Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-4567 ••pWA�"�ir�. �.a+�1.diys.. � �5-"� v w � � „ "3 «jr � ' .-mot ... �, —__ �. __ 'rota+'»"y`..'-�^"`�.+'Ty�..prr. ti'�• ` Board Of Southold Town Trustees z SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK li PERMIT NO. S-� 7 DATE: _.March 28, 1996 ' ISSUED TO . .William and Chn topher,,:Connors.. ,�utl�nr �ttfinn �; .. " -41 H � Pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 615 of the Laws of ;E ��j the State of New York, 1893; and Chapter 404 of the Laws of the k State of New York 1952, and Ordinance en d the Southold �` titled "REGULATING AND THE PLACING OF OBSTRUCTIONS Qf IN AND ON TOWN WATERS AND PUBLIC LANDS and the REMOVAL OF SAND, GRAVEL OR OTHER MATERIALS FROM j LANDS UNDER TOWN WATERS;" and in accordance with the Resolution of The Board adopted at a meeting held on ..M.arch..2-7 it } 19 :_9.4'and in consideration of the sum of $ 150 .00 paid by tit ......Christopher...Connors. _..... ..... f of .......... N. Y. and subject to the a 4 �l Terms and Conditions listed on the reverse side hereof, tl of Southold Town Trustees authorizes and permits the following: ' 1 f;j to constrntt a single family, two-story dwelling, a 10'X25' deck I � on north side, a 5' X 25' deck on south side, sanitary system, ,Kq septic system with 5 leaching pools with approx. 40 .y. of cleaxt4 ° fill, and well as approved by S.C.D.H. Map dated ecember 21 , i all in accordance with''the detailed specifications as presented m1995. 17 the originating application. WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:] s 1 *Convert'area on west side to wetlands, Haybales and silt fence. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The said Board of Trustees here- "1; '", by causes its Corporate Seal to be affixed, and these presents to s' be subscribed by a majority of the said Board as of this date. z= � lK :....� s ... ,z t f. .1� � Trustees f I � e nX3ia� T �O 7 **See details on approval letter. Albert J. Krupski,President Oy�S�ffO(�CO Town Hall John Holzapfel, Vice President 53095 Main Road Sim King via s x P.O.Box 1179 Martin H. Garrell Oy �� Southold, New York 11971 Peter Wenze101 �a0 Telephone(516)765-1892 Fax(516)<765-1823 s BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD March 28, 1996 Christopher Connors 5 Viking Road Glenwood Landing, NY 11547 Re: William & Christopher Connors SCTM # 59`-5-29.3 Dear Mr. Connors: The following action was taken by the Board of Town Trustees during its regular meeting held on March 27, 1996 regarding the above matter: WHEREAS, WILLIAM AND CHRIS CONNORS applied to the Southold Town Trustees for a permit under the provisions of the Wetland Ordinance of the Town of Southold, application dated August 7, 1995,= and, WHEREAS, said application was referred to the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council for their findings and recommendations, and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held by the Town Trustees with respect to :said' application on March 27, 1996, at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard, and, WHEREAS, the Board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question and the surrounding area, and, WHEREAS, the Board has considered all the testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application, and, WHEREAS, the structure complies with the standard set forth in Chapter 37-18' of the Southold Town Code., WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the project as proposed will not affect the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the town, NOW THEREFORE BE IT, RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees grant a Wetland Application to WILLIAM AND CHRISTOPHER CONNORS"-Eo construct a single family, two-story dwelling, a 10' X 251 deck on north side, a 51 X 251 deck on south side, sanitary`,system,septic system with 5 leaching pools with approx. 400 c.y.': of clean fill,and well as ` approved by the S.C. 'Dept. of Health map dated December 21, 1955 t subject to: 1. The area on west side of house be converted to a fresh water wetland during construction of the house. Construction of wetland area must be completed by November 1, 1996. (You can contact: Chris 'Pickerill at Cornell Coap_ for assistance'}. 2. A staked row of haybales must be in place at the flagged wetland line at all times. 3 . A silt fence must be placed by haybales during construction. and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this determination should not be considered a determination made for any other Department or Agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. Permit to construct project will expire two ,years from the date it is signed. Fees must be paid, if applicable,, and permit issued within six months of the date of this notification. Two inspections are required and the Trustees are to be notified upon completion of said project. FEES: None. Very truly yours, i Albert J. Krupski, Jr. i President, Board of Trustees AJK/jmd CC: CAC Tim Collins ZBA Bldg. Dept. Chris Pi.ckerill Health Dept. J f FF6 \�SUCP Town Hall AlbertJ. Krupski,;President �O G John Holzaplel, Vice President �` 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 William G. Albertson v- Southold, New York 11971 Martin H. Gairell O Peter Wenzel y��p� �y,Q� Telephone (516) 765-1892 Fax (516) 765-1823 } BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Office Use Only z ' 1. C astal Erosion Permit Applicaticp w� �tland Permit Application { � ( >� t a _Grandfather Permit Application Trustee Lands Permit Application lk ,rkt 1c Waiver , 1�Tt�tyt,-,T.t � �„ eceived Application: —7—`�S� � X�� Q +SOUT 1tiJLU 4; q erica Review: r &11t a Completed Application to 4� . p Incomplete� Le-Air YS' SEQRA lassification: ype Itype `II Unlisted oorellnatian:'(date sent) " CAC .Referrzal rSent: Q-� GWw .)} ate of Inspection: -a Receipt of. CAC Report: ( ate) y : Lead Agency I)eterminationd - 'Technical Review: (date) io x Public Bearing: (date) F Decisicn—Approved (Y/N) (date) g Application Fee.$ x 1 � Name of Applicant C.'c)wND(�6 j, Address aJ ViL. 7lLl Qb-uWECC( LandiY-l�i ._luV- 1/547 Phone Number: (5t)v ) l-�° 1 ! Suffolk County Tax Map Number: 1000 - 473 8q, Property Location: 3 C'4-� L i Q f1 E7 d 1 �ds (provide LILCO Pole istance to cross streets, and location) Agent: )l ( If applicable) i ;i Address: Phone: z ; i &--�.rd of Trustees Application GENERAL DATA Land Area (in square feet) : Et�G Area Zoning: Previous use of property: VOCCA-ri-L. uma Intended use of property: byte. M a \4 U ueJ b d Prior permits/approvals for site improvements: Agency Date s M �S 9�FC No prior permits/approvals for site improvements. Has any permit/approval ever been revoked or suspended by a governmental agency? X No Yes If yes, provide explanation: Project Description (use attachments if necessary) : Z 5 Viking Rd. PO Box 278 Glenwood Landing, NY 11547; August 4, 1995 Mr.Albert J. Krupski, President =SOUTHOLD Board of Trustees, Town of Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Rd. PO Box'l179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Connors 350 West Drive sc-rm tt89-5-29.3 Dear Mr.Krupski, Enclosed you will find a new application as requested. i have completed same to the best of my ability. Please review and let me know if there is any additional information you need Complying with your letters of 8/11/94,4/28195 and Judge Cohalan's decision of 4/5/95,we have been diligently working on trying to accommodate the Trustees preferential location of the septic system to the N/E coiner of our property. As you know,this requires"cooperation and approval of the neighboring landowner to relocate their existing well (at our expense)to a distance of TOO'from both our septic system as welt as their own. In addition,we would also need the'apprpvai of the SCHD. We regret to advise,that to date,we have not been able to obtain a firm response with respects to the-possible,relocation of the neighbora'ng well to accommodate your desired location of our septic system. After numerous letters to and from our neighbor,we have not been able to make direct contact..The most we have received thus far is a maybe, IF we were to permanently change our deed to limit the dwelling to a one story house. We have-already subtnifled proposals for the only two remaining possible locations of the septic system.These were submitted for the June 29, 1995 monthly meeting for your review. One has the septic system location in the NMfcomer for which we already have SCHD approval_ This location adjoins the neighboring land which has already been filled in and would just extend the amount of improved land by the length of the septic system. Although this location has previously been denied by the Trustees,we have since then reduced the amount of fill,reduced the size of the dwelling, proposed a setf-composting toilet and gray water septic system". This proposai uses only approximately 38%of our total land usage(which in total is only 1/2 acre) The second,proposal locates the septic system in the WE comer of the property. If this would be er more,desirable location,we ask that you help to coordinate this with the SCHD. As we do not have a permit from them for this location: 411e thank you for aII your effpkfs.and hope that we can continue to work towards our final goal of obtaining a Trustee Wetlands Permit without any fuither undo delay. Most sincerely, Colleen Connors CC encl. cc: Judge Cohalan index#2D674.94 *We,ask that you rareview your position on the elivis multrim type toilet system. A=rdrng to our environmentat impact statement,the SCHD and''other evidences given to the Trustees, the use of a standard black water system would be less of an environmental threat than that of a self composting toilet and a gray water system. Thank you. e6 d of Trustees Application r WETLAND/TRUSTEE LANDS APPLICATION.DATA Purpose of the proposed operations: ib O-aN5 G _ runCkoo ,,On v Area of wetlands on lot: fDlDD© square feet Percent coverage of lot: D Closest distance between nearest existing structure and upland � edge of wetlands: 40 feet f� Closest distance between nearest proposed structure and upland edge of wetlands: Q feet Does the project involve excavation or filling? No X Yes If yes, how much material will be excavated?—o—cubic yards How much material will be filled? qcy) cubic yardsC�S�i✓ L7 � Depth of which material will be removed or deposited: feet y toCA� Proposed slope throughout the area of operations:g5 SGd� Manner in which material will be removed or deposited: Statement of the effect, if any, on the wetlands and tidal waters of the town that may result by reason os such proposed operations (use attachments if appropriate) : P�� urQm'• o L 11 i[� 5 vas e-ACACM CU q� ,e g5 t� AtLs� �bEZG p �v + 5➢2Giei /N5 IZ�L�� S Q �l3(1/P�V1 eEF C UY�1VA0-tGA a ` 4 . 'V e C� epic U10 � 52b�� ive. ��cr�o�w6t 111Wrvv�medk4t, 41S k r C� .t5 CiC t l �PxSS ' � 4o��Clk p� �o � 6Wi`T6'�b,'�' t Utd `���W4f rZ> vJ�ni` i aIJC � � u a — 6 14-16-4.(2/87)—Text.12 r , •_ ,_, PRt3J ECT J.D.FjUMBEfl 617, SEQli. C Appendix C State Environmental Quality Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED-ACTIONS Only PART I—PROJECT INFORMATION (To be completed by.Applicant or Project sponsor) i,�.APPLlir�-TT(SPONSOR - � 2. PROJECT NAME �� + Yt�k� G��- �1141�EiA.t�. ld3dV�Y��S 3. PROJECT LOCATIO )� Municipality '/ County 45LA 1. 3 4. PRECISE LryOCA�TIIOyN(Street address and road intersections,prominent landmarks,etc.,or provide map) ASV W�yPj�51 5. IS PROPOSED ACTION: New - ❑Expansion ❑Modification/alteration 6. DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY: t G City A4I CDw A� 7. AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED: '1 rurc L OCed_ O A)jW3 ti1 t\. Initially 'U acres Ultimately acres 8..WILL PROPOSED.ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER EXISTING LAND USE RESTRICTIONS? qYes ❑No If No,describe briefly (Tu_ °44vj 9. VT IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT? Residential ❑!ndustrial ❑Commercial ❑Agriculture ❑Park/Forest/Open space ❑Other Describe: 10.. DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL,OR FUNDING, NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY(FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAQ? ❑Yes vflo if yes, list agency(s)and permit/approvals r 11. DOES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID PERMIT OR APPROVAL? N111yes ❑No If yes, list ac ncy name and permitlapproval [6) ) ��04 72, AS,A RESULT OF ROrP SEp.4,C71 N ILL ISTI. PER�A / PP VAVF U E MQDiF A lO - 4 `� PQ Yes ❑No "`"�iY YYrI'� f,V Fk3 'Y'wv FIN CI V�I �a4'+I �, LT^AT. E1, T70' PR VI B s K6j%q*r BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE APPlicantlsponsor {j�/ M Date: Signature: If the action is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency,_complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this a-;sessment OVER 1 _ PART If—ENVIRONMENTAL P/ " SSMENT (To be completed by Agency) /v~ A. DOES ACTION EXCEED ANY TYPE I THRESHOLD IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617.12?❑Yes El No LyA If yes,coordinate the review process and use the FULL F. , B. WILL ACTION RECEIVE COORDINATED REVIEW AS PROVIDED FOR UNLISTED ACTIONS IN 6 NYCRR,PART 617.6? If No,a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency. ❑Yes El No C. COULD ACTION RESULT IN ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FOLLOWING:(Answers may be handwritten, if legible) C1. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns,.solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion,drainage or flooding problems? Explain briefly: C2. Aesthetic,agricultural, archaeological,historic,or other natural or cultural.resources;or community or neighborhood.character? Explain briefly: C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish,shellfish or wildlife species,significant habitats,or threatened or endangered species?Explain briefly: C4. A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted,or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?Explain briefly.,. i i C5. Growth, subsequent development,or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? Explain briefly. I i I C6. Long term,short term,cumulative,or other effects not identified in CI-05? Explain briefly. : C7. Other impacts(including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy)? Explain briefly. D. IS THERE, OR IS THERE.LIKELY TO BE,CONTROVERSY RELATED TO POTENTIAL ADVERSE.ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS? ❑Yes ❑No If Yes, explain briefly .. I PART III-DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be completed by Agency) INSTRUCTIONS: For each adverse effect Identified above,determine whether it is substantial,large,important or otherwise significant. Each.effect.should be assessed in connection with its (a) setting (i.e. urban or rural); (b) probability of occuI,-tng; (c) duration; (d) irreversibility;(a) geographic scope;.and (f) magnitude. If necessary, add attachments or reference supporting`materials..Ensure that • explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse impacts have been identified and adequately addressed. El Check this box if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY occur. Then proceed directly to the FULL EAF and/or prepare::a positive'declaration. ❑ Check this box if you have determined, based on .the information and analysis above and any supporting documentation, that the proposed actiom WILL NOT result ln_pny significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide on attachments as necessary, the reasons supporting.this determination: Name of Lead Agency F'r nt or type Name of KesponableUlbcer m Lead Agency Title of Keiponssble Of hcer. S gnature or Kesponv bie 011,-,,m Lead Agency S g at re of Preparer lif drrferent from responsible otbce'l Date 2 Ord of Trustees Applicaticx County of Suffolk State of New York ITd3 Ae4_ Y &jfft✓ d oj(10 J BEING DULY SWORN DEPOSESAFFIRMS 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 TOWN' TRUSTEES .HARMLESS AND FREE FROM ANY AND ALL DAMAGES AND CLAIMS ARISING UNDER, OR BY VIRTUE OF SAID PERMIT(S) , IF GRANTED. IN COMPLETING THIS APPLICATION, I HEREBY AUTHORIZE THE TRUSTEES, THEIR AGENT(S),,;OR REPRESENTATIVES fS) , TO ENTER ONTO MY PROPERTY TO INSPECT THE PREMISES IN CONJUNCTION WITH REVIEW OF THIS APPLICATION. p Signature SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS T DAY OF 19 (.5� • F�A'�'�er�.�tasta� Notary Public 3 '1I-16-2 1'-;87)-7c - 617.21 SEAR Appendix A : s Stale Environritental Quality Review FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM t urpTt c�f1F igned to help applicants and agencies determine, in an orderly ma' r, whether a project ac may be signif an The question of whether an action may be significant is not ahvays ea nswer. Frequent- 1 there ar feet that are subjective or unmeasureable. It is also understand that tfr se who determine sf - r no formal knowledge of the environment or may be technically expert rt�environmentaI is many who have knowledge.in one particular area may not be aware of the broader co ms affecting e question of significance. _ gee . The full EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured'that t Liztermination process has been orderly,comprehensive in nature,yet flexible to allow introduction of information to tit a Act or action. Full EAF Components The full EAF is comprised of three parts -Part 1: Provides objective data and information about-a given project and its site. By identifying basic project data, it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3. T part 2: =ocuses on identifying the range of possible impacts that may occur from a project or actionIt provides.. guidance as to whether an impact is like'y to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a potentiaily- large impact. The form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced. Part 3: If,any impact in Part 2 is identified as potentially-large, then Part3.is used to evaluate whether or not the impact is actually important. i DETERMINATION OF. SIGNIFICANCE—Type1 and Unlisted Actions ar Identify the Portions of. EAF completed for this project: ❑ .Part 1 ❑ Part 2 ❑Part 3 , Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF(Parts 1 and 2 and 3 if a ppropriate), and anyother supporting 1r s £ information, and considering both the magitude.and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined by the lead agency that: ❑ A. The project will not result in any large and important impact(s) and, therefore, is one which will not �f Y# have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will he prepared. st ❑ B. Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required, . therefore aCONDITIONED negative declaration will be prepared.` ";( ❑ C. The project may result in one or more large and important impacts that may have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a positive declaration will be prepared. A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions i� Nameo6f Action Name of lead Agency f Print or Type Name of Responsible:Officer in Lead Agency - Title of Responsible Officer i Signature Of Responsible Officer In Lead Agency Signature of Preparer(if different from responsible officer i ) NI Date 9 , PART 1-PROJECT INFOP',ATICIN Prepared by Project Sponsor NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effe on the environment. Please complete the entire form; Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be'consider as part of the application for approval and maybe subject to further verification and public review. Provide any addition information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. . It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not invol, new studies, research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and sped each-instance. NAME OF ACTION LOCATION OF ACTION Inclutle Street Address,Munici0aliry and County) Pam_ ., r , Z C l l N E OF APPLICANTlSPONSOR - n4 BUSINESS TELEPHONE ev ADDRES)I ,�`` ' 5 ) 1 F t' CITY/PO_ 7 ,, STATE 3 E 0 i3c Ili I.yl Le wixjC�) r-t r f I(� N Iz s4 .NAME OF OWNER(it different) - - I" BUSINESS tELEPHONE ADDRESS CITYIPO ( STATE ZIP CODE DESCRIPTION OF ACTION Please Complete Each Question-Indicate N.A. if not applicable A. Site. Description Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas 1. Present land use: ❑Urban ❑Industrial ❑Commercial ❑Residential (suburban) 1 ❑Rural (non-farr ❑Forest ❑Agriculture AOther Y4 Yl l L4131, - 1(-e.6I e.jfiCIL- r 2. Total acreage of project area: 7 acres. APPROXIMATE ACREAGE PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION Meadow or'Brushland (Non-agricultural) Z acres I acres Forested _ acres m acres Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture,.etc.) acre's -" acres Wetland(Freshwater or tidal as per Articles-24, 25 of ECL) .l3 acres 2. acres Water Surface Area.. acres ---_ acres Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) acres it acres Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces - acres _3 __ acres Other (.Indicate type) acres - e "� .,�' acres 3. What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? �1"yx ANA - -a. -Soil drainage:. ❑Well drained - % of site . (Moderately well drained `�l'> °o. of site. . l lPoorly drained _ ) % of site b. If any agricultural land Is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group l through 4 of theNt Land Classification System? -fit acres. (See 1 NYCRR 370). 4. Are there bedrockoutcroppings on roject site? Dyes XNo a. "'hat, is depth to bedrock? (in feet) 2 3.-Approximate percentage of pd"�'ssed protect site with slopes: a U 10",f` '�;, `;7D I5",U o � i ❑1540 or.greater oo. 6. is protect substantially contiguous to, or contain a°burldi'rtg.-site, or district, listed on the State or the Nationa Registers of Historic Places? tiYes No CIs project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? ❑Yes Nc 8. What is the depth of the water table? (in feet) 9. .Isrsite located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? OYes' 1XN0 10. Do hunting, fishing orshell fishing opportunities presently exist in the protect area? Dyes,: 71. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or`endangered? OYes No According-to Identity each species 12. Are there any um Lie or unusual land forms on the 1 ( es, other geological formations Yes kNo Describe project site? i.e.; cliffs, du 13. Is the projrc. sit, presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? []Yes No If yes, explain 14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be'imp ortant to the community? ❑Yes XNo.. 15. Streams within or contiguous to project area. il— YsJir p a. Name of Stream.and name of River tolwhich it is tributary 16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or�c`ontiguous to project area: a_ Name �._ysr_v �1�6~r' Z ' LdS���,P -1� �A b. Size (In acres) Lit 17. Is the site served by existing public utilities? Dyes N o a). If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? ❑Yes ❑No b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? ❑Yes ❑No 18. -Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture. and Markets Law, Article 25-AA; Section 303 and 304? Dyes VNo 19. Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 617? ❑Yes ❑No 10-T KN�WI 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazard ?hazardous wastes, ❑Yes �{No 7`tl B. Project Description.. 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor •5" acres. b. Project acreage to be developed: _n acres initially; C. Project acreage to remain Lind veloped 3 acres ultimately. acres. d. Length of protect in miles:_ (If appropriate) e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed _ N� ,o; , f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing o/ i ;.proposed ol:5 g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour UrL - + (upon completion of project)? h. If residential. Number and ty pe of Housing units: Initially One Family Two:Family Multiple Eamily Condominium Ultimately - i. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure �h height; �C3 width, length- I. oroughfare project will occupy is? ft. Linear feet of frontage alonga public th 3 2. How much natural material (i.e., rock, earth, etc.) will be removed f ,m the site? tonsicubic yards 3. Will disturbed areas be,a`aimed? ❑Yes ❑No XN/A a. If yes, for what intender purpose is the site being reclaimed? " b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation?' Dyes ❑No c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? ❑Yes ❑No 4. How many acres of vegetation (trees,shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? a acres. 5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project? ❑Yes AN 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction months, (including demolition). 7. If multi-phased: fllA a. Total number of phases anticipated (number). b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 month year, (including demolition). c. Approximate completion date of final phase month year. d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? Dyes ❑No 8. Will blasting occur during construction? Dyes No 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction after project is complete " 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project . - 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? Dyes No If yes, explain 12. Is surface liquid_waste disposal involved? 01Yes ❑No II e a. if yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) and amount b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged Abec' 13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? Dyes 1 ❑No Type 14 Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? ❑Yes No Explain 15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100'year flood plain? El Yes N0 16. Will the project generate solid waste? ❑Yes )�No a. if yes, what is, the amount per month tons b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? Dyes ❑No c. if yes, ,give name location d. Will any wastes not go into asewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? Dyes ❑No e. If Yes, explain 17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? ❑Yes )�No a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? tons/month. b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? years. 18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? Dyes *0 19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? Dyes '%No 20. Will project produce operating-noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? Dyes MNo. 21. Will project result in an ncrease in energy use? / Ye No If yes , indicate type(s) CS y'ki CE 1 A 22. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity gallonslminute.. 23. Total anticipated water usage per day gallons/day. - 24. Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? Dyes N0 If Yes, explain - 4 ` ❑YesNo it yCi[y,'Town,.l'illageBoard ,I City, Town, Village Planning Board ❑Y, 'KNo -City, Town Zoning Board Dyes 1No City, County Health Department ❑Yes KNo ❑Yes %1No Other Local Agencies j Other Regional Agencies Dyes 9No 'State Agencies, Dyes C�Na V KN -Peaera).Agencies ' ❑Yeso C. Zoning and Planning Information i 1. Does proposed action involve a planning-or zoning decision? *Yes ❑No If Yes, indicate decision required: ❑zoning amendment ❑zoning variance ❑'special use permit ❑subdivision ❑site pIa d ❑newfrevision of master plan ❑resource managementT an other (fFA 5�eesS �� 9 ? YCSe� ri �rA>_ Anfl�lla �iA�r � 2. What is the zoning classification(s)of the site 3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? t 4. What is the proposed zoning of the site. _. loped as permitted by the proposed zoning? 5. What is the mawmum_potential development of the site if deve 6`Is.the proposed action`consistent with the recommended uses in adopted c local land use plans? Dyes ONO' le radius off proposed ectaon? 7. What are the predominant hand use(s) and zoning classifications 'G within a � FPS KQ.� C\.'�P.� y/.t I hW1�©i 41_DAn 68;Ae q- C�_n� C��J, 6rT �1 mile? Y,I�rn%'451 8. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a '/. Yes ❑No 9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? n�1 0t a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? 10. Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? ❑Yes ❑ e d for any community provided services (recreation, education, police, 11 . Will the proposed action create, a deman fire protection)? Dyes KNo a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? Dyes ❑No ❑Y ion result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? es 12. Will the proposed act ( No a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? Oyes ONO D. Informational Details Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. if there are or may be any advers impacts associated with your propoval, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate c avoid them. E. Verification I certify that the inforniation.Airovided above is tru• to the hest of lily.knowledge. Applicant;Spor r 'arne - a _ Date 5 : Signature 1 r Title if the action is in the Coastal Area, and you. area Gate agency,.complete the Coastal Assessment Porm beio�e proeeedir with this assessment. u 5 tl vet Part_.?