1lEGElRYZan/ f�o JioL�,Y�aw J�T- POTS 2`—Continuation Report Attached? -O Yes Reporting Officer A I Shield No Supervisor ForPDTS 1 L �r/�J (/WCL— �✓4 'i�1i�� /". IE Y 1At 20 ;c am )Z& Y' V � t///i�✓^euc ti Frank A. Kujawski, Jr. , Pres. ' J HENRY P. SMITH -4 JOHN M. BREDEMEYER, III TELEPHONE John Bednss.�, i, Jr. �: (516)765.1892 ALBERT KRUPSKI, JR. , Vice-President BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 April 22, 1988 i Mr. William D. Moore Moore & Moore Attorneys At Law Suite 3 Clause Commons Main Road, , Box 23 Mattituck, New York 11952 Re: Permit No. 452 - Meadow Lane, Mattituck Dear Mr. Moore: The following action was taken by the Board of Town Trustees during their regular meeting held on April 21, 1988 regarding the above matter., RESOLVED to Approve the request made by William D. Moore for an extension on permit No. 452, for property located on Meadow Lane, y Mattituck for a period of one year. Said permit will expire on February 16, 1989. Very truly yours, Frank Kuwski, President Board of Town Trustees FK:ip CC: D.E,C. Stony Book File SMITH, FINKELSTEIN, LuNDBEHG, ISLER AND YAS iioskI ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 456 GRIFFLNG AVENUE,CORNER OF LINCOLN STREET P. O. BOX 389 HOWARD M.FINEELSTEIN EI4EAHEAD, N.Y. 11901 PIERRE G.LUNDBERG FRANCIS J.YASABOSFI FH A.ISLER (516) 709-4100 HEGLNALD C.SMITH SUSAN POST 80GEHS i, 3926-3983 February 3, 1988 Board of Trustees Town of Southold 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11901 Re Moore/Herzweig Application Gentlemen: Please be advised that S have reviewed the filed covenants and restrictions in connection with the Moore/Herzweig application and find them in good form. Very g/Iruly yours, �� . FRA IS J r FJY;dkw ell So0 uth Id Town- hoard ®feats MAIN ROAD - STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.1., N.Y 11971- TELEPHONE (516) 1971TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS.BOARD MEMBERS GERARD.P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS,.JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT.J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH He SAWICKI - INTER-DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM TO: Southold Town Trustees FROM: Board of Appeals DATE: October 15 , 1.9187 SUBJECT: Matter of William Moore and: Benjamin Herzweig r' Ejs Meadow Lane, Mattituck Transmitted herewith for your review and file is a copy of our decision approving .the modification of the building area of the proposed dwelling as requested under Appl . No. 3654. The modification involves the placement of the "en"velope 30 feet from the front property line and 38 feet at the easterly sides of the dwelling at its closest points . (The_ initial application under Appeal No . 3412 requested 43 feet and 38 feet at the northeast and southeas-t corners , respectively. ) Please notify the Town Attorney and the applicants if it is determined that further review may be necessary - under your jurisdiction . lk HENRY P. SMITH TELEPHONE JOHN M. BREDEMEYEF, III, Presidentvim° 'i' C s ,i (516) 765.1892. John Bednoski, Jr. ALBERT KRUPSKI, JR., Vice-President ! � BOARD OF TORN TRLSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 January 29, 1988 Mr. Francis J. Yakaboski, Attorney 456 Griffing Ave. Riverhead, New York 11901 Re: Covenantsand Restrictions Moore /Herzweig Dear Mr. Yakaboski: As per your verbal approval to file the Covenants and Restrictions for the. above, please be advised that the Town Trustees would like you to review same and render your written determination regarding this issuance of the permit for same. Please respond at the earliest possible date regarding this matter. Thank you for your continued cooperation in this matter-, Very truly yours, John M. Bredemeyer, III President Board of Town Trustees JMB:ip - Attachments - cc: William D. Moore DECLARATION OF COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS This Declaration, made the18 44day of PKMAeX.., 1987, by BENJAMIN L. HERZWEIG, residing at Maple Shade Lane, Stony Brook, New York and WILLIAM D. MOORE, residing at Terry Lane, Southold, New York. WITNESSETH WHEREAS, BENJAMIN L. HERZWEIG and WILLIAM D. MOORE, are the C owners in fee simple of certain premises situate at Mattituck and known as "Lot. 42" on a subdivision map entitled "Mattituck f 2' Estates, Inc. " which map was filed with the Clerk of the County uffolk on September 8, 1965 as file number 43; described ry 4'!Y5-3 s �r ' - the - Suffolk County Tax Map as District 1000, Section 115, Block 05, Lot 07 and (�tSS WHEREAS, the Southold Town Trustees, by resolution made on 100 April 29, 1987 approved the application for a wetland permit for t the construction of a single family dwelling on the above. 1.1�5 � described premises and WHEREAS, the Southold Town. Trustees approved said 0!5 D application subject to certain Covenants and Restrictions to be filed in the Office of the Clerk of the County of Suffolk, j NOW, THEREFORE, in compliance with the resolution of said Southold Town Trustees, Declarants herein declare that the aforesaid land is held and shall be conveyed subject to the i l' following covenants and restrictions which shall run with the land: °i t 1,501 K56 . 1. There shall be no disturbance within 30 feet of the marsh fringe as shown on the survey made a part of the application for the wetland permit on file in the office of the Southold Town Trustees except a 4 foot wide path shall be permitted to the wetlands for water access and/or catwalk assembly. 2. There shall be no use of inorganic fertilizers on the property. Nor shall there be any managed turf areas. i 3 . There shall be no decks or patios constructed in the rear yard of the property. 4. No inground sprinkler systems are permitted on the property. 5. If it is determined that the cumulative impacts of residential development on other lots in Mattituck Estates which border the headwaters of Deep Hole Creek, which at this date are undeveloped, has caused the pond area north of New Suffolk Avenue which borders this property to become anaerobic, then the sanitary disposal system presently approved by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services will be upgraded to the method of sewerage disposal then being approved by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services provided that the development of said unimproved lots, if permitted, is accompanied by a covenant and restriction to upgrade sanitary disposal systems as agreed to herein. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the foregoing Declaration has been executed by BENJAMIN L. HERZWEIG and WILLIAM D. MOORE, on the 2 X562 Hants and Restrictions contird. STATE OF NEW YORK as.: County of Suffolk I, JULIETTE A.KINSELLA,Clerk of the County of Suffolk and Clerk of the Supreme Court of the State of New York in and for said County (said Court being a Court of Record) DO HEREBY CERTIFY that I'have compared the annexed copy of Al.e.�,�c��X10 0-IIIro,s6( IIH U, �ross:01 , p 6c) and that it a just and true copy of such original A-QtL� and of titre whole thereof. j, IN.TESTIMONY WHEREOF, 1 have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said County and Court this C NZA14R, day of L, it . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Clerk. Form No. 104 linos:ven son • RERZW — — Coven ds scribed ' Gariel o me 7 wri 1987 , before me he exec and Restrictions° and the Own to personally came uteri the same. and foregoing Dec be be the he duly acknowledged for tion at Notary Publi f �� W�K Way s erMOO ORE t m`�°�"68 �;.0aCft "�Y STATEae COUNT OF NEW YORK: On this OF SUFFOLK: ss, . ;. WILLIAM p8 day of j f' deScr' MOORE to1987 covenan zbed inrid me known-"( -an bef now Ore me he execuna ted thets and esame t onsstriwho xe nd hekdheLilforego.go ben to sothely came Y acknowledged t aration of t o me that ! NotrY PublZ t NOTAYAraxyO..MOORCy 2003 t^S*k CcNremR -.. .. DocIc5 ,v d 122187,2 P6 _ 311TF 3 C" g J L � ��Sv ri Qs `S '�iRy�syo. P.O. BoX m — — MATT-1 '' C. IN i5g2 asp5outhold Town Board of Appeals ;� ��• ' MAW ROAD - STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHDLD, L.L, N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (5161 765-1809 ' APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS - MCEIVED F GERARD P. GOEHRINGER,CHAIRMAN - August 7 , 1987 }}}3 CHARLES GRIGONIS,JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. - ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H.SAWICKI Attached hereto is a copy of the entire Notice of Petition and Petition received by me today at 11 : 13 a .m. concerning the pending Appeals of William D. Moore and Benjamin L . Herzweig. Ref. Appeal #3412 rendered June 30 , 1982 granting alternative relief. Pending-Appeal is #x3634 scheduled for public hearing August 20 , 1987 for 30' frontyard and 38 ' wetlands setback building envelope area . Copies to : Town Clerk , Supervisor , Francis J. Yakaboski ,, Esq . , and Z . B. A. Members Z N• 'fi t7 N I` �- � rG mma F-4 in Ir CD cn H (n F4 tj co } ! t n to fi3�- _� 1. `'1 rte._ t •\ `moi a t. L is 4I CD X " . 0 L � e QO M , C 4 •- = is � -1 q .� - Y c u O O a r c 1 m. .D m ji 1= ' 7� S.E.Q.R.A. FINDINGS IN THE MATTER i n„ OF CRAMERJMOORE yF,K E F " MEADOW LANE, MATTITUCK A i ,. The following subjects represent the major impacts and their mitigation { developed through the initial D.E.I.S. , Trustee scoping list leading to "- Response Comments, Public Hearings (2) , Work Sessions (2) review by experts, y additional field studies and the F.E.I.S. Incorporating the relevant areas above. Each area will be briefly described with reference to three general categories as it might affect permitting; those areas being: ,J- 1. SITING: Includes physical protection of the Wetland, the Soil and Water Conservation and Wildlife values. 