—PROJECT IMPACTS AND Tr" -R MAGNITUDE Responsibility of Lead Agency ` General Information (Read Carefully) • In completing the form the reviewer should be guided by the question: Have my responses and determinations beer reasonable? The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst. *- Identifying that an impact will be Potentially large (column 2) does not mean that it is also necessarily significant. Any large impact must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine si;nificance. Identifying an impact in column 2 simply asks that it be looked at further. • The Examples provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of impacts and wherever possible the threshold of magnitude that would trigger a response in column 2. The examples are generally applicable throughout the State anc for most situations. But, for any specific project or site other examples and/or lower thresholds may be appropriate for a Potential Large Impact response, thus requiring evaluation in Part 3. The impacts of each project, on each site, in each locality, will varv. Therefore, the examples are illustrative and have been offered as guidance. They do not constitute an exhaustive lint of impacts and thresholds to answer each question. • The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question. • In identifying impacts, consider long term, short term and cumlative effects. Instructions (Read carefully) a. Answer each of the 19 questions in PART 2. Answer Yes if there will he any Impact. b. Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers. c. If answering Yes to a question then check the appropriate box (column 1 or 21 to indicate the ootentiai size of the impact. If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example Provided, checkcolurrm 2. It impact w,ii occur but thresholc is lower than example, check column 1. d. if reviewer has doubt about size of the impact then consider the impact as ootenuaiiv iarge and proceed to PART 3. e. If a potentially large impact checked in column 2 can be mitie;ated by changets) in the Project to asmall to moderate. impact, also check the Yes box in column 3. A No response indicates that such a reaucuon is not possible. This "must be explained in Part 3. TEI 3 Small topact o3 IMPACT ON LAND Moderateated 8y I 1- Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? Impactt Change , ONO OYES Examples that would apply to column 2- • Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater,,(15 foot rise per 10o ❑ foot of length), or where the general slopes in"the project area exceed ❑No10%.• Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than ❑3 feet. ❑No• Construction of paved parking area for1,000 or more vehicles. ❑• Cen<r.,,c r_ g y ❑No ton on ,and where bedrock is exposed or generally within ❑ I ❑ 3 feet of existing ground surface. ❑Yes ❑No • Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more ❑ ❑ than one phase or stage. ❑Yes ❑No • Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 ❑ ❑ tons of natural material ❑Yes ❑No (i.e., rock or soil) Per year. • Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill. ❑ ❑ •Construction in a designated floodway: El ❑1'es ❑No El•: Other imp,rcts - ❑Yes ❑No ❑ C'Yes ❑No 2. Will there bean effect h. ...,y ur;.que or rumsu,J land (anus found on the site? (ic., cliffs, dunes, geological formatiom, ete.)LNO 13YES • SPeeific land forms: El C ' CYes ❑No ti 6 Christopher Connors 5 Viking Road Glenwood Landing, NY 11547 RE: SCTM #59-5-29.3 Dear Mr. Connors: The following is a schedule of payments for environmental review for above referenced property; October 10, 1995 paid $1,625.00 8/31/95 to 10/2/95 billed <763.75> 2/19/96, 2/28/96 billed <357.50> Balance as of 3/22/96 503.75 in applicants favor If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. neer�l Albert J. Krupski, Jr. President, Board of Trustees AJR:jmd cc: Timothy Collins it iN 11' MAR — 1 19% { Timothy Collins,AICP j Environmental,Planning&Land Development Consultant 27 Joshua Edwards Court - - East Hampton, New York 11937 (516)329-5930 Fax(516)329-6932 February 28, 1996 Board of Town Trustees Town of Southold ` Town Hall` 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 RE: Wetland permit application of Christopher Conners, Southold. Dear Board Members: Enclosed you will find the Environmental Assessment Forms Parts II and III for the above referenced application. The EAF has been prepared for a negative declaration. The Board should review the forms and if you agree with the determination,a resolution can be adopted and the President can sign the forms. The proposed action is considered an unlisted action pursuant to SEQRA. Consequently, coordinated review is not required and no routing is necessary. If the Board has any questions or requires further information, please feel free to contact me. Yours truly, Timothy Collins, AICP TC: tc Enc. Environmental Assessment Form, Part II ' BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Date: February 28, 1996 Project: Application of Christopher Conners Applicant'. Christopher Conners Location: West Drive, Southold SCTM#: 1000-059-05-29.3 Brief Proiect Description: This application is a request for a wetland permit pursuant to Chapter 97 of the Town of Southold Code. The project involves the construction of a 25' x 40' two story dwelling, a 10'x 25' deck on the north, a 5'x 25' deck on the south, the installation of a sanitary system consisting of a septic tank and five leaching pools, installation of a water supply well, and the construction of a 375 square foot driveway. Associated with the project and the installation of the sanitary system will be the construction of a retaining wall and placement of approximately 510 cubic yards of fill. . The project site is a 20,000 square foot parcel located on the west side of West Drive, Southold. it contains approximately 13,000 square feet of freshwater wetlands, or approximately 65% of the site. The wetlands are associated with a larger system which extends to the south and west. A portion of the project site, located directly adjacent to the road, has been previously filled. Consequently, the northeastern portion of the site is considered to be uplands. The balance of the site has been identified as wetlands. The project has been significantly revised from a previous application by relocating and reducing the size of the improvements. All of the improvements have now been located entirely out of the wetlands. However, approximately 1,250 square feet of wetlands will be cleared as a result of the proposed action. This clearing is necessary to accommodate construction and filling activities. The Board has considered other alternatives, including acquisition, design alternatives and relocation of the neighbors well. To accommodate the location of the proposed dwelling, a variance is necessary from the Zoning Board of Appeals. This variance is necessary so as to minimize the disturbance to the wetlands. The Board finds that this proposal minimizes the disturbance to the wetlands to the greatest degree possible while taken into consideration the adjacent development'and the applicants needs. The proposed project is considered to be an unlisted action pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). A Draft Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS) was prepared on a former application and is included as part of the record. 1 IMPACT ON LAND 1. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? Yes.Approximately 8,250 square feet of the property will be disturbed as a result of the project. This includes approximately7000 square feet of uplands and approximately 1,250 square feet of wetlands. The balance of the site will remain in its natural state. This represents approximately 59% of the site. The wetlands found on the site are classified as both tidal and freshwater wetland. However, from field inspection, the highest quality wetland is located within the northwest portion of the site. The disturbance of the site will result in aslight loss of upland and wetland habitats and an increase in impervious surfaces: Construction activities may impact adjacent wetland as a result of erosion of disturbed areas and sedimentation. Identified impacts have a potential fora large impact: Can impacts be mitigated? Yes.'All clearing shall be limited to the clearing line as shown on the survey prepared by Peconic Surveyors dated revised December 21, 1995. Furthermore, a project limiting fence and hay bales, staked end to end, shall be placed along the clearing limit line and all disturbed areas shall be revegetated prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Finally, the wetland area bounded by the project limiting fence shall remain in its natural state in perpetuity and a covenant shall be filed which provides for such protection: These mitigation measures will assist in controlling erosion, preventing sediments from reaching the wetlands and protect the wetlands 2. Will there be an affect to unique or unusual land forms found on the site? No. IMPACT ON WATER 3. Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? No. Located approximately 400 feet to the northwest is Great Pond. As part of the original application the Board felt that there was a potential for significant impacts to the pond. However, this proposal has relocated all of the improvements out of the wetlands. The proposed sanitary system has been located within the southeast corner of the site, futher away from the prime wetland area. The proposed leaching pools have also been shown to be elevated 3' above groundwater. The previous plan provided only a 2' separation distance between the bottom of the leaching pools and groundwater. As part of the construction of the sanitary system the bog material will be removed and replaced with clean sand. The additional separation distance, along with relocating the sanitary system out of the wetlands, will allow for additional filtration of the effluent. This additional filtration will assist in the further removal of pollutants contained in the effluent and provide further 2 protection to the adjacent wetlands and surface waters. Other alternatives have been considered, however, this plan maximizes the setback to the greatest degree possible, provides for proper maintenance by future property owner and has been approved by the Suffolk County Dept.of Health Service. 4. Will the proposed action affect any non-protected or new body of water? No. See Item#3 above 5. Will the proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? No. See Item#3 above. Furthermore, the proposed sanitary system and well has received the approval of the Suffolk County Department of Health Service. The Health Department has been given the responsibility to review and approval of subsurface waste disposal system and water supply wells in Suffolk County. The proposed sanitary,system has been designed to exceed the Health Dept requirement for a Z' separation distance between the leaching pools and groundwater (3' is proposed). This will assist to protect the groundwater and surface water quality and quantity. 6. Will the proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? Yes. The proposed project will result in approximately 1,750 square feet of impervious surfaces. This will result in a slight increase in surface water runoff. This impact is felt to be a small to moderate impact To assist in the proper disposal of the surface water runoff,the proposed dwelling should be equipped with leader and gutters which empty into a dry well and the driveway shall be constructed of pervious material. No direct runoff shall be permitted to flow into the wetlands. IMPACT ON AIR 7. Will the proposed action affect air quality? No. IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 8. Will the proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? No. 9. Will the proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species? No, 3 IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES 10. Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources? No. IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 11. Will the proposed project affect aesthetic resources? No The subject property is zoned for residential use. There are one and two story dwellings within the immediate vicinity of the site. The project is compatible with the existing development. IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12. Will the proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric or paleontological importance? No. IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 13. Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? No. IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION 14. Will there be an affect to existing transportation systems? No. IMPACT ON ENERGY 15. Will the proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply? No. 4 NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS 16. Will there be objectionable odors, noise or vibration as a result of the proposed action? No. IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 17. Will the proposed action affect public health and safety? No. IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD 18. Will the proposed action affect the character of the existing community? No. 19. Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? Yes. During the previous application nearby neighbors voiced concerns and objection on the development of the property. The Board will hold another public hearing to obtain comments from the public DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE Environmental Assessment Forms, Parts I & 11 have been prepared for this project. Upon a review of the information recorded in these documents, and other supporting information, and considering both the magnitude and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined by this Board that the project will not result in any large and important impacts. In that the project is on which will not have a significant impact on the environment, a negative declaration will be prepared. Signature of Preparer Alan J. Krupski, Jr., President Board of Trustees Town of Southold 5309 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 5 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the.implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act) of the Environmental Conservation Law. The Town of Southold Board of Trustees, as Lead Agency, has determined that the proposed action described below will not have a significant effect on the environment and a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be prepared. Date: February 28, 1996 Project: Application of Christopher Conners Applicant: Christopher Conners Location: West Drive, Southold SCTM#: 1000-059-05-29.3 Brief Project Description: This application is a request for a wetland permit pursuant to Chapter 97 of the Town of Southold Code. The project involves the construction of a 25'x 40' two story dwelling, a 10'x 25'deck on the north, a 5'x 25' deck on the south, the installation of a sanitary system consisting of a septic tank and five leaching pools, installation of a water supply well, and the construction of a 375 square foot driveway. Associated with the project and the installation of the sanitary system will be the construction of a retaining wall and placement of approximately 510 cubic yards of fill. The project site is a 20,000 square foot parcel located on the west side of West Drive, Southold. It contains approximately 13,000 square feet of freshwater wetlands, or approximately 65% of the site. The wetlands are associated with a larger system which extends to the south and west. A portion of the project site, located directly adjacent to the road, has been previously filled. Consequently, the northeastern portion of the site is considered to be uplands. The balance of the site has been identified as wetlands. The project has been significantly revised from a previous application by relocating and reducing the size of the improvements. All of the improvements have now been located entirely out of the wetlands. However, approximately 1,250 square fleet of wetlands will be cleared as a result of the proposed action. This clearing is necessary to accommodate construction and filling activities. The Board has considered other alternatives, including acquisition, design alternatives and relocation of the neighbors well To accommodate the location of the proposed dwelling, a variance is necessary from the Zoning Board of Appeals. This variance is necessary so as to minimize the disturbance to the wetlands. The Board finds that this proposal minimizes the disturbance to the wetlands to the greatest degree possible while taken into consideration the adjacent development and the applicants needs. The proposed project is considered to be an unlisted action pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was prepared on a former application and is included as part of the record. Reasons Supporting This Determination The Board has taken a hard look at the environmental consequences of this project and has determined that the project has been designed to maximize the wetland setback and disturbance to the greatest degree possible. The Board has also considered various alternatives. These include, acquisition, design alternatives, relocation of the adjacent private well and reduction in the size of the proposed improvements. The Board finds that the project as proposed provides the applicant with a reasonable use of the property while minimizing the impacts to the wetlands, surface waters and groundwater systems to the greatest degree possible. Mitigation measures include; project limiting fence; hay bales, covenant protecting the wetlands in perpetuity, leaders and gutters leading to one or more dry wells, sanitary system which has been approved by the Suffolk County Department of Health Service' and provides for a 3' separation 'between groundwater and the leaching pools and revegetation'of disturbed areas after construction. Therefore, the project will not have a significant impact on the environment: Alan J. Krupski, Jr., President Board of Trustees Town of Southold 5309 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 For Further Information: Alan J. Krupski, Jr. President Board of Trustees Town of Southold 5309 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Phone: (516) 765-1892 Copies Of This Notice Sent To: "� Suffolk Count ! Suffolk County Marine . .tea. Cornell Y Environmental Learning Center V $690 Cedar Beach Road Cooperative Southold,NY 11971 Extension 516-852.8660 FAX 516-852.6662 U10HIMS JO NMOA MEMORANDUM TO: �J J. Krupski President Board of Town Trustees Town of Southold FROM: Christopher Pickerel[ COOPERATIVE EXTENSION AGENT Wetlands Specialist DATE: April 29, 1996 RE: Connors property As per your request, I made a site visit to the Connors property on West Drive in Southold to observe the building lot, cesspool area and extent of clearing described in the approved site plan dated Dec. 21, 1995. My observations and the plan indicate that there will be some loss of wetlands (approximately 1,200 sq. ft.) resulting from construction of the proposed septic system. In order to compensate for this loss, f recommend restoration of a formerly wet area directly behind the,cesspopl area as opposed to the area to the northwest of the house that the Board originally recommended. The concept I propose will ensure the greatest opportunity for successful mitigation while providing the landowners with useful fill necessary to complete their approved plans. Even though I cannot be onsite when the actual work takes place, I have offered to meet with the Connors' contractor prior to commencement of excavation to ensure that there are no misunderstandings. The following is abrief description of existing and recommended conditions for the restoration area: The suggested restoration area is a linear stretch of fill located in the southern third of the property perpendicular to West Drive extending from the back of what is to be the cesspool field. This fill is terrestrial in origin and consists of coarse sand and some gravel. This filled area is approximately 20 feet wide and 60 feet long (approximately 1,200 sq.ft.). The current grade within this area is approximately 1-1.5 feet above the bottom elevation of the surrounding wetland pools. In order to restore this area to a condition similar to surrounding wetlands onsite it will be necessary to lower the elevations throughout the fill to that of the surrounding wet areas and move some of the wetland vegetation'to be destroyed into this newly created depression. Helping You Put Knowledge to Work Cornell Cooperative Extension provides equal program and employment opportunities.NYS College of Agriculture and Life Sciences,NYS College of Human Ecology,and NYS College of Veterinary Medicine at Cornell University,Cooperative Extension associations,county governing bodies,and U.S.Department of Agriculture,cooperating. Work should begin with excavation of the fill from the back of the property and redeposition of this material near the front in the building envelope. It is essential that the heavy equipment used for this work not travel into the excavation once the elevation has been lowered as this will compact the soil and prevent plant establishment. Therefore, it may be necessary to excavate the rear portion of the fill first and work forward towards the road. When a significant area of fill has been removed the machine operator can then go to the wetland area to be filled and dig up some of the existing wetland vegetation. Salvage of this vegetation should involve removing the top 6 inches of wetland soil and organic matter and moving it as a"sod"or in large sections. This material is then spread evenly into the new excavation. This process should continue towards the road in increments that allow for excavation and replanting without entering the excavated'area. It may be necessary to complete the excavation/replantirfg in 2 to 6 sections depending on the type and size of equipment used:,Once the back of the proposed "clearing limif' is reached,'excavation stops. cc: Chris and Colleen Connors Chris Smith M.S. Ref.# R10-94-0071 11.0 v r0 'TE' SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM DESIGN I 9a. INCLUDING WALL o _ c Is cRAi BY' JOSEPH FISCHE- TI, P.E. Y S17 �e HOBART ,ROAD I ¢T —� a SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971 ,� o s 8 v 9 (516) 765-2954 All' � �. i G eaYn P] "ff—e ~ OF laFly er. n,gqne. FISC GRADING PLAN " RpwCv�7 1`�tY w \ s OA �c'• E ssf2o5N1 I� uF PV,,/� I1 SURVEYFOk , TAINING CHRI TO HER C0 j r A T SOUTHOLD t L TOWN OF SOUTHOL \ �• n P �� SUFFOLK COUNTY ti 1000 Scale: 1 rr- _ - .� °, IV � Aug. 31 1992 Nov. 3, 1993 (B.O Juty 15, 1994 (fill dune 21,1995 :1 Revi, ,�. Aug. 30I 1995 v r� °y FFOUt COUNTY MPARTMEuT OF HEALTIi SERVICES 1 27,1995 fWe11, a . 15, 1995 fRe vis S . FOR APPROVAL.OF COTvST,RUTION ONLY Q 1. 23, 1995 (re vis tS� '"L,; 4- � ' DATE ` N 2 5 a r n D c. 21, 1995 (Re vi o P ,� -„ G as 10,E l APPFiOYED O Cj- et°atlodr '"1� EXPIRES"PtIAEE PEARS FROM DATE OF APPROVAL 4 0 5 � others. t9C B {o fle remo✓9d k. a �; ., 6, �:. IAG. ,o/n Sep �y,.>~r,�. i-.... �. arrest Bn GramPa p a its Ajw/"in,ng Wa// M � . 00frn s t� Fj"r©9 TQT. - AREA .- 2Q,QQO.sy.lt.` ,° F AR._6' OF WFTI 6,gf)L' _ I ? 4zn $'r � el, 7.8 = tsr000ead elevo!!on F �' �.�✓ o��sUFFO(k�o Albert J. Krupski,President �� Gy Town Hall John Holzapfel, Vice President c 53095 Main Road C4 P.O. Box 1179 ' x Jim King Martin H. Carrell Dy �� Southold,New York 11971 Peter Wenzel �4j �a0 Telephone (516)765-1892 Fax(516)765-1823 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OFSOUTHOLD Argil 25, 1996 William & Christopher Connors 5 Viking;Road Glenwood Landing, NY '11547 Re: SCTM #59-5-29. 3 Dear Mr. Connors, The following action was taken by the Board of Trustees at their regular meeting of April- 24, 1996: RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board of Trustees approve the request for an: Amendment to Permit #4567 to add a 6' X 501 deck onto the western side of house which will he buttressed to house with no pilings and no fill added to property. Located`: 350 West Drive, Southold. If you have any questions, please feel free to call our office. Very truly yours, Albert J. Krupski, Jr. President, Board of Trustees AJK/djh CC. CAC BLDG. DEPT. 1 April 20, 1996 5 Viking Rd. P4 Box 278 Glenwood Landing, NY 11547 Mr. Albert Krupski, President r Southold Town Board of Trustees I Southold Town Kali APR 2 Main Rd Southold, NY 11971 [T!,rjVJN OF SOUTHOLD Re; Permit#4567 Connors 350 West Drive Dear Al, This is a follow up to nTr request dated 412196 for an amendment to our wetlands permit#4567. I have enclosed a check for$40.00, along with a copy of our survey which outlines a Eft deck with pilings. As per my conversation with Diane, we are agreeable to reduce the size of the deck from the 8ft. we originally requested to Eft This is a fair compromise and we feel this would still service our needs. I j Again, 1 wish to point out, the deck would be on the second story, approximately 1 eft above grade. There would be,no obstruction to the wetlands and no effect on the light filtration. We own a total of 112 acre, but due to the nature of the property, we are limited to its use. The addition of this eft. deck would add significantly to the usage of our property. Thanking you in advance for giving this matter your attention, I remain, very truly yours, Colleen Connors o�Oc��EFIIC,f��� Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Telephone p (516)765-1801 �� ��t" Southold, New York 11971 SOUTHOLD TOWN CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL At the meeting of the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council held Monday, April 22 1996,'-the following action was made: ; A-49 Moved by Allan Connell, seconded by John Hagerty, it was RESOLVED to recommend to the Southold Town Board of Trustees ARPROVI►L W1;71i PROVISIONS of the request of WtLLlAM AND COLLEEN CONAIORS 59'=5-29.3`>to amend permit to -add a deck on the western side of the house. Deck would be on the second story, a height of 'approximately 16'-17' above grade; 81' x 40' with additional pilings; or cantilever a 4' deck on the west side for the length of the house,-(40') and 1'6'=17' above grade. The Council recommends approval of the 4' deck on the west side of the house provided there is no additional disturbance to the wetlands in the form' -of additional pilings. =350 West Drive, Southold Vote of Council: Ayes: All Motion carried. F !14f �V'`. 1 A'R 2 3 iQ96 iIApril 20, 1996 I F o 5 Viking Rd_ PO Box 27 Glenwood Landina, NY 11547 Mr. Albert Krupski, President Southold Town Board of Trustees ',", Southold Town Hall Main Rd. Southold, NY 11971 Re: Permit#4567 Connors 350 West Drive Dear Al, This Is,a follow up to my request dated 4/2/96 for an eadrnent to our wetlands ` p•`err� '#45671 have enclosed a check for $40.00,.along with a copy of our survey which outiines a 6ft. deck with pilings. As per my conversation with Diane, we are agreeable to reduce the size of the deck from the 8ft, we originally requested to Eft; This is a fair compromise and we feel this would still service our needs. Again, !,wish to point out, the deck would be on the second story, approximately 16ft, above grade. There would be no obstruction to the watlands`and no effect on the light filtration. We own a total of 1/2 acre, but due to the nature of the rmoperty; we are limited to its w. The addition of this Eft. deck would add sigrJicantly to the usage of our property. Thanking you in advance for gig:ing this matter your a tentior, I remain, Very truly yours, Colleen Connors gyp( •D NSA ~ 1 ful, qg Qzt 37 (� ;C3�o. z Ian �Q 3 1�.. 1 � _ m z 0 ' 4: � ��{..,. z• :. yam, � � ,; � � (.•�cs�. J ROAN Ci d o0 0' .CC ata u d' � N.2m ,4 �Q� OO ` "•�i. �a �` •'�"IB�'fay' 10, A l � i 0 00 VIA . a ` off JTY.i Q r Nle tl' j 9 bA H 0 V •r:r � 0 5i r. L k-•a p �. A eW_ 22 - 96 MOH 14 ' 2-9 HOOD —:CONNORS - -T ACKSON p ,_ 01. r : (516)'48673330 i (718)347-0148 FAX 8(516)775-0831 N S U.R A N C E 340 JERICHO-TURNPIKE FLORAL PARK,N.Y. 11001 FACIMILE COVER PAGE DATE:�S(� TO: 0Y• llzw e,4 U ATT FROM. (Y ( 4yy!9 � a APR L $1996 k� RE: ( ins ed ,; ti a D.O.L. ) COMMENTS: '�1DMi �U�KN✓�L; 7/L� a N &vv4Puh& 1111a I dkxq Am: 4,4- G TOTAL # OF PAGES SENT: THANK YOU FOR GIVING THIS MATTER YOUR PROMPT ATTENTION. IF YOU HA V NY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL THE UNDERSIGNED. APR 3 April 2, 1996 5 Viking Rd. PO Box 1278 z y Glenwood Landing, NY 11 Mr.Albert Krupski, President Southold Town Board of Trustees Southold Town Hall Main toad Southold, NY 11971 Re: Permit#4567 Connors 350 West Drive - Dear Al, First t would like to extend my most sincere thanks to the Board for resolving this application in granting our long awaited wet and permit. Even with the granting of same, it was apparent that not all board members were in agreement. I applaud the Board for being able to recognize the fact that a property owner should have some rights. I must be honest in saying however,that this house is not the house of our dreams, but understand and respect the boards decision_ With that thought,in trying to design the perfect house on this not so perfect lot,we realize that a deck on the western side df-the house, overlooking the Peconic Dunes would be greatly desired. The deck would be located on the second story, a height of approximately 16-17 ft. above grade. Ideally, we would like to propose an,8ft x 40ft deck,which would require additional pilings, but no addefional fill and would still be kept within the 14 ft. construction barrier. The sift fence and hay bales would remain as originally planned. But being the realist I am,if this is not acceptable to the board, t would ask that we be able to at least cantalever a Oft deck on the west side for the length of the house(40ft.) There will be zero obstruction/destruction to the wetlands and being 16-17 ft.above grade will not have any effect on the light filtration. In designing the plans for our home,it makes a difference in the construction in whether or not we plan to include this deck. We cannot file a plan with out a cantalever deck and then just amend it, structurally the entire plan must be changed to accommodate the inclusion of the deck. I thank you for giving this matter your attention and remain, Very truly yours, ^ I t/ Colleen Connors S°y T. :HOOD=CONNORS-JACKSON AGENCY, INC. 340 JERICHO TURNPIKE FLORAL PARK; NEW YORK 11001 (516),488-3330 (718) 347-0146 FAX (516) 775-0631 //I /�/ TO Date T 01g d 1 o ^ � "eLw. 1'a6 A ill - AVARABLE FROM BUSINESS ENVELOPE MAIJUF RS,INC DEER PARK,N.Y. ANAHEIM,CALIF- Item NO.FGZQ ___ .. Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 •+' • Southold. New York 11971 Telephone Qom' (516) 76 1s01 _SOUTHOLD Tf3 - CONSERvffMON ADVISORY COUNCIL At the meeting of the Southold 'Town Conservation Advisory Council held Thursday, August 24, 1995 the following action was taken: No. 1290 Moved by Bruce Loucka, seconded by Stephen Angell, yit was RESOLVED to recommend to the Southold Town Board of Trustees DISAPPROVAL of the Wetland Application of WILLIAMD AND CHRISTOPHER CONNORS 59-3-29.3 to construct a single family dwelling. The CAC recommends disapproval for the following reasons 1 . Project is located on Wetlands 2. Lot size is inadequate. 3. 67% of the lot is wetlands. 4. Located in flood zone. 5. Shallow-watertable septic system could impact the groundwater. 350 West Drive, Southold Vote of Council: ' Ayes: All . Motion carried_ Albert I. Knipsld,President �p O Town Hall John Holzapfel,Vice President o y` 53695 Main Road Jim King x F O Box 1179 ,tea• Southold New Yolk 11971 Martin H. Garrell • ,. ; . Peter Wenzel �'?J�� a0� Telephone(516)765-1892 :A Fax(516)765-1823 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD March 22„ 199 , ' Christopher Connors 5 Viking Road Glenwood Landing; NY 11547 RE: SCTM #59-5-29. 3 Dear Mr. Connors: The following `is: a schedule of payments for environmental review ➢ for above referenced property October 10, 1995 paid $1,625.00 8/31/95 to 10/2195 billed <763-75> 2/19/96, 2/28/96 billed <3,5 Balance as of 3/22/ 96 503.75 in applicants favor If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. 1 neerPl� Albert J. Krupski, Jr.- President, Board of Trustees AJK:�md cc-- Timothy Collins yOg�FfOt,��o p APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS �� 1 � ; So*,�t,," Town Hall Gerard P. Goehringer,Chairman T 3 i 53 4 ain Road Serge Doyen,Jr. �� IN U 2 P"f- B:ox 1179 James Dinizio,Jt Ol �a0 g4 �S5� iibok,New York 11971 Robert A.Villa a = ' i 765-1823 Lydia A.Tortora � a one lb) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOL.D ACTION OF ,THE BOARD OF APPEALS Appl. No 3648 as amended 2113196: Application of CHRISTOPHER CONNORS, for a variance based upon a Notice of Disapproval issued by the Building Inspector dated 218/96 for- a building permit' to constrict single-famRy dwelt; with an insufficient front yard setback, Article MA, Section 100-30A.3, and subject to-obtaining approval from the Southold Town. Trustees and other appropriate agencies, concerning premises known as 350 West Drive, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-59-5-29.3. WHEREAS, after due notice, a public hearing was held on March 61 1996, and at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; end WHEREAS, the Board has carefully considered all_testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application; and WHEREAS, Board members have personally viewed, and are th familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact: 1. This is an application for an "area" setback variance. The appellant has applied to the Building Inspector for permission to locate a proposed single-family dwelling. The application for a building permit was disapproved on the grounds that "under Article InA, Section 100-30A.3, proposed construction will not have sufficient front yard setback - minimum 40 ft. required-" 2 The subject lot is referred to as 350 West Drive, South- old, New York, and contains a lot width of 133.33 feet and lot area of 20,000 square feet_ This Parcel was created by town approval on March 16, 1972 under Appl. No. 1506 (Map of Druhl), and is vacant_ 3. In this application, applicant proposes to locate a new dweitg at 26 feet from the front property line along West Drive, Southold pursuant to : recommendations and discussions with the Town Trustees' personnel, ,and locating a smaller' house as far from the wetland area as possible. The remaining yard setbacks will be in accordance with the code requirements applicable to a nonconform r � Page 2 - Appeal No. 3648 Application of CHRISTOPHER CONNORS & ano. Decision Rendered March 6, 1996 ing lot of this size (ref. Section 100-244 as amended 12195). 4. In considering this application, the following facts are also noted: (a) approval has been issued by the Suffolk County Department of Health dated January 25, 1996, under HS Ref. No. _ R=10-940071, in accordance with a Board of Review idetermination dated December 17, 1993. (b) by Supreme Court Order granted July 1, - 1992, Justice Thomas M. Stark, it was ordered that this property is exempt pursuant to the Environmental Conservation Law, Section 24-1305 from having the requirement of a freshwater wetlands permit for laud uses referred to in the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation letter dated June 25, 1992 (DEC Ref. No. 1-4738-00560j00001-0; (e) the Southold Town Board of Trustees have on February 28, 1996 issued a Negative Declaration, determining non-significance under the SEQRA regulations; (d) under reviews by the Town Planning Board on or about March 24, 1970, the Town Board of Appeals dated March 16, 1972, and the Building Inspector dated December 13, 1972, it was determined that the lot was a separate lot for the purposes of zoning and building; (e) under Certificate of Occupancy No. Z-15292 dated February 23, 1987, the Building Inspector certified that the vacant lot conforms substantially to the applicable provisions of the Zoning Code (issued to Dorothy Babson and Daniel Gurkin); S. Further, the Board finds and determines: (a) the circumstances are uniquely related to the sensitive nature, unique characteristics, dimensions, contours, and location of the property; (b) there is no alternative for applicants to pursue other than a setback variance; (c) the variance requested will create a minimal visual change in the character of the neighborhood'along this street, and may cause a minor visual detriment, if any, to adjoining properties, although presently vacant, when comparing the difference of 14 feet (the code requirement of 40 feet less the requested 26 ft. setback, and any possible alternative to that figure) Page 3 Appeal No. 3648 Application of CHRISTOPHER CONNORS & ano Decision Rendered March 6, 1996 (d) the relief requested is substantial at 14 feet, or, 35%, however, the reasons for this request are rational and necessary, and the variance as, granted is the minimum which,would allow some 'benefit to the property owner within reason, and at the same time not have an_adverse effect or impact on physical or environmental conditions' in the neighorhood (also see SEQRA Negative Declaration dated 2/28/96 by the Town Trustees); (e) it is not uncommon for an owner to request a set back variance in order to preserve the environmental character- istics of the property (such as wetland grasses, etc.); (f) the variance requested does not involve an increase in living area or dwelling unit density; (g) the relief requested will not cause a substantial effect on available governmental facilities since the structure is for single-family use in a residential zone district and residential neighborhood; (h) the variance will not in turn be adverse to the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience, or order of the town, or be adverse to neighboring properties, and the benefit to the applicant is greater when weighed against the health, safety, and welfare of the community; U) the relief requested is not self-created by applicant; (j) in considering all the above factors, the interests of justice will be served' by granting the variance as noted below. Accordingly, on motion by Member,Dinizio, seconded by Member' Doyen, it was RESOLVED, to GRANT a Variance for the front yard setback at 26 feet as requested (and shown on the Map last revised Octo- ber .23, 1995, prepared by Peconic Surveyors, P.C. for the applicant). Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Doyen, Goehringer and Dinizio. Nays: Members Tortora and Villa. This resolution was duly adopted (3-2 margin). (During a ' period of time in the deliberations prior to Member Dinizio's offering this motion, some dissention was discussed. The Chairman asked several times if Page 4 - Appeal No. 3648 Application of CHRISTOPHER CONNORS & Zino. Decision Rendered March 6, 1996 anyone would like to offer a motion for alternative relief, however,, no alternative motion was offered.) ZBA_1Ti - ERARD P. GOEHRIN ER CHAIRMAN BY 3/�3/9s /o: aa L i£ i Timothy Collins,AICP Envuo ental,Planning&hand Development Consultant 27 Joshua Edwards Court East Hampton,New York, 11937 (516)329-5930 . 4 Invoice submitted to: Board of Town Trustees I ! Southold Town of South 53095 Main Road 5 a 1 P.O. Box1179 1�=: m r; Southold NY 11971 March 2,1996' Professional services Hrs/Rate Amount Conner Application 2119/96 Review Plans. Prepare EAF Part ll and Part Ill for review by Town 4.50 292.50 Trustees 65.001hr , Canner`Applicatiorr 2128/96 Revise EAF based upon comments. Finalize,print and fax to 1.00 65.00 - Trustees. 65.00/hr ConnerApplication'' SUBTOTAL: [ 5.56-= 35750-f' Town Trusttees t/16/96 Review revised SEQR regulations for changes from previous taw. T.25 146.25 Start draft of narrative to Trustees on Type I and Type It Actions 65.001hr Town Trusttees 1/18196 Telephone conversation with NYSDEC. Finalize letter to Trustees 2.00 130.00 re:SEQRA regulations. 65.00/hr Town Trusttees 1119/96 Review letter, revise and fax to Town in draft form O150 32.50 Town Trusttees 65.00/hr 1126/96 Met with Board of Trustees on SEQR Law changes. 2.25 146.25 Town Trusttees 65.00/hr ©gl1fF0(;��� Albert J.Krupski,,President �� �y Town Hall John Holzapfel,Vice President, o= ` < 53095'Main Road C* v P.O.Box 1179 Jun King p � � Southold,New York 11971 Martin H. Garrell 'yiJjQ aQ� 6 -1892 Peter Wenzel 1 Tel ne�o 5( 1 )765 Fax(516)765-1823 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD February 28, 19-96 William & Chris Connors 5 Viking Road Glenwood Landing, NY 11547' Re: SCTM #59-5-29.3 Dear Mr. Connors, The following action was taken by the Board of Trustees at their regular meeting of February 28, 1996: RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board of Trustees grant the following Negative Declaration for a. one-family dwelling. See attached If'you:have any questions, please feel free to call our office.. Very�trul,/ / y yo}urs,/ Albert J. Krupski, Jr. President, Board of Trustees A3K/djh cc. CAC ZBA BLDG. DEPT. HFALTH DEPT. NEGATIVE DECLARATION`. Nodce of Determination of Non-significance dx This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article S MM (State Environmental Quality.Review Act) of the Environmental Conservation Law The Town of Southold Board of Trustees, as Lead Agency, has determined that the proposed acUondescribed below will not have a significant effect on the environment and a Draft Environmental'Impact Statement will not be prepared. Date: February 28, 1996 Project: Application of Christopher Conners Applicant: Christopher Conners Location: West Drive, Southold SCTM#: 1000-059-05-29.3 Brief Project Description: This application is a request fora wetland;permit pursuant to Chapter 97 of the Town of Southold Code. The project involves the construction of a 25' x 40' two story dwelling,a 10' x 25' deck on the north, a 5' x 25' deck on the south, the installation of a sanitary system consisting of a septic tank and five leaching pools, installation of a water supply well, and the construction of a 375 square foot driveway. Associated with the project and the installation of the sanitary system will be the construction of a retaining wall and placement of approximately 510 Cubic yards of fill. The project site is a 20,000 square foot parcel located on the west side of West Drive, Southold. ` It contains approximately 13,000 square feet of freshwater wetlands, or approximately 65% of the site. The wetlands are associated with a larger system which extends to the south and west. A portion of the project site, located directly adjacent to the road, has been previously filled. Consequently, the northeastern portion of the site is considered to be uplands. The balance of the site has been identified as wetlands. The project has been, ignificant[y revised from a previous application by relocating and reducing the size of the improvements. All of the improvements have now been located'entirely'out of the wetlands. However,approximately 1250 square feet of wetlands will be cleared as a result of the proposed action. This clearing is necessary to accommodate construction and filling activities. The Board has considered other-altemativee, including acquisition, design, altematives and relocation of the neighbors well. To accommodate the location of the proposed dwelling, a variance is necessary from the Zoning Board of Appeals. This variance is necessary so as to minimize the .disturbance to he wetlands. The Board finds that this proposal minimizes the disturbance to the wetlands to the greatest degree possible while taken into consideration the,.'_ adjacent development and the applicants needs. The proposed:project is considered to be an unlisted action pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act(SEQRA). A Draft Environmental Impact Statement'(DEIS) was prepared on . a former application and is included as part of the record. 'Reasons Supporting This�Determination: The Board has taken'a hard look atthe emirontnentai consequences of this projectand,has determined that the project.ties beery des�9ne�to mardm¢e the wetland setback'and, disturbance'to the greatest degrge,possible.