4 2. COMMUNITY VALUES 3. NUTRIENT ENRICHMENT OF POND All these will be described with reference to the scope and the relief 4 requested of an impact. The degree of mitigation offered through the process. The degree of mitigation preferred by the Board, and the reasons supporting the determination. t w SITING: Siting which includes the physical protection of,-the marsh, soil and water conservation and wildlife values. A. Relief is sought to place a house within 75' of the Wetland Boundary. Three alternatives offered are: 13' , 28' and 38' from this boundary. Extensive pre, during and post construction mitigative measures are described by the Applicant, Town Planner and Soil Conservation Service. Also included are the Applicants offer to protect the fringe with restrictive covenants ( C & R's) . Extensive Wildlife inventory on site by Applicant and experts revealed no animals receiving special legal protection, but many which are hardly "door yard" varieties and should be protected by maximum mitigation to any impacts to the fringe and protecting it. B. The mitigation offered is for three distances: 13' , 28' and/or 38' from the marsh and house size alternatives. C. Mitigation perferred: The Trustees interpret their 75' jurisdiction distance under Chapter 97 as a zone within which upland land use is to mitigate as many impacts as practical impinging on Wetlands. While the Board has a policy of minimum 50' buffer zones where practical, it has provided buffers of much less with properly mitigated upland land use. Construction controls offered by the Applicant and Town Planner including protective C & R's for most all land seaward of the rear of the house is preferred for maximum protection of the pond and to .mitigate land use on site. Also preferred with. respect to nutrient values is the no fertilizer option and containment of run off during and post construction. Protective plantings out side the C & R's Zone as described by the Soil Conservation Service, and no deck or patio at the rear of the-.house as described by the New York State D.E.C. Permit for Renate Reidel for the same lot are all indicated. Additionally, the Board prefers window area on the rear of the house be limited to no more than 1/3 greater than the minimum required by the New York State Building Code. There .shall be no pets housed out side of the house for obvious reasons. The Boards preferred location is the 38' set back with essentially all land to the rear protected by C & R (except a buffer around the house for protective planting and/or fire control) as _2_ the most responsible alternative in light of the wildlife values associated with the pond. Similar pond set backs exist for other houses in the area and this would permit a uniform buffer around the pond should the owners follow suit. D. Reasons supporting the siting are: 1. Options offered by the applicant are practical and mitigative. I 2. Past history of permits on the site. 3. Extensive value community places on wildlife. 4. Mitigation of impacts will be total; possibly positive beneficial impacts if road noise can be reduced by plantings. I COMMUNITY VALUES: The aforementioned siting contravenes the private subdivision front yard set back C & R's by 50% resulting in a set back of 25' from the road which will._require.additional:consideration by the Zoning Board of Appeals under Town Code. Additional mitigation to minimize the visual impact of house size should be addressed by the Z.B.A. who has more experience in this type of action. The Trustees feel the health of the pond ecosystem should take precedence in any set back decisionparticularly as this is head water of a creek which is poorly flushed but has a diverse and abundent wildlife population as found in the F.E.I.S. . The Trustees also want minimized, the managed turf areas consistant with this approach to minimize the apparent size of the house. It should be noted that the relief sought from both Public Law (Chapter 97 Wetlands) and Private C & R's with the 25' front yard set back is 50%. The intensity and number of persons raising concerns at the public hearings clearly weighed in favor of wildlife values. Any decision by the Z.B.A. or Court of Competent jurisdiction to set back the house further would require additional review by the Board as to potential impact. NUTRIENT ENRICHMENT: A. While applicant employed State of Art Methodology to compute -3- Nitrogen impact to groundwater; simple recalculation using methodology they provided, using an average of four locally available fertilizers at recommended rates for that front yard area of approximately 2500 sq. ft. and using a four person residency which is not unexpectedkthey used 2.54) �womld resu t-tn- nitrogen loading of approximately 15 parts per million when put on the annual rain fall basis. While the major component of the sanitary system nutrients is expected to -miss the pond as per the applicants F.E.I.S. and the Suffolk County Dept. of Health, this can not be said for the turf areas North West of the pond which may combine with a vector of unknown magnitude to the East from the sanitary system as described by Barbara Royce, in the expert review. This concern is substantive enough to limit all fertilizer nutrients on the site as offered in the D.E.I.S. to insure a maximal attenuation of any Vector that has not been described. No further permits should be granted for neighboring lots until a total nitrogen assessment is made. This applicants refusal to perform such cumulative nitrogen calculations, based on incorrect speculation that the New York State D.E.C. routinely denies applications below the 10' contour and that the Town Planner could legally prevent building on nelghboring-lots-are'not- substantive The other reasons given above do indicate that it is not expected there would be a significant impact from the construction with mitigated upland land use. This applicants failure to perform such cumulative nitrogen calculations should result in a C & R burden for this site to upgrade sanitary system nutrient removal capabilities should applications for neighboring lots determine more removal is necessary. W „5 i INTENT OF PERMIT (Subject to properlanguage of C & R's by Town Attorney) House to be sited'a minimum of 25' from the road. " C &,R's to proteet.in perpetuity 30' of the marsh fringe, excluding 4' wide path to wetland for water access/and or catwalk assembly. No use of inorganic fertilizers anywhere, no "Turf" area, no deck or patio areas to rear .and .rear window area no more than 1.33 times State Building Construction Code. Conditions of Permit: As described in siting, the various methods that were offered as far as crane excavation, removal of material from the site, the use of hay bales and geo-textile as depicted in the Soil Conservation Service report. No sprinkler system on the site. (ingrcurd) . C & R's FOR NUTRIENTS: At the option of the Applicant(s) they may either: C & R future upgrading of Sanitary System or upgrade current planned system to State of Art if approved by the County Health Department. Final wording of C & R's to be between Attorneys for the Town and Applicant with approval of Trustees. Details of Permit Fees, Building Construction time frame and inspections required are to be set after the C & R's are addressed. All permits are presently one (1) year duration. VOTE OF BOARD ON FINDINGS Moved by Trustee Bredemeyer seconded by Trustee Goubeaud it was RESOLVED to approve the Boards findings and reasons supporting the Findings regarding the Cramer/Moore Wetland Application for construction of a single family dwelling on Meadow Lane, Mattituck. Vote of Board: Ayes: Trustee Smith, Trustee Krupski, Trustee Larsen, Trustee Bredemeyer, Trustee Goubeaud THIS RESOLUTION WAS DECLARE DULY ADOPTED. VOTE OF BOARD ON PERMIT Moved by Trustee Bredemeyer seconded by Trustee Goubeaud it was RESOLVED to Approve the Wetland Permit in the matter of the application of Cramer/Moore for the construction of a single family dwelling on Meadow Lane, Mattituck subject to the preferred site set backs and C & R's as described in the findings and subject to the proper language of the C & R's by the Town Attorney. Vote of Board: Ayes: Trustee Smith, Trustee Bredemeyer, Trustee Goubeaud Nay: Trustee Krupski, Trustee Larsen THIS RESOLUTION WAS DECLARED DULY ADOPTED. �J 10 old Towsoa of Appeals MAiN ROAD — STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD,, L,1„ N.Y. 11971: TELEPHONE (516) 7651809- APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD:P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS,JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR._ . October 15 , 19$7 ROBERT J. DOUGLAS$ , JOSEPH H.SAWICKI' William. D. Moore , Esq . Clause 'Common's , Suite 3 P . O. Box 23 Mattituck , NY 11952 e -Re : Appl . No . 