�-, The $card ,has also considered various�alternatives:.'These inciude,_acquisition, design a{fematives; rekrcatwrr ofthe adjacent private.yell and reduction in the size of the proposed;improvements Thel Boarrt finds. that the project as proposed provides the applicant with a reasonable use of the property,while minimizing the impacts to the wetlands, surface waters and groundwater systems to the greatest degree possible. Mitigation measures include, project limiting fence, hay bales, covenant protecting the wetlands in perpetuity, leaders and gutters leading to one or more dry wells, sanitary system which has been approved by the Suffolk County Department of Health Service and provides fora 3' separation beh"en groundwater and,,the leaching pools and revegetation of disturbed areas'after construction. Therefore .the projectwill not have a significant impact on the environment. Copies to: CAC ZBA Bldg. Dept. Health Dept. `G a� FEB 2 _ 1996 AA N OF S Special 'conditions For Rio-95-0071 1. Unsuitable soils shall be removed and replaced with sand and gravel, acceptable to the Department, for a diameter six feet greater than the leaching pools (three foot collar) ;extending down into a minimum six foot strata of 'acceptable sand and gravel. 2. 'maintain a minimum ten feet separation between retaining; wall and leaching pools. Plan indicates that leaching pools may be less than the required ten feet; therefore the actual location of the leaching pools or retaining wall may have to be adjusted to maintain the required separation. 3. A licensed design professional must inspect and certify construction according to the approved plan and conditions. ' rf =rom:Timothy Collins To:BoardotTrustees Date: 6 rme 7.32[1 i _ -- --- - `-` rr _ Page 2 of 9 stir L L' FEB 2 8 x Timothy Collins, AiCP �® Environmental,Planning A:Land Development Consultant OWN F S'Oi6a HOLD i 27 Joshua Edwards Con, Fast Hampton, New York 11937 (516)329-5930 Fas(51 ti)329-6932 February 28, 1996 Board of`Town T ustecs Town ol'Southold Town liar, 53095 Main Road P.U. Box 1179 Southold,, New York 11971 RE: Wetlacid permit application of Christopher C.miners, Southold. Tear Board Members: L;nciosed you will find the Environmental Assessment Yoims Parts 11 and Ill for flit abo c referenced application_ The FAF has been prepared lux a negative declaration. The Board should review the forms and if you agree with the dacimination, a resolution can be adopted and the President can sign the Rains. The proposed action is considered an unlisted action pursuant to SEQRA. Consequently, coordinated review is not required and no routing is necessary. If the Board has any questions or requires fiuthcr information, please fccl fret;to contact me. Yours truly, TimcyCollins, AICP TC: tc L;nc. From:Timothy Collins To:Board of Trustees ) ,,Date.L128196 Time:7:32:12� 1 Page 3 of 9 41 Environmental Assessment Form, Part Ih BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES T0W1`I OF SOUTHOLD Date: February 26, 1996 Project`. Application of Christopher Conners Applicant. Christopher Conners Location: West Drive,Southold SCTM#: 1000-059-05-29.3 Brief Project Description: This application is a request for a wetland permit pursuant to Chapter j 97 of the Town of Southold Code. The project involves the construction of a 25' x 40' two story dwelling, a 10' x 25' deck on the north, a 5' x 25' deck on the south, the installation of a sanitary system consisting of a septic tank and five leaching pools, installation of a water supply well, and the construction of a 375 square foot driveway. Associated with the project and the installation of the sanitary system will be the construction of a retaining wall and placement of approximately 510 cubic yards of fill. The project site is a 20,000 square foot parcel located on the west side of West Drive, Southold. It contains approximately 13,000 square feet of freshwater wetlands, or approximately 65% of the site. The wetlands are associated with a system larger s tem which extends to the south and west. A 9 portion of the project site, located directly adjacent to the road, has been previously filled. Consequently, the northeastern portion of the site is considered to be uplands. The balance of the site has been identified as wetlands. The project has been significantly revised from a previous application by relocating and reducing the size of the improvements. All of tine improvements haverow been located entirely out of the wetlands. However, approximately 1,250 square feet of wetlands will be cleared as a result of the proposed 'action. This clearing is necessary to accommodate construction and filling activities. The Boara has considered other alternatives, including acquisition, design alternatives and relocation of the neighbors well. To accommodate the location of the proposed dwelling, a variance is necessary from the Zoning Board of Ai.;peals. This variance is necessary so as to minimize the disturbance to the wetlands. The Board firtds that this proposal minimizes the disturbance to the wetlands to the greatest degree possible while taken into consideration the adjacent development and the applicants needs. The proposed project is considered to be an jinlisted action pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was prepared on a former application and is included as part of the record. 2 Date:228196 '�Me:7:32:12 i� Page 4 of 9 From:Timothy Collins To:Boavd of Trustees �� IMPACT ON LAND 1. will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? Yes.Approximately 8,250 square feet of the property will be disturbed as a result of the project. This includes approximately 700 square feet of uplands and approximately 1,250 square feet of wetla ds, The balance of the site will remain in its natural state. This represents approxi mately 59% of the site. The wetlands found on the site are classified as both tidal and freshwater wetland. However, from field inspection, the highest quality, etland is located within the northwest portMi of the site. The disturbance of th site will result in a slight loss of upland and wetland habitats and an increase in 'mpervious surfaces. Construction acf i'irities may impact adjacent wetiano a result of erosion of disturbed areas and sedimentation. identified impacts have a potential for large impact. Can impacts be mitigated? Yes.All clearing shall,be;limited to the c earing fine as shown on the survey prepared by Pecorli6Zurveyors dated revised December 21, 1995. Furthermore, a project limiting fence and hay bales, staked end to end,,shall be placed along the clearing limit l neand,'all disturbed area shall be revegetated,prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Finally, th wetiand area bounded by the project' limiting fence shall remain in its natural tate.in perpetuity and a covenant shall be filed which provides for such protection. These mitigation measures will assist in controlling erosion, preventing sediment from reaching the wetlands and protect the wetlands 2. will there be an affect to unique or unu ual lance forms found on the site? No. i IMPACT ON WATER 3, will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? No. Located approximately 400 feet to tie noihwest is Great Pond. As part of the original application the Board felt that there was a potential for significant impacts to the pond: 'However, this proposal Lha i relocated all of the improvements out of the'wetlands. The proposed sanitary s tem has been located within the southeast corner of the site, futher away from the prime wetland area. The proposed leaching pools have also been shown to be elevated 3' above groundwater. The previous plan provided only a 2'separation distance between the bottom of the leaching pools and groundwater. As part of the onstrucion of the sanitary system the bog material will be removed and replacad ivith clean sand. The additional separation distance, along with relocating the sand ary system out of the wetlands, will allow for additional filtration of the effiuentr T iis additional filtration will assist in the further removal of pollutants contained n the effluent and provide further protection to the adjacent wetlands and surface v taters. Other alternatives have been considered, however, this plan maximizes the setback to the greatest degree possible, provides for proper maintenance by future property owner and has been approved by the Suffolk County Dept. f Health Service. 3 From:Timothy Collins To:Board of Trustees ' r.,t¢n2128/85 "i"ime:7:32:12' V Page 5 of 9 4. Will the proposed action affect any non-protected or new body of water? No. See Item'#3 above 5. Will the proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? No: See Item'03 above. Furthermore, the proposed sanitary system and well has received the approval of the Suffolk County Department of Health Service.The Health Department has been,given the responsibilityto review and approval of subsurface waste disposal system'and water supply wells in Suffolk County. The proposed sanitary system has been dr�signed,tn exceed the Health Dept. requirement fora,, separation distance between the leaching pools and groundwater(T is proposed). This Will assist to protect tlfe groundwater and surface water quality and quantity. 6. Will the proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? Yes. The proposed project will result in approximately 1,750 square feet of impervious surfaces. This will result in a slight increase in surface water runoff. This impact is felt to be asmall to moderate impact. To assist in the proper disposal of the surface water runoff, the proposed dwelling should be equipped with leakier and gutters which empty into a dry well and the driveway shall be constructed:of pervimis material No direct runoff shall be permitted to flow into the wetlands. IMPACT ON AIR 7. Will the proposed action affect air quality? No. IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS S. Will the proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? No. 9. Will the proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species? No. IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES 10. Wiil the proposed action affect agricultural land resources? No. 4 } Date:2I2MG Tirr_:7:38:10,( \ _ Page 6 of 0 From:Timothy Collins To:Board of Tn+stees IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES- 11. Will the proposed project affect aesthetic resources? No. The subject property is zoned for residential use.: There are one and two story dwellings within the immediate vicinity of the site. The project is compatible with the existing development. IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12. Will the proposed action,impact any site or structure of historic,prehistoric or paleontological importance? No. IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 13. Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of, existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? No. IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION 14. Will there be an affect to existing transportation systems? No. IMPACT ON ENERGY 15. Will the proposed action affect the community s sources of fuel or energy supply? No, NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS 16. Will there be objectionable odors, noise or vibration as a result of the proposed action? No. 5 From:Timothy Collins To:Board of Trustees Date:Z28196 Time.7:38:1 OPW Page 7 of 9 IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 17. Will the proposed action affect public health and safety? No. IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHAikACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD 18. Will the proposed action affect the character of the existing community? No. 19 Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse i environmental impacts? Yes. During the previous application nearby neighbors voiced concerns and objection on the development of the property. The Board will hold another public hearing to obtain comments from the, public DETERMiNA ION OF SiGN111CANCE Environmental Assessment Forms, Parts I & 11 have been prepared for this project. Upon a review of the information recorded in 'these documents, and other supporting information, and considering both the magnitude and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined by this Board that the project will not result in any large and important impacts. In that the project is on which will not have a significant impact on the environrrmnt, a negative declaration will be prepared. Signature of Prepares Alan J. Krupski,Jr., President Board of Trustees Town of Southold 5309 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 6 From:Timothy Collins To:Board of Trustees ,, Qate, ,�J2W198 Tjme�,7:38:10, -� Page 8.of 9 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Siognificancc This notice'is issued pursuant to;Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act) of the Environmental Conservation Law. The Town'of Southold Board of Trustees, as:Lead Agency, has determined that the proposed action described below will.not have a significant effect on the environment and a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be prepared. Date: February 28, 1996 Project: Application of Christopher Conners Applicant: Christopher Conners Location. West Drive, Southold SCTM#: 1000-059-05-29.3 Brief Project Description: This application is a request for a wetland permit pursuant to Chapter 97 of the Town of Southold Code. The project involves the construction of a 25' x 40' two story dwelling, a 10' x 25' deck on the north, a 5'x 25' deck on the south, the installation of a sanitary system consisting of a septic tank and five.leaching pools, installation of a water supply well, and the construction of a 375 square foot driveway.Associated with the project and the installation of the sanitary system will be the construction of a retaining wall and placement of approximately 510 cubic yards of fill. The,project site is a 20,000 square foot parcel located on the west side of West Drive, Southold. It contains;approximately 13,000 square feet of freshwater wetlands, or approximately 35%0 of the site. The wetlands are associated with a larger system who h extends to the south and west. A portion of the project site, located directly adjacent to me road, has been previously filled. Consequently, the northeastern portion of the site is considered to be uplands. The balance of the site has been identified as wetlands. The project has been significantly revised from a previous application by relocating and reducing the size of the improvements. All of the improvements have now been Located'entirely out of the wetlands.' However, approximately 1250 square feet of wetlands will be cleared as a result of the proposed 'action. This clearing is necessary to accommodate construction and filling activities. The Board has considered other alternatives, including acquisition, design,alternatives and relocation of the neighbors well. To accommodate the location of the proposed dwelling, a variance is necessary from the Zoning Board of Appeals. This variance is necessary so as to minimize the disturbance to the wetlands. The Board finds that this proposal minimizes the disturbance to the wetlands to the greatest degree possible while taken into consideration the adjacent development and the applicants needs. The proposed project is considered to be an unlisted action pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act(SEQRA). A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was prepared on a former application and is included as part of the record. ins To:Board of Trustees Date:2128196 Time:738:10, 1 Page 9 of 9 .;Reasons Supporting This Determination: The Board has taken a hard look at the environmental consequences of this project and has determined that the project has been designed to maximize the wetland setback and disturbance to the .greatest degree possible. The Board ,has also considered various alternatives. These include, acquisition, design alternatives, relocation of the adjacent private well and reduction in the size of the proposed improvements. The Board finds :that the project as proposed provides the applicant with a reasonable use of the property while R«�,�minimizing the impacts to the wetlands, surface waters and groundwater systems to the,greatest degree possible. Mitigation measures include; project limiting fence, hay bales, covenant a r protecting,the wetlands in perpetuity, leaders and gutters leading;to one,or more dry wells, sanitary system which has been,approved'aby the Suffolk County Department of Health Service and provides fora 3' separation between groundwater and,the leaching pools and revegetation'of distuPbed areas after construction. Therefore, the project will not have significant impact onr the qe•environment: AlanJ Krupsk,'"Jr„ President Board of Trustees Town of Southold 5309 Main Road ! Southold, New York 11971 y'fi £ x a SI j For Further Information: Alan J. Krupski, Jr. President ¢ Board of Trustees Town of Southold 5309 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 �Sl ' Phone: (516) 765-1892 i Copies Of This Notice Sent To: I$ t 4 III k � i i 4 I t g` Albert J. Kntpski,President A��SufFO(�Aea 4 Town Hall John Holzapfel,Vice President - o� y;4 53095 Main Road' William G. Albertson y x P.O.Box 1179 Martin H Garrell 4 Southold,New York 11971 Peter Wenzel yla�� Telephone (516)765-1892 Fax(516)765-1823 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD December 7, 1995 Roy Reynolds Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services County Center Riverhead,`, NY 11901 RE- Chris; Connors 59-5-29.3 R10-94-0071 Dear Mr. 'Reynolds As per your letter of November 8, 1955, the Board of Trustees has no problem with the height of the retaining wall. However, the Zoning Code states that a front yard retaining wall cannot be more then 41' higher then the elevation, whatever that is made to be. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Albert J. Krupski, Jr. President, Southold Town Trustees AJK:7md l� I f COUNTY OF SUFFOLK -1A, ` ROBERT J. GAFFNEY SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES MARY E. HIBBERD, M.D., M.P.H. COMMISSIONER November •S 1995 I �e Albert J, Krupsl i, Jr, Board of Trustees, Town of Southold 53095 stain Road P ,O; Bob[ 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re: Chris Connors, SCTM# 1000-59-5-29. 3 R 0-94-0071 Dear Mr. Rrupski: r am in receipt of a copy of your October 27, 1995 letter to Mr, Connors concerning the above referenced property. A. .revised.: application is presently pending.. with this Office, The revision involves the placement of the sewage disposal system towards the front of the property, as shown on the enclosed plan. It should be noted that a four to five foot high concrete .retaining wall is proposed. Prior to making a decision on this revision, the Department would like to know if the Town has any restrictions or comments about such a wall. I look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible. If you have any questions concerning this please feel free to contact me. Xours truly, Royal R. Reynolds, P.E. Bureau of wastewater Management cc: C- Connors Enclosure DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COUNTY CENTER RIVERREAD,N.Y. 11901-3397 652-2100 1 RIO 9q- cv 7T Albert pski,President �O�ogpFF�(, �oG Town Hall J. 7ohn l orrIzapfel, Vice President ' o y` 53095 Main Road William G. Albertson y x P.O. Box 1179 Martin H. Garrell Southold,New York 11971 � • � Peter Wenzel' y?1pl .� Telephone (516) 765-1892 Fax (516)765-1823 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD October 27, 1995 Chris Connors 5 Viking Rd. Glenwood Landing, NY 11547 RE: SCTM #1060-59-5-29.3 Dear Mr. Connors. The following action was taken by the Southold Town Board of Trustees on Thursday, October 26, 1995 at the regular meeting; WHEREAS, On August 7, 1995 the Southold Town Trustees received a wetland application of CHRISTOPHER CONNORS to construct single family dwelling and associated improvements; and WHEREAS, based upon the letter of the Board' s consultant dated October 5, 1995, the Town Trustees by letter, to the applicant, dated October 6, 1995 determined the application to be incomplete; and WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a revised survey prepared by Peconic Surveyors, P.C., last revised on October 23, 1995; and WHEREAS, this Board has reviewed said survey and Timothy Collins, AICP letter of October 26, 1995; and WHEREAS', the location of the proposed improvements are acceptable for the purpose of scheduling a public hearing; however; ` WHEREAS, this Board finds that the location of the sanitary system and water supply well is critical in the design of the system and for the protection of the groundwater and surface waters; and WHEREAS, the Suffolk County Department of Health Service is responsible for the review and approval of sanitary and water supply systems for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the application of CHRISTOPHER CONNORS` is hereby deemed incomplete pending the submission of the approval from the Suffolk County Department of Health Service for the proposed sanitary system and water supply ' well. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Surely, Albert J. Krupski, Jr President, Board of Trustees AJKjmd enc. cc: Tim Collins, AICP Roy Reynolds, SCDH ZBA CAC 3 � Z i LC n 2 ti QZ ' � oil etln�'�phjo3 2j ti• CL d GI co '� c LU CD m 6Z- 0 Pnr r� gh r Seai �L� 3 ^ _ i � N � y �50 P° % PuFttAO "s 1� °a -` IUD a. oSe C D� W C •m �T z v m ='if -I H 'R WT 3 0 Timothy Collins,AICP 17 qnj Enviromnental,Planning&Land Development Consultant ° nil l` mil - 27 Joshua Edwards Court East Hampton, New York 11937 (516)329-5930 Fax(516)329-6932 October 26, 1995 Town of Southold Board of Trustees 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold`NewYork 11971 RE: Wetland permit application of Christopher Connors,West Drive, Southold. Dear Board Members: I am in receipt (by fax) of the revised survey for the above reference application last dated October 23, 1995. I have reviewed this survey as it relates to the information requested in my previous letter dated October 5, 1995 and supported by the Trustees. It appears that the revised survey has addressed the items previously requested. The proposed project now includes a 25' x 40' two story dwelling, decking, driveway, sanitary and well. The sanitary system consists of five leaching pools, septic tank and is located within the southeast portion of the property, adjacent to the road. The well is located within the northeast corner of the property, adjacent to the Swartz's well. It appears that all of the improvements have been located outside of the flagged wetlands. The only disturbance to the wetland will occur from clearing necessary for the construction of the sanitary system and dwelling. This clearing consists of a 10' area along the perimeter of the improvements. The only remaining outstanding item is the approval of the sanitary system and well location by the Suffolk County Department of Health Service. As part of the sanitary system plan,the applicant has designed the leaching pools so that they are located 3' above groundwater. This exceeds the Health Departments present requirements and provides an additional protection to the groundwater and adjacent surface waters. The Health Department is given the responsibility to insure that the sanitary system and well supply is designed to protect human health, safety and general welfare. Therefore,it is important that the proposed plan be reviewed and approved by the Health Department prior to the Trustee's review. Consequently it would be my suggestion that the application be deemed incomplete pending submission of the Health Department approval.' It appears that the applicant has made positive steps to minimize the disturbance to the wetlands contained on-site. While there may be some minor changes or mitigation required, such requirements cannot be specifically determined until after the public hearing. However, the Trustees can provide some direction to the applicant with respect to the concept. Attached for the Trustees consideration is a draft resolution which declares the application incomplete, pending Health Department approval. If you have any questions or require further information, please contact me. Yours truly, Timothy Collins,AICP TC. tc Enc. Draft Resolution of the Town Trustees WHEREAS, On August_; 1995 the Town Trustees received a wetland permit application of Christopher Conners to construction a single family dwelling and associated improvements;and WHEREAS,based upon the letter of the Board's consultant dated October 5, 1995, the Town Trustees by letter, to the applicant, dated October 6, 1995 determined the application to be incomplete, and WHEREAS,the applicant has submitted a revised survey prepared by Peconic Surveyors,P.C., last revised on October 23, 1995;and WHEREAS, this Board has reviewed said survey and Timothy Collins, AICP later of October 26, 1995; and WHEREAS, the location of the proposed improvements are acceptable for the!purpose of scheduling a public hearing; however, WHEREAS,this Board finds that the location of the sanitary system and water(supply well is critical in the design of the system and for the protection of the groundwater and surface waters; and WHEREAS, the Suffolk County Department of Health Service is responsible t�r the review and approval of sanitary and water supply systems for the protection of the public he dth, safety and general welfare; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the application of Christopher Connors is hereby deemed incomplete pending the submission of the approval from the Suffolk County Department of Health Service for the proposed sanitary system and water supply well. yl from:Timothy Collins To: Board of Tmstm \ Date:10126!55 Time:13:67:09 f Page 2 of 4 " Timothy Collins,AICP i Environmental,Planning&LandDevelopment Consultant 27 Joshua Edwards Court 6 _ i East Hampton, New York 11937 (516)329-5930 A 9( WT R+ Fax(516)329-6932 ' OWN Or" SQ11THOLD October 26, 1995 Town of Southold Board of Trustees 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold New York 11971 RE: Wetland permit application of Christopher Connors,West Drive, Southold. Dear Board Members: I am in receipt(by fax) of the revised survey for the above reference application.last dated October 23, 1995.'.1 have reviewed this survey as it relates to the information requested in my ' previous letter dated October 5, 1995 and supported by the Trustees. ':It appears that the revised survey has addressed the items previously requested. The proposed project now includes a 25' x 40' two story dwelling, decking, driveway, sanitary and well. The sanitary system consists of five leaching pools, septic tank and is located within the southeast portion of the property, adjacent to the road. The well is located within the northeast corner of the property, adjacent to the Swartz's well. It appears that all of the improvements have been located outside of the flagged wetlands. The only disturbance to the wetland will occur from clearing necessary for the construction of the sanitary system and dwelling. This clearin consists of a 10' area along the perimeter of the improvements. The only remaining outstanding item is the approval of the sanitary system and well location by the Suffolk County Department of Health Service. As part of the sanitary system plan, the applicant has designed the leaching pools so that they are located 3' above groundwater. This exceeds the Health Departments present requirements and provides an additional protection to the groundwater and adjacent surface waters. The Health Department is given the responsibility to insure that the sanitary system and well supply is designed to protect human health, safety and general welfare. Therefore, it is important that the proposed plan be reviewed and approved by the Health Department prior to the Trustee's review. Consequently it would be my suggestion that the application be deemed incomplete pending submission of the Health Department approval. It appears that the applicant has made positive steps to minimize the disturbance to the wetlands contained on-site. While there may be some minor changes or mitigation required, such Date:90l26/95 Tune:13:58i18 Page 3 of 4 Fr m:Timothy Collins To: Board of Ttustee�'^�- _ requirements cannot be specifically determined until after;the public hearing. However, the Trustees can provide some direction to the applicant with respect to the concept. Attached for the Trustees consideration is a draft resolution which declares the application incomplete,pending;Health Department approval. If you have any questions or require further information, please contact me: Yours truly, Timothy Collins,AICP TC: tc Enc. Proem:Timothy,Collins To: Board of Tmstee{r' Date:16/25/95 Time:13:58:55 j` Page 4 of 4 Off 26M Draft Resolution of the Town Trustees L ,`AeN F SOUTHOLD WHEREAS, On August- 1995 the Town Trustees received a wetland permit application of Christopher Conners to construaft a single family dwelling and associated improvements; and WHEREAS, based upon the letter of the Board's consultant dated October 5, 1995, the Town Trustees by letter, to the applicant, dated October 6; 1995 determined the application to be incomplete;and WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a revised survey prepared by Peconic Surveyors, P.C., last revised on October 23, 1995; and WHEREAS, this Board has reviewed said survey and Timothy Collins, AICP letter of October 26, 1995; and WHEREAS, the location of the proposed improvements are acceptable for the purpose of scheduling'a public hearing;however, WHEREAS,this Board finds that the location of the sanitary system and water supply well is critical in the design of the system and for the protection of the groundwater and surface waters; and WHEREAS, the Suffolk County Department of Health Service