3654 William D. Moore and Benjamin Herzweig Dear Bill : i x , Transmitted herewith for your file and perusal is a copy , of the official findings and determination recently rendered by the Board of Appeals , the original of which has this date been filed with the Office of the Town Clerk . Please be sure to return to the Building Department for issuance of any permits or other approvals in writing as may be applicable . Please do not hesitate to call either our office (765-1809) o-r that of the Building Inspector (765- 1802 ) if you have any questions . Yours very truly, b GERARD P . GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN Enclosure Copy of Decision to: Buildin, Department By Linda Kowalski Town TrgUstees County Planning Commission Francis J . Yakaboski`, Esq . a ( ni w Southold -1 -0 wn Board of Appeals ® � MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD,,L.I., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 ACTION OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Appeal No. 3654' Application Dated July 23 , 1987 mnwi i Ilam D. - hiuOre , Esq . [AQr�ellant (c1 ] Clause Commons , Suite 3 P. O. Box 23 Mattituck, NY 11952 , At a Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals held on October `8 , `1987 , the above appeal was considered, and the action indicated below was taken on your [ ] Request for Variance Due to Lack of Access to Property.: New_York Town Law, , Section280-a [ ] Request for Special Exception under the Zoning Ordinance Article , Section [ X] Request for Variance to the Zoning Ordinance Article XI ,. Section 100-119 . 2 [ ] Request for Application of WILLIAM MOORE, ESQ. ,"and BENJAMIN HERZWEIG , ESQ . for a Variance to 'the Zoning Ordinance , Article X,I;_ Section 100.119.2 for permission to establish "building envelope" with setbacks of not less than 38 feet from nearest wetlands along eYlsting two-foot contour and not less than 30 feet from the front property line (as approved under Appl . No . 3412, June 30, 1987 ) . Location of ,Property : 675 Meadow Lane , Mattituck , NY; - Mattituck Estates Lot No . 42; 1000-115-5-7 . WHEREAS , public hearings were held on August 20 , 1987 and September 10 , 1987 in the Matter of the Application of WILLIAM MOORE AND BENJAMIN HERZWEIG under Appl . No. 3654; and. WHEREAS , at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded.; and WHEREAS , the ` Board has carefully considered all testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application ; and WHEREAS , the Board Members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question , its present zoning , and the surrounding areas ; and WHEREAS , the Board made the following findings of fact : 1 . By this application , appellants request a Variance from the prior decision of this Board rendered under Appl . No. 3412 on June 30 , 1987 , and from Article XI , Section 100-.119.2 for permission to establish a "building envelope" with" setbacks at not less than 38. feet from all easterly corners at its near- est points from wetlands (along the existing two-foot contour)., all as shown by survey dated July 21 , 1987 .prepared by Young & Young , P. E. 2 . The previous application requested specific setbacks from the easterly (rear) portion of the proposed dwelling at 43 from the northeasterly corner and at 38 feet from- the southeasterly corner , and the applicants have asked for an (CONTINUED ON PAGE TWO ) DATED: October 8 , 1987. CHAIRMAN, SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Form ZB4 (rev. 12/81) Page 2 - Appl . No . 3654 Matter of MOORE & HERZWEIG Decision Rendered October 8 , 1987 3. The premises ,in question is known and referred to as Lot #42 , Map of "Mattituck Estates; Inc . " filed in the Office of the Suffolk County Clerk on September 8 , 1965 as File No . 4453. 4. The subject premises is located along the east side of Meadow Lane in the Hamlet of Mattituck' Town of Southold, with a frontage of 115 feet , is vacant land, contains an acreage of . 51±, and has a franiaye ui 75 . 94 feet along pond i meadow and wetland areas . 5 . Article XI , Section ;100-119. 2 , requires all buildings and structures to be set back not less than seventy- five (75) feet from a tidal water body, tidal wetland edge , or freshwater j wetland. 6 . In this Board ' s prior decision under Appl . No. 3412 A which alternative relief was granted for insufficient setbacks from wetlands as well as insufficient setback from the front property line at 30 feet , it was determined that the project met the "practical difficulties" standards set by the Courts . 7. It is also the determination f this Board that the requested modification is minimal and meets the "practical difficulties " standards for this amended area variance . 8. It is noted for the record: (a) that conditional approval was rendered by the Southold Town Board of Trustees for Wetland Permit No. 312 for the construction of a single-family_ dwelling, (b ) that a- Final Environmental Impact Statement has been prepared and submitted to the Southold Town Trustees as Lead Agency pursuant to Part 617 , NYCRR, Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation law , and Chapter 44 , Code of the Town of Southold ; (c ) that both well and sanitary systems were conditionally approved by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services on September 13 , 1985 under Ref. No . 85-SO-164 ; (d ) that lot point[s] ; with catch basins , are to be incorporated into the westerly driveway area to collect storm- water runoff; gutters and leaders to be connected to dry-wells ; no construction of sewage-disposal systems or water-supply facilities will be constructed below the 10-foot contour; "natural buffers" are to be designed within the entire area below the 10-foot contour line; there will be a natural buffer during and after construction adjacent to the wetlands ; (e ) a September 4 , 1985 Waiver has been issued by the N .Y . S . Department of Environmental Conservation waiving a Page 3 App 1 . No. 3654 Matter of MOORE & HERZWEIG Decision Rendered October 8 , 1987 permit for the construction of a single-family dwelling land- ward of the existing 10-foot contour elevation above mean sea level (on a gradual ,' natural slope) . Accordingly , on motion by Mr . Grigonis , seconded by Mr. Sawicki , it was RESOLVED , to GRANT a Variance for the Modification of the easterly setba& of the'propusea buiiaing envelope for the construction of a single-family dwelling , with - set- backs at not, less than 38 feet from the nearest wetland boundary , along the present two- foot contour (as well as a setback of not ;less than 30 feet from the front property line at its closest point) , as applied . Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs . Goehringer , Douglass , Doyen and Grigonis. (Member Sawicki was absent . ) This resolution was duly adopted . 1 k GERARD P . GOEHR NGER, CIOIRMAN � SMITH, F'INKELSTEIN, LUNDBERG, ISLER AND YAHABOT{I N / ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW -Y� r 456 GRIFFING AVENUE,CORNER OF LINCOLN STREET P.O. BOX 389 HOWARD M.FINKELSTEIN - RIVERHEAD, N.Y. 11901 PIERRE G.LUNDBERG FRANCIS J.YAKABOSKI ' FRANK A.ISLER (516) 727-4100 REGINALD C.SMITH SUSAN POST ROGERS 1926-1963 June 3 , 1987 ' Henry Smith, Chairman 1 Board of Trustees Town of Southold Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Moore/Herzweig permit 4 Dear Mr. Smith, T enclose herewith a photostat of letter forwarded by myself on this date to Mr. Moore and photostat of proposed covenants submitted by Mr. Moore for review by your Board. I will be speaking with you in the very near future on this matter. Verb' truly yours, I I FRANC J. Y R�IBOSKT r FJY•dkw CC , Z6.i . SMITH, FINHELSTEIN, LUNDBERG, ISLER AND YARABO !KI ATTORNEYSAND COUNSELORS AT LAW 456 GRIFFING AVENUE,CORNER OF LINCOLN STREET P.O. BOX 389 HOWARD M.FIN'KELSTEIN PIERRE G.LUNDBERG RIVERHEAD, N.Y. 11901 FRANCIS J.HAHABOSEI FRANK A.ISLER (516) 727.4100 BEGINALD C.SMITH SUSAN POST ROGERS 19E6-1983 June 3, 1987 William D. Moore, Esq. Suite 3, Clause Commons Main Road Mattituck, New York 11952 Re: Covenants and Restrictions for Southold Town Trustees re: Cramer/Moore permit Dear Mr. Moore, I acknowledge receipt of yours of May 27, 1987 . I have forwarded your documents on to the Board of Trustees for their independent review; and will be back to you shortly with any comments we might have. - My suggestion to you at this point is, however, that no covenants be filed until such time as the hearings before the Board of Appeals are concluded. Very truly yours, FRANCIS J. YAKABOSKI FJY: dkw cc: Board of Trustees Town of Southold r . of DECLARATION OF COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS This Declaration, made the day of 1987, by BENJAMIN L. HERZWEIG, residing at Maple Shade Lane, Stony Brook, New York and WILLIAM D. MOORE, residing at Terry Lane, Southold, New York, WITNESSETH WHEREAS, BENJAMIN L. HERZWEIG and WILLIAM D. MOORE, are the owners in feesimple of certain premises situate at Mattituck and known as "Lot 42" on a subdivision map entitled"Mattituck Estates, Inc." which map was filed with the, Clerk of the County of ,Suffolk on September 8,1965 as file number 44553, described on the Suffolk County Tax Map as District 1000, Section 115, Block 05, Lot 07 and WHEREAS, the Southold Town Trustees, by resolution made on April 29, 1987 approved the application for a wetland permit for the construction of a single family dwelling on the above described premises, and WHEREAS, the Southold Town Trustees approved said application subject to certain Covenants and Restrictions to be filed in the Office of the Clerk of the County of Suffolk, NOW, THEREFORE, in compliance with the resolution of said Southold Town Trustees, Declarants herein declare that the aforesaid land is held and shall be conveyed subject to the' following covenants and restrictions which shall run with the land: 1. The house is to be set back from the front property line no more than 25 feet. 2. There shall be no disturbance within 30 feet of the marsh fringe as shown on the survey made a part of the application for the wetland permit on file in the office of the Southold Town Trustees except a 4 foot wide path shall be permitted to the wetlands ,for water access and/or catwalk assembly. 3. There shall be no use of inorganic fertilizers on the property. Nor shall there be any managed turf areas. 4. There shall be no decks or patios constructed at the rear of the property. 5. No inground sprinkler systems are permitted on the property. _ 6 . If it is determined that the cumulative impacts of residential development on other lots in Mattituck Estates which border the 'headwaters of Deep Hole Creek, which at this date are undeveloped, has caused the pond area north of New Suffolk Avenue which borders this property to become anaerobic, then the sanitary disposal system presently approved by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services will be upgraded to the method of sewerage disposal then being approved by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services provided that the development of said unimproved lots, if permitted, is accompanied by a covenant and restriction to upgrade sanitary disposal systems as agreed to herein. IN WITNESS" WHEREOF, the foregoing Declaration has been 2 WILLIAM D. MOORE ATTORNEY AT LAW SUITE 3, CLAUSE COMMONS MAIN ROAD MATTITUCK,NEW YORK 11952 (516)298-5674 January 5, 1987 Southold Town Trustees Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, N.Y. 11971 Attn: Eileen Re: Moore/Herzweig Wetlands Permit Dear Eileen: Enclosed pleasefind a certified copy of the covenants and restrictions filed with the Suffolk County Clerk as requested by the Trustees. I believe this completes all outstanding matters that were necessary before the permit could be issued. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, r William D. Moore WDM:er encl. DocId:a: 010588 .2 . nf�r. <Gwr Lear vG : j:, Po 66 hxr�i �2U QW / e3r�c7 jr2 , Rrrrsr e �l/�.�J•O/G7-lOh/ .l�J�' /�EY��-�,Clv�- DL12,. . ,�.'�;', - Fra�l7.�-S' — c�c��" f<✓72'%?�I��'r��'�ar� �/!�c/tmrA7+r'�.� ` ��: -- �� t oil gI3� t 07 Q� oh Dtnra�,�2-F �s CxinyLa :� tic rr _ n rr /�cnv I, 7a'C rllnr Gt n��y frnr7ta�/G 1r car ,. o f 'Crn rc raw Tr..2./�'�' �.Ee�c^�t-�r� ,cls IdJ�T�/tl*-:�tt,.iv v�'x G���X'cr,jtr�,�' c✓6 r*r!#�� . ._ AW �ioht7y,✓H.r .m_ l/,QLYc d6 Lr t!�- r to bPkL=. z . . �wCc✓AFs Gq�/U C/.f�-o P]?RC!c r 7�Qi/a�nf', o,�% y'✓1rs�.¢ ��121�.srG3vD .. r II - t , �i r ' i f _ i 7Z IS 7,9 REVIee'v DID ----- U�! KA41&IW %� ,,TU-) ------ I � G`6",iI✓�r �'�fiv C��__�J/�1��r2C tdll'l6lL__ t3'JE�/F�_ �c�1LS> — 6%' I� //f • fo,(✓,CI3 ) �CGv ��C / 62 /—}1 �y 2 L /GT/ ✓ LAS �v�L� u/ �"f�—�����,T��_ ��,��_;1��a✓L, 15D ___ N �G i Ods/`?Mrp Vr - _. � a�-�--���✓:S�!AL2---�Z'�'� _cr�L�--— �_- --- Z'_ Fid_ 11C���,�,, 4- rAf N�7� — __ _�S—Z��. ,err_a�� /z'�r�G�f?`tea,✓ ���TvZ /aG ✓ ram --- _ F C) Cciqzt�r or- r'ANlr li t1=�Gz-Z.) --- ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PART I, II & III o i FOR MEADOW LANE HOUSE MATTITUCK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD m ... `. NEW YORK- r , ",Prepared for #aAl Towu of Southold Trustees 1'T Pi. n` f By: Thomas W. Cramer 7 63 Clifton Place Port Jefferson Station, N.Y_ 11776 i September 20, 1985 g EAF ' ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - PART I Project Information ' NOTICE: This document is desioned to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect on the environment. Please complete the entire Data Sheet. Answers to these questions will be considered as part of theapplicationfor approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any additional information you believe will be needed to complete PARTS 2 and 3. It is expected that eomoletion of the EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve new studies, research or investigation. If inforration requiring such additional work is unavalable, so indicate and specify each instance. ' 3A11E OF PROJECT: NAME AND ADDRESS OF OWNER (If Different) ' Meadow Lane House Name ' ADDRESS AND NAME OF APPLICANT: Street Thomas W. Cramer R.L.A. FTI State Zip ' ame — 63 Clifton Place BUSt!iESS PHONE: (Street) ' Port Jefferson Stat. N.Y. 11776 tate (zip) ' IEICIIPTI04 OF PROJECT: (Briefly describe type of project or action) Construction of 1545 sq. ft. residence, attached garage, 8' x 18' deck, sanitary system and well, above 10' contour ' (PLEASE COMPLETE EACH QUESTION - Indicate N.A. if not applicable) ' A. SITE DESCRIPTION (Physical setting of overall project, both develoned and undeveloped areas) 1. General character of the land: Generally uniform slope _ Generally uneven and rolling or irregular x 2. Present land use: Urban , Industrial __ , Commercial _, Suburban , Rural __, Forest Agriculture _, Other Vacant ' 3. Total acreage of project area22,35 acres. Approximate acreage: Presentiv After Completion Presently After Completion ' Meadow or Brushland 0 Cres nacres Water Surface Area _acres ___acres Forested OA acres Q,iLacres Unvegetated (rock, earth or fill) __acres acres ' Agricultural �_acres _acres earth Roads, buildings 'letland (Freshwater or and other paved Tidal as ner Articles surfaces 0_acres 0.04acres 24, 25 or F.C.L.) 0,�acres 0,28±acres �,a dscap in ' Other (tn� tate tyne� 0 acres 0.05acres 4. Vhat is predominant soil type(s) on nroject site? Plymouth_Loamy Sand ' S. a. Are there bodrock outcropoines on �rnjPct site? ---Yes No_ No t. What is depth to bedrock? 500' + (in feet) 9/1/78 _..__— -1- 2. How much natural material (i.e. rock, earth, etc.) will be removed from the site - tons 175 t cubic yards. 3. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site -0.08 acres. 4. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project? Yes X No 5. Are there any plans for re-vegetation to replace that removed during construction? X Yes ^No 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction 6 months, (including demolition). 7. If multi-phased project: a. Total number of phases anticipated NA No. b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 NA month NA vear (including ' demolition) c. Approximate completion date final phase NA month NA year. d. Is phase I financially dependent on subsepuent phases? NA Yes NA No 8. Will blasting occur during construction? Yes X No 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction after project is complete 0 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project 0 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? —Yes X No. If yes, explain: 12. a. Is surface or subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? X Yes No. ' b. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) On site sanitary SCDRA #85-50. 164 c. If surface disposal name of stream into which effluent will be discharged NA ' 13. Will surface area of existing lakes, ponds, streams, bays or other surface waterways be increased or decreased by proposal? Yes No o. 14. Is project or any portion of project located in the 100 year flood plain? Yes X No ' 15. a. Does project involve disposal of solid waste? ___&Yes No b. If yes, will an existing solid waste disnosai facility be used? X Yes __No ' c. If yes, give name: Snilthold Landfill location North Road, Southold d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? X Yes No ' 16. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? _Yes R No 17. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour .Per day)? _Yes X_No 18. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambience noise levels? lYes X No 19. Will project result in an increase in energy use? X Yes _No. If yes, indicate type(s) PpAring_ oil k PlPrtric 20. If water supply is from wells indicate pumoing capacity NA gals/minute. 21. Total anticipated water usage per day _ _j2O gals/day. ' 22. Zoning: a. What is dominant zoning classification of site? "A" Residence b. Current specific zoning classification of site "A" Residence ' c. Is oroposed use consistent HIth present zoning? Yes d. If no, indicate desired zoning NA —2— ' 6. Approximate cercentaoe of proposed project site with sloces: 0-1.0'. 85 ; 10-15": _e; 15% or greater 14 7. Is project cont'cuous to, or contain a buildinn or site listed on the National Register of Historic Places? _Yes No No 8. What is the deptn to the water table? 0-16 feet 9. Do hunting or fishing opportunities presently exist in tae project area? _Yes 90 No 10. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or ' endangered - _ves 7C 10, according to - Id entifa each species I 11. Are there any unicue or unusual land forms on the pr_ec- site? !'..e. cliffs, dunes, other geological I, formations - _Yes X No. (Describe _ ) 12. Is the project site presently used by the community or -eighborhood as an open space or recreation area - Yes No. I' 13. Does the present site offer or include scenic views or :'stas known to be important to the community? Yes X '.0 1 14. Streams within or contiguous to project area: f i' a. Name of strea^ and name of river to which it is tr'c,tary Tributary to Deep Hole Creek , !, 15. Lakes, Ponds, Yetland areas within or contiguous to 0ro'ect area: i a. Name as above b. Size (ih acres) 2 acres t 16. What is the dorinant land use and zoning classificati" within a 1/4 mile radius of the project (e.g. single family residential, R-2) and the scale of develov-nt (e.g. 2 story). ' A " Residential ' B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. Physical dimersicns and scale of project (fill in din=-cs*ons as apt ropriate) a. Total contic:ous acreage owned by project sponsor 22,357 sq.ft. acres. i' 1 ` b. Project acreage developed: � acres initia11y;0.04 acres ultimately. C. Project acreage to remain undeveloped 92% d. Length of project, in miles: NA (if appropriate) e. If project is an expansion of existing, indicate Dercent of expansion proposed: building square foct- age NA ; developed acreage NA f. Number of off-strep.t parking spaces existino 0 proposed 2 g. Maximum vehicular trios generated per hour NA anon corole•ion of project) h. If resident-al: Number and type of housing units: _.,e Family Two Family Multi:le Family Condominium Initial 0 Ultimate 1 i. If: Orientation 'e'ghborhood-City-Regional Estimated Eroloyment Commercial Industrial j• Total height c- tallest proposed structure 35 feet. —3— 26. Approvals: a. Is any Federal permit required? _Yes _y._No b. Does project involve State or Federal funding or financing? __Yes -(_No ' c. Local and Regional approvals: Approval Required Submittal Approval ' (Yes, No) (Type) (Date) (Date) City, Town, Village Board _ city, Town, Village Planning Board _ ' City, JSD Zoning Board y��� \7a r;nnr•o � City, county Health Department Y es 9713T85 Other local agencies Trustees/Bldg.�� Wetlands — 5 Other regional agencies Bldsz t State Agencies NYS DEC (No permit nec.) et an s Federal Agencies C. INFORMATIONAL DETAILS Attach any additional information as may be edema arfy your project. If there are or may be any adverse impacts associated with the p ase'discuss such impacts and the measures which can be taken to mitigate or avoid them. PREPARER'S SIGNATURE: / Thomas W. Cramer, R.L.A. TITLE: Owner REPRESENTING: Self DATE: 9/19/85 —4 ' - EAF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - PART II . Project Impacts and Their Magnitude General Information. (Read Carefully) In completing the form the reviewer should be guided by the question: Have my decisions and determinations been reasonable? The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst. ' - Identifying that an effect will be potentially large (column 2) does not mean that it is also necessarily sin ficant. Any large effect must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance. By identifying an e feet in column 2 simply asks that it be looked at further. ' - The Examples provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of effects and wherever possible the thresholt of magn!tu a that would trigger a response in column 2. The examples are generally applicable throughout the State and for most situations. But, for any specific project or site other examples and/or lower thresholds may be more appropriate for a Potential Large Impact rating. ' - Each project, on each site, in each locality, will vary. Therefore, the examples have been offered as guidance. They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each question. ' - The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question. INSTRUCTIONS (Read Carefully) ' a. Answer each of the 18 questions in PART 2. Answer Yes if there will be as effect. b. Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers. c. If answering Yes to a ouestion then check the appropriate box (column 1 or 2) to indicate the potential size of the impact. If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided, check column 2. If impact will occur but threshold is lower than example, check column 1. d. If reviewer has doubt about the size of the impact t_Ilen consider the impact as potentially large and proceed to PART 3. e. If a potentially large impact or effect can be reduced by a change in the project to a less than large ' magnitude, place a Yes in column 3. A No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible. SMALL TO POTENTIAL CAN IMPACT BE MODERATE LARGE REDUCED BY ' IMPACT IMPACT PROJECT CHANGE IMPACT ON LAND NO YES WILL THERE BE AN EFFECT AS A RESULT OF A PHYSICAL CHANGE TO 00 PROJECT SITE? Examples that Would Aooly to Column 2 _ Any construction on slopes of 15A or greater, (15 foot rise per 100 foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10%. — Construction on Land where the depth to the water table is less than 3 feet. ronstrvction of paved oarking area for 1,^!!1 or more vehicles. Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or qenerally within 3 feet of existing ground surface. -- _ Construction that will continue for more than I year or involve more than one phase or stage. Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1 ,000 tons of natural material (i.e. rock or soil) per year. Construction of any new sanitary landfill. -_ -5- 1. 2. 3. S.ALL TO POTENTIAL CAN I'1PACT BE ' "ODERATE LARGE REDUCED BY IMPACT IMPACT PROJECT CHANGE _ Construction in a designated floodway. ' X Other impacts: construction of house, above 10' con— tour, minimadisturbance a wE'T@'-ttu disturb- aase-be' AO YES ' 2. WILL THERE BE AN EFFECT TO ANY UNIOUE OR UNUSUAL LA1'" FORMS©O FOUND ON THE SITE? (i.e. cliffs, dunes, aeological fcma- tions, etc.) Specific land forms: IMPACT ON WATER NO YES 3. WILL PROJECT AFFECT ANY WATER, BODY DESIGNATED AS ..........0 O t PROTECTED. (Under Articles 15, 24, 25 of the Envir- onmental Conservation Law, E.L.L.) No d sturban e Examoies that Would Apply to Columm 2 alonE waterw y ' Dredging more than IOD cubic yards of material from channel of a protected stream. Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland. _ Other impacts: 4. WILL PROJECT AFFECT ANY NON-PROTECTED EXISTING, OR NFL� © YES BODY OF WIATER? .................................... Examples that Would Apply to Column 2 ' A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of ary body _ of water or more than a 10 acre increase ur decrease. Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area. Other impacts: 7 YES 5. WILL PROJECT AFFECT SURFACE OR GROUNDWATER ORALITY? O X Examples that Would Apply to Colum 2 Project will require a discharge permit. Project requires use of a source of water that does not have _ approval to serve proposed project. Project requires water supply from wells with create- _ than 45 gallons per minute pumping capacity. Construction or operation causing any contamination _ ' of a public water supply system. Project will adversely affect groundwater. ' Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently do not exist or have inadequate capacity. Project requiring a facility that would use water it _. excess of 2n,000 gallons per day. _ Project will likely cause siltation or other disclar_e into an existing body of water t0 the extent that t".ere !- --will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditic^s. -6- ' PUILL TO POTENTIAL E.AN IMPACT BE 47DEP.ATE LARGE REDUCED BY IMPACT IMPACT PROJECT CHANGE Other Impacts 6. :JILL PROJECT ALTER DRAINAGE FLO". PATTEnNS 2R SURFACE !TATER NO YES RUNOFF? ................................................... X ' Example that '!ould Anply to Column 2 All runoff Trom perviot s _ Project would impede flood water flows. surfaces to be ccntained on site — ' _ Project is likely to cause substantial erosion. Project is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. Other impacts: IMPACT ON AIR 110 YFS 7. CHILL PROJECT AFFECT AIR QUALITY?.......... .................0 O Examples that Would Apply to Column 2 ' Project will induce 1,700 or more vehicle trips in any given — hour. Project will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton ' of refuse per hour. -- — _ Project emission rate of all contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. per hour or a heat source producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour. _ Other impacts: IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS !- 40 YES B. WILL PROJECT AFFECT ANY THREATENED OR ENOANAEREO SPECIES? O O Examples that Would Apply to Column 2 _ Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York _ ' or Federal list, using the site, over Or near site Or found on the site. Removal of any Portion of a critical or significant wild- — _ life habiLit. — ApPlica tionon of Pesticide or herbicide over more than twice a year other tlsan for egeicultural purposes. _ nthar impacts: — 9. 4I11 PROJECT SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECT H01-THREATE71E1 OR NO YES — ' ENDANGERED SPECIES? ........................................© O Examole that Would Apply to Column 2 Project would substantially interfere with any resident �- or migratory fish or wildlife species. Project reouires the removal of more than In acres of ' mature forest (over 100 years in ane) or otner locally important vegetation. -7 2. 3. MALL TO POTENTIAL CAN RIPACT BE ' IODERATE LARGE REDUCED RY I"PACT 11+PSCT PROJECT CHAT+GE I"PACT 01 VIS:'AL RESrro,pCE 19.. :'.ILL THE PROJECT AFFECT NIF.NS, "ISTAS CR THE VISUAL NO YES CHARACTER OF THE NFIGHBORHOOD OR COMM"NITY? .............. (Do Ma ntain as many Examnles that i'ould Apply to Column 2 ex sting tr es as ' An incompatible visual affect caused by the intronuctinn po sible—mi imal disturbance of new materials, colors and/or forms in contrast to the surrounding landscape. A project easilv visible, not easily screened,that is .� obviously different from others around it. Project will result in the elimination or major _ screening of scenic views or vistas known to be important to the area. Other impacts: IMPACT ON HISTORIC RESOURCES 11. WILL PROJECT IMPACT ANY SITE OR STRUCTURE OF HISTORIC, .' NOYES O O PP.E-HISTORIC OP. PALEO'1TO91LA.L R'POPTANCE? ...... X Examoles that Would Aoolv to Column 2 Project occurinp wholly or nartially within or continuous to any facility or site listed on the National Renister of historic places. Any impact to an archeological site or fossil bed located within the project site. _ Other impacts: _ IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE E RECREATION 12. WILL THE PROJECT AFFECT THE QUANTITY OR QUALITY OF EXISTING NO YES OR FUTURE OPEN SPACES OR RECREATIONAL OPPORTU.'IITIES?...... 00 Examples that Mould Apply to Column 2 — The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational 0000rtunity. A major reduction of an open space important to the community. _ ' Other impacts: _ IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION 13. VILL THERE BE AN EFFECT TO EXISTING TRANSPORTATION NO YES ' SYSTEMS? ............................................... O O Examples that Would Aonly to Column 2 Alteration of present patterns of movement of neople arogoads. — _ Project will result in severe traffic problems. ' _.-_ Other impacts: ' SMALL TO POTENTIAL CAR IMPACT CE MODERATE LARGE REDUCED BY IMPACT I11PACT PROJECT CHANGE ' IMPACT ON ENERGY 14. WILL PROJECT AFFECT THE COMI4UNITIES SOURCES OF FUEL OB NO YES ENERGY SUPPLY? .. ....................... . .......... ... ....0 O ' Examples that Would A.pply to Column 2 Project causing greater than 5' increase in any fora of ' energy used in municipality. _— Project requiring the creation or extension of an energy transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single ' or two family residences. Other impacts: ' - IMPACT ON NOISE 15. WILL THERE BE OBJECTIONABLE ODORS, NOISE, GLARE, VIBRATION NO YES or ELECTRICAL DISTURBANCE AS A RESULT OF THIS PROJECT? ..O O Examples that Mould AODly to Column 2 Blasting within 1 ,500 feet of a hospital, school or other _ sensitive facility. Odors will occur routinel-v (more than one hour per dav). Project will produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures. ' Project will remove natural barriers that would act as a _ noise screen. Other impacts: IMPACT ON HEALTH 8 HAZARDS "{0 YFS 16. '.MILL PROJECT AFFECT PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY? ... .... .. ....©O Examples that Would Apply to Column 2 ' Project will cause a risk of exolosion or release of hazardous substances (i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc. ) in the event of accident or unset conditions, or there will be a chronic low level discharge or emission. Project that will result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" _ (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, ' infectious, etc. , includinn wastes that are solid, seri-solid,liquid or contain gases. ) Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liouified _T — natural gas or other liguids, — — Other impacts: —9 ' MALL TD POTE1TIAL CAN IMPACT BE IODERA.TE LARGE REDUCED BY II'PACT PIPACT PROJECT CHANGE IMPACT 0!1 GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR 1EIGHRORHOOD 17. WILL PROJECT AFFECT THE CHARACTER nF THE EXISTING, .NO YES COMMUNITY? ................................................0 O Example that Would Apoly to Column 2 The population of the City, Town or Village in which the — project is located is likely to crow by more than 5: of resident. human population. - The municipal budgets for capital expenditures or o?era- _ ting services will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this project. Will involve any permanent facility of a non-agricultural use in an agricultural district or remove nrime agricultural lands from cultivation. _ The project will replace or eliminate existing facilities, _— — — structures or areas of historic importance to the community. _ Development will induce an influx of a particular age — group with special needs. Project will set an important precedent for future projects. — — ' ._._. Project will relocate 15 or more employees in one or more — businesses. Other imoacts: NO YES 18. IS THERE PUBLIC CONTROVERSY CONCERNING THE PROJECT? ....... O Questi ns rais d by public on s Exam lethat Would Apply to Column 2 �_ previo is appli ants submis ion Either government or citizens of adjacent cam-unities have b en addressed in thi applican — have expressed opposition or rejected the proiect or have '— '— tion — not been contacted. Objections to the nroject from within the comnunit Y. — ' IF ANY ACTION IN PART 2 IS IDENTIFIED AS A POTENTIAL LARGE IMPACT OR IF YOU CANNOT DETERMINE THE MAGNITUDE OF IMPACT, PROCEED TO PART 3. PORTIONS OF EAF COMPLETED FOR THIS PROJECT: ' DETERMINATION PART I _ PART 1I _ PART 3 Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts 1, 2 and 3) and considering both the maqnitude and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined that: PREPARE A NEI-ATIVE DECLARATION A. The project will result in n0 major impacts and, therefore, O ' is one which may not cause significant damaa.e to the environment. B. Althouah the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case PREPARE A NEG TIVE DECLAP.ATION because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been O included as part of the proposed project. C. The project will result in one or more major adverse impacts PREPARE POSITIVE DECLARATION PROCEED WITH EIS that cannot be reduced and may cause significant damage to /1 ' the environment. (0 — ate Signiture of R=sponsible Official in Lead Agency ' Signature of Prena rer (if different from responsible officer) Pint or Lyne nare of responsible official in Lead Agencv ' —10— ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM PART III for Meadow Lane House, Mattituck INTRODUCTION: Although no impacts were identified as large in Part II, it has been de- cided to prepare a Part III to adequately address the mitigation measures which have been incorporated into the design of the proposed action. The ' sensitivity of the site requires several land use techniques and development strategies in order to negate potential impacts to the community, slopes and ' wetlands and the values associated with same. BACKGROUND: ' Map of Mattituck Estates, Inc. File 114453 ' Lot #42 Dated 5/2/65 ' Previous owners: Barbara & William Smith Previous applicant (contract vendee-Renate Riedel) ' New York State DEC - Permit 1110-84-1420 Suffolk County DHS - Permit 1113-50-197 Town of Southold: Variance - withdrawn ' Building - withdrawn Trustees - withdrawn ' Present Applicant (owner - Thomas W. Cramer) New York State DEC - No permit necessary Suffolk County DHS - Permit 1185-50-164 Town of Southold: Variance - applied for 1 Building - applied for Trustees - applied for ' -11- 1 THE ACTION: ' Construction of a single family residence of approximately 1,550 square feet. The architectural design has been chosen to fit into and compliment the existing character of the community. Clearing and site grading has been planned so as to compliment the existing conditions. ' This will result in minimal disturbance to soils and vegetation. Wet- lands, a buffer zone adjoining said wetlands, and areas of steep slopes, ' will not be disturbed. A covenant will be filed to assure continued pro- tection of these sensitive areas of the site, if it is deemed appropriate. The subject parcel is unique from most other lots along the east side of Meadow Lane. Elevations are higher and the uplands extend further to the east before sloping to the wetlands. ' The following is a detailed discussion of potential environmental im- pacts associated with development of this parcel. Also included are the ' mitigation measures proposed to be incorporated to avoid said impacts. ' -12- WETLANDS ' The wetlands found on site is part of a tributary of Deep Hole Creek and is connected to same by a culvert system under New Suffolk Avenue. The wetland system consists of open water, high marsh (Spartina P.) and a narrow fringe of fresh water species (those which can tolerate brackish conditions) . The boundary between the wetland and upland vegetation species is abrupt ' and well defined because of the rise in topography to the west. The boundary has been established by New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ' during field inspections. Wetlands constitute approximately 55% of the total parcel. ' The two major threats to a wetland system from development is: 1) siltation, and 2) biological loading. The latter is mainly associated with the discharge of sanitary effluent and is discussed within the groundwater section. Siltation ' is caused by the uncontrolled runoff of storm waters, particularly during the construction phase when soils are exposed. In order to avoid excessive site grading, and thus siltation, the residence will be situated to complement the existing topography. The structure will be "stepped" into the existing slope with a 8' foundation wall on the west and a 4' foundation wall toe east (see Figure 1) . This will reduce the amount of grading adjacent to the structure and further reduce the disturbance to exist- ing vegetation. Material excavated will be trucked off site to an approved up- land location. At the present time, it is proposed to use a crane to proform ' the excavation for the foundation to preserve trees and limit the amount of earth moving necessary. ' When the foundation is installed, rough grading will take place. To provide temporary cover during construction, rapidly germinating rye grass will be seeded ' on all exposed soils. A natural upland buffer, where no soils or vegetation will be disturbed, shall be established in a 20-50' band along the boundary of the wetlands (see Figure 2) . This area, below the 10' contour line, will be preserved in its natural state; to act as a filter of silts during construction and as visual and physical protection of the wetlands after construction. A snow fence or other acceptable method will be used along this line to preclude unintentional ' intrusion during construction. Hay bales and other erosion control methods 1 -1J ' will be used to prevent erosion until the area has been properly landscaped. Once construction is completed, all runoff from impervious surfaces (i.e. ' driveway and roof) will be contained in dry wells and recharged into the sub- soil. ' It should be noted that New York State Department of Environmental Con- servation has issued a letter stating no permit is necessary on September 4, 1985, with regard to this project, as proposed. GROUNDWATER ' Potential groundwater impacts resulting from development of the subject property includes; sanitary disposal, stormwater disposal, and fertilization of ' lawn areas. No significant impact to groundwater, or surface water in ground- water discharge zones, is anticipated as a result of this project, based upon the following discussion. ' The subject site is south of the regional groundwater divide for this area of the North Fork. The contour map of the Water Table (prepared by SCDHS) , in- dicates that groundwater flows toward the south, and discharges into Deep Hale Creek or the near-shore waters of Great Peconic Bay. The water table elevation is between 1 and 2 feet above sea level and, therefore, groundwater lies approxi- mately 8 to 16 feet beneath the proposed residence. The proposed sanitary system is to be located in the southwest corner of the p,�operty. Contaminants common to septic systems include solids, nitrogen and })acteria. S. C. Sanitary Code Article VB Section 2c requires ths- the ' bottom of the cesspool be located at least 2 feet above groundwater to allow for conversion of ammonia to nitrate. Nitrate is conservative in groundwater; ' however, dilution with groundwater and precipitation, as well as the relatively low density of surrounding development, will keep total nitrogen load within ' acceptable levels. Nitrogen will be partially assimilated by bottom sediments when discharging into surface waters. Dilution and dispersion in surface waters will result in negligible nutrient concentrations. Bacteria from sanitary systems is trapped and removed from effluent in the interstices of soils in the unsaturated and saturated zone. S. C. Sanitary Code requires a separation distance of 100 feet between the disposal point and surface or a well, to allow adequate distance for filtration of bacteria in soils. On the ' subject, the on-site well is located upgradient of the cesspool and will be screened deep into the aquifer (85 feet) . Sanitary discharge will not affect ' the well. The nearest surface water is located 85 feet northeast of the well. Very low streamflow is experienced in surface waters north of New Suffolk Avenue; -14- ' therefore, overriding hydrologic conditions will cause groundwater to move south from the cesspools. To the south, the nearest surface water is nearly 400 feet; ' therefore, no bacteriological loading to surface waters will occur. It should be noted that approval for construction of a single family residence was ob- tained from SCDHS on 9-13-85. Stormwater runoff will be generated from impervious roofs, walks and the ' driveway on site. All runoff will be recharged to groundwater through dry wells. The Nationwide Urban Runoff Protection Study (NURPS) finds that recharge of storm- water to groundwater is the best management. Runoff contaminants expected in street runoff are expected to be negligible due to the short length and low in- tensity of use of the driveway. ' Fertilization of landscaped areas has potential to cause leaching of excess nitrogen to groundwater. The total property site is 22,357 square feet. Due to ' wetlands, a covenant, if required, shall be established whereby 16,600 square feet will remain natural (below the 10 foot contour) . Of the developable area, only about 2200 square feet will be landscaped. This minimal area constitutes less than 10% of the total lot size. It is not intended to establish the entire area in fertilizer dependent species, but if it were, nitrogen leaching would not impact groundwater based upon acceptable dilution and coverage standards. (Non Point Handbook, LIRPB) Natural vegetation species will be used extensively for landscaping. FISH AND WILDLIFE ' No threatened or endangered species were found on site during field inspections. However, various species of migratory birds do utilize the wetlands area during ' certain periods of the year. The project, as proposed, will not have a signifi- cant impact on the present uses. ' As discussed previously, no activity will take place on the wetlands. This, along with the natural buffer, will screen the proposed residence and preclude activities which may impact wildlife habits in this wetland area. It is relevant to note, however, that on the opposite shore from the pro- posed action a residence has been constructed which has removed the natural vege- tation and landscaped directly to the water's edge. While this type of landscap- ing is-not being proposed for the project, it does illustrate that such activity ' does not have an obvious effect on wildlife useage of the wetland. The preservation of the buffer zone and the siting of the proposed structure ' within the existing trees will provide habitat for wildlife species on site. -15- ' No fish species were observed; however, it can be assumed that since no impacts are anticipated to aquatic habitats, no impacts will result to fish. ' MITIGATION MEASURES The following is a summary of the mitigation measures proposed for the ' project: * No disturbance of wetlands; ' * No disturbance of natural buffer, between 10' contour and wetland boundary; * "Step" proposal residence into existing topography; ' * No disturbance of steep slope areas; * Siting of residence into existing vegetation; ' * Preservation of as much vegetation as possible; * Minimal grading and site work; * Erosion control devices to be used during construction; fencing of ' buffer areas; * All stormwater to be recharged on site; no over land flow from im- pervious surfaces; * Use of low fertilization requiring natural plant species for landscaping; * Minimization of turf areas; * Use of crane for excavactions; * Transporting of excavated material of site to approved disposal area. 1 ' -16- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 APPENDIX 1 Figure 1 - View from Meadow Lane 1 - Elevation of south side Figure 2 - Sketch Plan 1 Suffolk County Department of Health Services Approval 1 N.Y.S. Dept. of Environmental Conservation - Letter of No Permit Necessary. 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 :pry n_ r.• d 1 r 7 T. � Ty s ` f'�w�a��L• 1l 1 � K '� �` l -•.� �'1.�ri;�7_wwy..�n�. �r✓,ui0'• 'r"���:�\��-�= ��T.�.tom 4 ._s�_N�.�Y�=. � ' �/��{M mow_��w`�w.��Zw.Y•- ••,., , Ir '�, 1 �\ �=�=�r ♦ ,.-4-��yy��"a����N�=��v_�� NMM�w_i\\rf^ice:.,l r� Imillmill Hull PL c 7 A� ,tll r E Mill lI�,o1 Ir = _- EL __. —_I a + w • Jl 4 �co I t €o S :77 Ra ie fit 4t f :i —1� ii j3 ¢ =• � � ilktl ° tit r, I 4i _ . L.nN� •i J Q J � S• •� 0 , a N j 1 ��� • r g�� �as R � �I���`'`• 1 N',:T.7 YOR7 STAT: n rA'.T EPT OF FI'VI1101 'iu'TAL CoriSERVATIO'3 Regulatory Affairs Unit Bldg. 40, semi--roon 219 Stony Brook, 1'Y 11794 (516) 751-79^.0 C F?Ame!` �� �F�,, 6,,.2ci t IS S b � Gt. t"�l• J ?tAL:C �U«-r ,c t-yr-- 11 77 b ' F.L: SCTw, (a-L-c Dear M e— A review has been made of your proposal to: �iC�A,-ZU7L-4. t- C— ���� '3i� LV'�'.Y�C-�`, Yl'�A<-c•� KM-�- .A.dMv+a� _�'Irl^+c.�.4`CI[ ' •-��-c-�a: S�e.._4_ �'+tX [l.t..%-C.L.��w+, (,'..,o e t'Z-(-t P s Location: Alc� li 3 n1e�:S•yi � � Ctc�cl �a:x o. � � .Qct Fc New Yor:c State P.enartment of Environmental Conservation has found the parcel _ project to be: Greater than 300' from inventoried tidal wetlands. Landward of a substantial man-made structure greater than 109' in length constructed prior to September 20, 1977. ' K Landward of 10' contour elevation above mean see level on a gradual, ...fff------���--- <nal slope. rd of topographical crest of bluff, cliff or dune in excess of 10' in elevation above mean sea level. Therefore, no permit under Article 25 (Tidal ? etlands of the Environmental Conservation Law) is renuired at this time since the current proposal is beyond State mandated jurisdiction pursuant to this act. `irn.ever, any additional work or modifications to the project may require a permit. It Is your responsibility to notify this office, in writing, if such additional work or modifications are contemplated. ' vary truly yours, ' Alternate Permit Administrator CT'.'.:T)^R:co's J \ ) \ .3 _z J u Lot 41 now or formerly 0 a��8 6 (VACANT ) t I No OWr= Of Suffolk ELL WITHIN ISO,) 9 � 1 P sOp A. c Iof ss.4t'I -_-I 229.13 w84l - � Lot 42 0) m , `P�gavos+G , 1 Id ' ; >> P0?.1 v Area=223575 f L e A¢ x T.;% to -p � M 0 11-lb'Pooco O f a c t 4y`ccv,y Ii.s r Oxy � 1 \ 1,70 a J ,., c Z 0 [Gp my} f t 1 / PIPE ' -1 1 0 7 (OL) Z�2) ��9 ! 168 80' , 1 41 a L2 S. 00.94 I o 86°06 00"W-' °� a y- z I s Ito (,M (D) I .r L P1 o � �• MD}�'. L� N.3 54 00 322.95 Lot 43 (VACANT u 6� C 6`. 83 6 4. NEW SUFFOLK AVENUE SURVEY FOR FREDERICK G. BAUMGRATZ a RUTH A. BAUMGRATZ NOTES: LOT 42 "MATTITUCK ESTATES,INC. I. •=MONUMENT FOUND ' SEPT. 28, 1995 2 p=STAKE SET Ot - )=NUMBERED LATH SET AT MATTITUCK DATE 'JULY 31 , 1995 3 SUBDIVISION MAP FILED IN THE OFFICE OF TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCALE 1 = 40' THE CLERK OF SUFFOLK CO. ON SEPT. 8,1965 NO 95 -0602 AS FILE NO 4453 SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK 4 ELEVATIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE FROM ACTUAL - SURVEY AND ARE REFERENCED TO N G.V D (MSL 1929). *UNAUTHORIZED ALTERATION OR AD OI TION TO THIS SURVEY Q A VIOLATION OF SECTION 7209 OF THE NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION LAw *COPIES OF THIS SURVEY NOT BEARING THE LAND �xf OF ;V R SURVEYOS INKED SEAL OR EMBOSSED SEAL SHALL `�Sry NOT CONSIDERED TO BE A VALID TRUE COPY CO > *GUARANTEES INDICATED HEREON SHALL RUN ONLY TO HEALTH DEPARTMENT-DATA FOR APPROIAIL TO CONSTRUCT THE PERSON FOR WHOM TME SURVEY 15 PREPARED AND ON HIS BEHALF TO THE TITLE COMPANY,GOVERN- � Q ■ NEAREST WATCH BAIM_MI _ ■SOURCE Of WATER PRVAT£ _PUBLIC_ MENTAL AGENCY AND LENDING INSTITUTION LISTED r ■ SIfF CO. TAX MAP DIET 1000 SECTION Its BLOCK 5 LOT T HEREON, AND TO THE ASSIGNEES OF THE LENDING RTHEME ARE 10 DWELLIMSS WITHIN 100 FEET OF THIS PROPERTY INSTITUTION GUARANTEES ARE NOT TRANSFERABLE OTHER THAN THOSE SNOW" HEREON TO ADDITIONAL INSTITUTIONS OR SUBSEQUENT THE WATER SUPPLY AND SEIIIA" 04SPMAL SYSTEM FOR THIS RESIOENC[ OWNERS :z WILL CONFORM TO THE STAMOAPOf Of THE SUFTOLK COUNTY OEPARTMEMT *DISTANCES SHOWN HEREON FROM PROPERTY LINES Of NEALTN AptvlCif TO EXISTING STRUCTURES ARE FOR A SPECIFIC I APPLICANT PURPOSE AND ARE NOT TO BE USED TO ESTABLISH + ■■I�{� PROPERTY LINES OR FOR THE ERECTION OF FENCES C��A ND A00R E SS rEL YOUNG a YOUNG 171 ALDEN W YOUNG,PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER 3 1995 �AND LAND SURVEYOR N Y_S LICENSE NO.12845 J I HOWARD W.YOUNG, LAND SURVEYOR *THE LOCATUM OF WELL(W),SEPTIC TANW(fn8 CESW'OO4_S(CP)L40WM HEPEON N.Y.S LICENSE NO 45893 ARE FROM FIELD OGSERWRTIOMS AMO OR DATA OATAAMEO FROM OTHERS OWN BRANDIS A. SONS INC. 1046 J V\� W 13 i , n I v z now or formerly J J Lot 41 ILI County of Suffolk 3 4v Ov$�rt'O (VACANTI I. (NO WELL WIT{-i 0 `�q�1L n+w I fN ISO') S �'o TAG A AZ, SG Ap' so08 I i 1 G•@ (wl 1 2.3 1 i -3 n.rt S,.\$8�O GA10. 1 `-.1 - 229.13' / ' T 1 85.4 o I ET f 7,7 Cw�Z I t i 3.z 1' Lot 42 IJ, o n �vRaaD��� 1PONo \Area= 235s.f. N ;�� I � , )i � 27m O (TI co L-4 o. # 2.8 M 7 m0ax - l + t I O i C7 s D o N Q 2 CST 4} ZI O 0.7 i ` 7 O° � }7 9T O C cv x T� CTI GPlpf ���P: 1➢/ \ 1 PIPE �j �' 0 tr ` wls) m C (0 Cob) � g se.eo' 200-94 U 1 i cP� 006 00' D, I� I \2 Z \M r , W r bv � l Y..2 i 5. 86 \ � ' kb IF��v N.3°5400 N 22.95 Lot 43N I (VACACANTI :T7 G 6 83 64, NEW SUFFOLK AVENUE SURVEY FOR FREDERICK G. BAUMGRATZ & RUTH A. BAUMGRATZ NOTES: LOT 42, ''MATTITUCK ESTATES,iNC. SEPT. 28, 1995 I. •=MONUMENT FOUND AT MATTITUCK DATE JULY 31 , 1995 2. L=STAKE SET 0 CVV-I)=NUMBERED LATH SET SCALE I4 3, SUBDIVISION MAP FILED IN THE OFFICE OF TOWN OF SOUTHOLD NO 95 -0602 THE CLERK OF SUFFOLK CO. ON SEPT. 8,1965 SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK AS FILEN0.4453 4. ELEVATIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE FROM ACTUAL TO- SURVEY AND ARE REFERENCED TO N.G.V.D.tMSL1929). *UNAUTHORIZEDUATION ROF'SECT SECTION 72osNDF THE S ��� NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION LAN *COPIES OF THIS SURVEY NOT BEARINGTHE LAND w. SURR VEYOS INKED SEAL OR EMBOSSED SEAL SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE A VALID TRUE COPY *GUARANTEES INCo- THE DICATED HEREON SHAL_ RUN ONLY 7O T � _ PERSON.FOR WHOM THE SURVEY IS PREPARED HEALTH DEPARTMENT-DATA.FOR APPROIML TO CO STRUC T AND ON HIS BEHALF TO THE TITLE COMPANY,GOVERN- * NEAREST NRE71 MAIM_NI ! WSOVPCE OF 'RATER PPIrTE—PUGL)C _ MENTAL AGENCY AND LE*0lKG INSTITUTION OF T TION LISTED _ R SE ARES TAKMAP AIN—o° SECTION 415 BLOCK 5 LOT? HEREON, AND TO THE ASSIGNEES OF THE LENDING RTKEAL ARE MO OWELLIWS WITHIN 100 FEET Of TNS PROPERTY TO AINSTDDITIONAL TUTIONGUARANTEES INSTITUTION 4 ORNSUBSEQUENTTRANSFERABLE A BLE OTHER THAN THOSE SHOWN HEREON OWNERS * TME WATER SUPPLY AND SE`NAQE DISPOSAL SSYSTEM FOR "- I OEP�AIR TN[MT *,DISTANCES SHOWN HEREON FROM PROPERTY LINES -` WILL COMfORM TO THE STANDARDS 9 TO EXISTING STRUCTURES ARE FOR A SPECIFIC LAND Of HEALTH M O TH PURPOSE AMD ARE NOT TO BE USED TO ESTABLISH /t�u J U OFHE LT PROPERTY LIMES OR FOP. THE ERECTION OF FENCES APPLI VENUE A°°"`33 _ YOUNG a YOUNG RHEA,,OSTRANER YORK TEL RHEAD, NEW YORK ALDEN W.YOUNG,PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER L5 @ p, g V AND LAND SURVEYOR N.YS.LICENSE NO.1284 ` HOWARD W.YOUNG, LAND SURVEYOR *TME LOCATION WCL(W),SEPTIC TAMKIST1e CESSPOOLS(CP1 SNONM MERECM ` N.Y.S_LICENSE NO.45893 / O� ARE FMCY FIELD OBSERWETIC*S ANO OR DATA OSTAIMEO FROM OTHERS $p'� #ueaET� ' SRANDIS A SONS INC. 1046 "F ro oy "� M 30N9 ) k Lot 41 now or formerly n c"co8 �10 (VACANTI 1 � County of Suffolk 'AzJ$1, W07, i{ CND WELL WiTNtN T,90') ;sQO�s I i i 12s O� (wll 2.3 n3 n.T S. �8°�O� IOiE. , 4.1 I J I +4 229.13 r 1 B5.aINI0. I �,� rw we�L N f Cw L3`aT lx 6S f Z_ � w paovoSEo��D� � ;�1 Lot 42 \Area=22357s.f. m IvgtV EWAV I 6d 1 t I ` Pot.l O ifj Z � i�� � O \:n s O r, 0 1 (w L3 D . O_ I 050 ..j 12.5 .:31.2.0 I'1 $ U ^ xvL'N5a I �\ O 'N DO CN- 'Q O '(.ST4}ar ZI'O Q �.T N / l Q 7 IOC N Z }" s `•� o O C 48✓r `oJ/f PIPE ' -r z I y 168.80, 200-94 V I, C3 Ce , , 5786006 00 W' °. O '��� N3°5400 W• '322.95 Lot 4•'J (VACANT 1 A u O tS. 83-6 I�I NEW SUFFOLK AVENUE SURVEY FOR ! FREDERICK G. BAUMGRATZ & RUTH A. BAUMGRATZ NOTES LOT 42 ' "MATTITUCK ESTATES,INC.13 L @=MONUMENT FOUND SEPT. 28, 1995 i 2. n=STAKE SET OCw,p=NUMBERED LATH SET AT MATTITUCK DATE JULY 31 , 1995 3, SUBDIVISION MAP-FILED IN THE OFFICE OF TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCALE- i°= 40 THE CLERK OF SUFFOLK CO. ON SEPT. 8,1965 AS FILE NO.4453 SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK NO. 95 -0602 fi 4. ELEVATIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE FROM ACTUAL - SURVEY AND ARE REFERENCED TO N_G.V.D.(MSL1929). *UNAUTHORIZED ALTERATION OR ADDITION TO THIS SURVEY 5 A VIOLATION OF SECTION 7209 OF THE NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION LAW { *COPIES OF THIS SURVEY NOT BEARING THE LAND SURVEYOR'S INKED SEAL OR EMBOSSED SEAL SMALL NOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE A VALID TRUE COPY *GUARANTEES INDICATED HEREON SMALL RUN ONLY TO L :! HEALTH DEPARTMENT-DATA FOR APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT THE PERSON FOR WHOMTHE SURVEY IS PREPARED „yTW AND ON HIS BEHALF TO THE TITLE COMPANY,GOVERN- •\ w2C-Cn^ * NEAREST}EATER SAIN_ISI S !SOURCE OF WATER PmrTE_PUBLiC MENTAL AGENCY AND LENDING INSTITUTION LISTED !,"r CO. TAX MAP CRT 1000 SECTION IIS BLOCK S LOT 7 HEREON,AND TO THE ASSIGNEES OF THE LENDING *TNEAE ARE NO DWELLINGS WITHIN 100 FEET OF THIS PROPERTY INSTITUTION. GUARANTEES ARE NOT TRANSFERABLE OTHER THAN THOSE SXOWM NfREOM. TO ADDITIONAL INSTITUTIONS OR SUBSEQUENT - ■ THE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWAGE OtSPOIAL SYSTEM FOR THIS RESIDENCE OWNERS WILL CONFORM TO THE STAN.OAROS OF THE.SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT *DISTANCES SHOWN HEREON FROM PROPERTY LINES Of HEALTH SERVICES. TO EXISTING STRUCTURES ARE FOR A SPECIFIC APPLICANT- PURPOSE AND ARE NOT TO BE USED TO ESTABLISH PROPERTY LINES OR FOR THE ERECTION OF FENCES ADDRESS ` LANDSVP� TEL — YOUNG & 1OUiVG RIIVVERHEAD, NEW YORIkANDER �KE ALDEN W.YOUNG,PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER AND LAND SURVEYOR N.Y.S.LICENSE NO.12845 HOWARD W.YOUNG, LAND SURVEYOR THE LOCATKINOF WELL(W),SEPTIC TAOMSTISCESSPOOLS(v)ENGEN HEREON N.Y.S.LICENSE. NO.45893 ARE FROM FIELD OSSERWTIONS AMC OR DATA OBTAINED FROM'OTH£RS BRANDIS i SONS INC. 1046 At} Si 4 Aw r i i i F , r j Robert +:. � ... EA,SCP,A, i 1 t k a ' 516.734.5500 II' "• .^+t' '• ❑m o mryioe Apix)hntment ` '" N,' , ❑❑CFNSED❑INSNtFp.❑&Jn;,1 � l xan�wsr�tov�tu❑ ° r ', � ri- ❑susArex Rome o; SFR PRb.; .❑ .5.) . Village Commons❑dlaiu Road❑cutchoxar;.^y .::>pib., •• tl 9\ CHECK OFF LIST FOR APPLICATIONS 1. Date Application Fee Paid: T � , Art�-Np/ 2. Paid $35.00 Waiver Fee with request letter: r F 3 . Inspection date: #� 4. _ Assessed as: 5. Date sent to CAC: 6. CAC Comments: 7 . Declared Lead Agency: 8. D.E.C. permit/ Lettet , 9 . Army Corp Permit: 10. Public Hearing Date: 11. Determination: --- G 1" 1 /M9 �lJ x : DEC FLAW? sa`oZ .3eKS- So W , 9 .95 �FP5ET3idtD�l9lS S r5!i( MlI SrprZom To THE P#Mly IWARFFOtASrE.jric C,tF,f�trtX' Yria gikG WA,!LS P(`o �§kAn Jyt p��7`v�ygk�4.�alai r'Pi�i3,��t UY�7_,tefi'A L" N1i1SP�Ii��t.r�ti V.Y. N �. to rm I.%ALL nrIA frUM tM OF RSY a to v IZY? c. i rrF�,nn a V- fKY;JN 'Y1Y J9 ria 49ESv r:.','.: lMKA4�,N� J.M. wws bi Nib SI.PJFt'A"'rl k!S�BMG A4fO..fJ 52,1 -iAu w'1 Ev '_J 1::1Cf1YG LOT ro Yt r. 411 i r.rt. k•tn! l t":x< ;waLL W. _ .rswwu...�"-"^s� -/ �`f.Y,Y < SM t.'."..r.'::� S W✓:'.0 Ifil '.U4�t' �, •kk:nf31.. a?i` G�'ES kMx3 P: �tl! I Tf/E NYS AAf"v ne s as MI�Li� WET LOT f AS DEL1MFofrFD BY S. G.OREnCE W- 10 -rR s MARSH aN S/S�OZ \ ;rN-i« ar rtt:� 1 •�• ••.... X� it 4 j Q u•' �,. M 1- FR SEs. N a airy 47S 01 I�� � V a y ,f- ,41 n N � Q Y ' o115. 00 o " vv MEA p0W � A /JE JUL 2 9 ?002 9ueVEy OF <O,— ,/z r' = 10,"eEPAeEo ax: SAP of DOIVALb L . MALM 7R. A1477-/77/CK ESTATES LANIO 5aeklEyo.4C F/L E C>: SEPT. S, /9&s 4p yyS3 (o/ NASSAU AVE X:51-1f0 IVY � O G9 TED : /nF/TT/TUCK AL3 i� S8/ - 0003 TOkvn/ OF SOtJ7f/OLO SCALE SUFFOLK COUNTY NEW YO.eK [GATE � ,.Tun/E i 2002 S. C T" /Y7. /000- //.3- S 7 G'EPT/FiFd : ROBE.eT c9 /yW e/G yN LOB/C.0 f N c NOV: O U