is responsible for the review and approval of sanitary and water supply systems for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the application of Christopher Connors is hereby deemed incomplete pending the submission of the approval from the Suffolk County Department of Health Service for the proposed sanitary system and water supply well. faro - j JUDITH T. TERRY Hall, 53095 Main Road TOWN O. Box 1179 REGISTRAR OF VITAL OCTOC 9 STATISTICS fi9+F 2 Q 1995 old, New York 11971 ax (5I6) 765-1823 MARRIAGE OFFICER. ©"'® ,� Te phone (516) 765-1801 OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC ACCESS TO RECORDS INSTRUCTIONS: Please complete Section I of this form and give to Town Clerk's Office (agency Freedom of Information': Officer) One copy will be returned to you in response to your request, or as an interim' response. SECTION i. TO: (Department or Officer, if known, that has the information you are requesting.) RECORD YOU WISH TO INSPECT: (Describe the record sought. If possible, supply date, file title, tax map number, and any other pertinent information. ) n Signature of Applicar}t Printed Name: Address. Z_ Mailing Address (if different from above) : Telephone Number: % j t ( Date: -- j�APPROVED j ] APPROVED WITH DELAY* [ ] DENIED* RECEIVED OCT 2 q 199`1 Judith T. Terry < Date Freedom of Information Officer Southold Town Cletk * If delayed or denied see reverse side for explanation. C,J oSUFFp�,C 0 Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 < ' Southold, New fork 11971 to Fax (516) 765-1823 0 Telephone(516) 765-1801 LAND PRESERVATION COMMITTEE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ATe@7 7-1 �q � leg ECT I 71995 TO: Albert Krupski, President Board of Trustees FROM: Joseph M. Gold,Chairman DATE: October 17, 1995 RE: Christopher Connors SCTM #1000-59-5-29.3 have reviewed the attached survey as to the suitability of this property for acquisition under the Open Space Program. As I mentioned to you, there is currently no money available in the Open Space Program. However, even when funds may be authorized in the future, this property does not meet the criteria in the Open Space section of the Town Code. It is too small to measurably add to or subtract from the character of the area, and it possesses no unique uses or vistas. Unless there are circumstances not apparent in the survey, this property _ is not suitable for acquisition under the Open Space Program. If you have any questions, please feel free to call. JMG:jw October 14, 1995 5 Viking Rd. PO it pia I Glenwood Landing, gg 11, 7 Al Krupski, President Board of Trustees, Town of Southold @ a" 53095 Main Rd. PO Box 1179 E9t�t9 Southold, NY 11971 � Re: Connors SCTM 59-5-29.3 Dear Mr. Krupski, By means of this letter,we wish to restate our position on why we have proposed a plan which locates our septic system in the$/E corner or our property in lieu of the N1E. As you are aware,the only way possible to propose a plan which would locate the septic system on the WE comer of our property,would require the cooperation of our neighbor to relocate their well, of course the expense to do so would have been ours(as stated in our letter dated 5/8/95) Our reasons for rejecting and not pursuing this matter further was due to the terns and conditions in which our neighbor would consider our request. (Please refer to their letter dated 7121195.) First,with respects.to the actual house plan, height and location,the plans have been amended numerous times to meet your requirements and may continue to be altered before we finally receive a permit. It was and is still not possible to state the exact location, size and height until we are granted an actual permit. We wouldn't have been able to proceed with our application. Second,if we could not comply with the first, in exchange for the relocation of their well,we were requuested,to permanently change our deed to restrict the height on any house built to a one story. After careful consideration,we decided that this was not a viable option, It did not have any bearings on the environmental issues at hand. in addition, even if we accepted a one story dwelling,we feel we could not make a permanent change which would restrict the value of the property in the future. Third and final,we also considered the strong possibility that we would be unable to meet our neighbors satisfaction with respects to the water quality and purity. Thanking you for your continued effort in this matter, I remain, Very truly yours, Colleen Connors CC rill GIL October 5, 1995 F1010- I 0 1995 5 Viking Rd. PO Box278L Glenwood Landing,IVY 11 AI Krupski, President Board of Trustees, Town of Southold 53095 Main Rd. PO Box 1179 Southold NY 11971 Re: Connors SCTM 59-5-29.3 Dear Mr. Krupski, Enclosed you will find our check for$1625, made payable to the Trustees for the services of Tim Coffins,AtCP- For the first time in over eight years, I feel that the Town is working towards a final resolution on this project and wish to express my sincere thanks. I would like to bring to the Trustees attention the fact that the expenses we have already incurred and continue to incur on this project are very costly. t realize that this project has had many difficulties and obstacles. The fact that Tim Collins original estimate of$1,000 was increasedto $1625, a 60%increase, is just one example of the many additional expenses we have had to be responsible for. The strain this has put My family through both financially and emotionally is almost more than one can bear. On a brighter note, for once i feel extremely confident in having Tim Collins,working along with the Trustees,will bring a final resolution to this matter and that my family and f will be able to build our home, albeit much smaller than we had originally planned; at long last. F'mally, I must express my concerns with respects to the$CHO, building dept. and ZBA. It is apparent that if the Trustees doapprove and issue a wetlands permit,we will still have other agencies and departments to go through before construction could actually begin and ask for your assistance in coordinating these efforts. After working on this project for so long l am sure you can understand how we don't want to be held up in another department. Thanking you,t am, Very truly yours, d Colleen Connors CC encl. cc. 'Judge Cohalan index#20674-94 Albert J. Knipski,President h�0� OGy Town Hall John Holzapfel,Vice President o , j 53095 Main Road P.O.Box 1179 William G.Albertson '„ Southold,New York 11971 Martin H. Garrell Peter Wenzel y'rJp� .a Telephone(516)765-1892 Fax(516)765-18Z3 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OFSOUTHOLD October 6, 1995, Chris Connors 5 Viking Road Glenwood Landing, NY 11547 RE: SCTM #1000-59-5-29.3 Dear Mr. Connors: Enclosed please find a letter dated October 5, 1995 from the Board's Consultant, Tim Collins. The Board is in agreement with this letter and asks you to conform with same. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Since Albert J. Krupski, Jr. President, Board of Trustees AJK:jmd cc: Tim Collins a Timothy Collins,AICP Environmental,Planni g&Land Development Consultant 27 Joshua Edwards Court East Hampton; New York 11937 (516)329-5930 Fax(516)329-6932 October 5, 1995 Town of Southold Board of Trustees 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold New York 11971 RE: Wetland Permit application of Christopher Connors,West Drive, Southold. Dear Board Members:' I have had an opportunity to review the latest survey submitted for the above application and wish to offer the following. The survey has been revised to include the wetland line which I flagged and has been verified by the Board of Trustees. The wetland line was identified based upon the predominance of freshwater wetland vegetation. While there may be other tidal and freshwater wetland vegetation found on the site, this wetland vegetation is also mixed with upland vegetation. Therefore,those areas can be considered to be a transitional area and not a true wetland. Given the predominance of the wetland vegetation found on the site the quality of the wetland should also be considered. The freshwater wetland presently shown on the survey is considered to be a high quality wetland, with the best wetland system being located within the northwest section of the property. In a review of this latest survey and the application submitted it is recommended that the survey be fiuther revised to include a clear identification of the wetland line and also clearly identifies the proposed improvements. Specifically, I would recommend the following; 1. It appears that by reducing the required front yard setback to approximately 26' and a reduction in the size of the proposed dwelling, a dwelling could be placed on the property with a minimum disturbance to the wetland. While this would require applying to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance,the Board should explore all options which would minimize the disturbance to the wetlands. Therefore, the applicant should be requested to explore this option. 2. Because of the location of the adjacent well to the north, it appears that the most appropriate location of the proposed sanitary system would be within the southeast portion of the property. However, if not already attempted,the applicant should contact the adjacent property owner and offer to relocate their well. A copy of that offer and the adjacent owners response should be include in the Board's file. 3. Only one sanitary system should be shown on the survey. Further, building envelope setbacks and the old wetland line should also be removed from the survey. 4. The proposed sanitary system should be located out of the wetlands, if at all possible. If it is necessary to disturb wetlands,this should be kept to a minimum. It appears that a sanitary system could be located within the southeast corner of the property. By locating the fill and retaining wall approximately 20 feet off of the property line, it appears a dwelling and sanitary system could be shown, with minimal disturbance to the wetland. As part of the proposal, a proposed grading plan and cross sectional detail of the proposed sanitary system should be included. The cross section should demonstrate that the proposed leaching pool will maintain a 2 foot separation between the groundwater and bottom of the leaching pool. The quantity of fill should be shown. To provide further protection to the groundwater and the adjacent wetland/surface water system, it may be appropriate to increase the separation distance to 3 feet. 5. A proposed clearing line should be shown on the survey. This clearing line should minimize the disturbance to the wetland to the greatest degree possible. 6. Calculations should be provided for the total lot area, area of wetland, area of pervious surfaces, and area of clearing. 7. The Board should discuss the possibility of requiring Health Department approval for the new plan, prior to granting the final wetland permit. However, you way wish to consider the revised plan and provide some comments to the applicant. If the plan is reasonably acceptable to the Board,then the applicant can proceed to the Health Dept. Based upon the above information, it is recommended that this application be deemed incomplete until such time as a revised survey is submitted and the applicant addresses each of the above items. If the Board has any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours truly, Timoth Collins,AICP TC:tc i Timothy Collins, AICP Environmental,Planning&Land Development Consultant i l 27 Joshua Edwards Court 9 East Hampton,New York, 11937 (516)329-5930 s I 0 UTHOLP Invoice submitted to: Board of Town Trustees Town of Southold '�9 QUT 63 53095 Main RoadP.O. Box 117 v i �p r4 Southold NY 11971 MO S UTH LD MOM October 4, 1995 Professional services Hrs/Rate Amount 8/31/95 Met with Board of Trustees to discuss project 1.00 NO CHARGE Conner Application 65.00/hr 915/95 Travel to Town and Review Trustees files. Field inspect the project &00 195.00 site."Key out vegetation found on the site. 65.001hr Conner Application 9/8/95 Prepare proposal and letter to Trustees. 1.00 NO CHARGE Conner Application 65.00/hr 9110195 Prepare letter to Trustees re: issue of incomplete for application and 1.25 81.25 SEQRA 65.00/hr Conner Application 9112195 Field inspect the site and flag the wetland line. 1.50 97.50 Corner Application 65.00/hr 9/20195 Travel to site and met with trusttees and applicant on location of 2.50 162.50 wetland line. 65.00/hr Conner Application 9/21/95 Prepare memo of field inspection and vegetation listing and 0.50 NO CHARGE meeting on the site with client and Trustees 65.00/hr Conner Application 9/28/95 Review survey for completness pursuant to SEQRA and 3.50 227.50 regulations. Prepare sketches for alternatives. Attend Trustee work 65.00/hr session to review proposal. Conner Application Board of Town Trustees Page 2 Hrs/Rate Amount 10/2/95 Stop at Trustees office and pick up and review information on 1.00 NO CHARGE application. 65.00/hr Conner Application For professional services rendered 15.25 $763.75 Balance due $763.75 Albert J. Krupski, President ® U� Ii� �J Town Hall JohnHolzapfel; Vice President 53095 Main Road rid ze �.. P.O. Box 1179 William G. Albertson ,. �s a Southold, New York 11971 Martin H. Garrell P Peter Wenzel 9,y�o� a`br Telephone(516) 765-1892 Fax (516) 165-1823 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD September 29, 1995 Christopher Connors ' 5 Viking Road Glenwood, NY 11547 RE: SCTTM #1000-59-5-29.3 Single Family Dwelling _Dear Mr. Connors: Please find the enclosed estimate for the Environmental Review of the above referenced project. This estimate is due in full as soonas possible. Once payment is received the review will continue. Any monies left over after completion of review, will be returned to you. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Sincerely Albert J. Krupski, Jr. President, Board of Trustees AJK: jmd cc: Tim Collins Timothy Collins,AICP Environmental,Planning&Land Development Consultant 27 Joshua Edwards Court East Hampton; New York 11937 (516)329-5930 Fax(516)329-6932 September 29, 1995 Town of Southold Board of Trustees 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1174 Southold New York 11971 RE: Wetland Permit application of Connors, Southold Dear Board Members: With reference to the above application, I estimate the total number of hours to field inspect the site, flag the wetland, and conduct an environmental assessment of the project pursuant to the requirements of SEQRA to be approximately 25 hours. At an hourly rate of$65.00 the estimate cost for this project is $1,625.00. While this estimate may seem high, it should be noted that this project has had an extensive history which has already been the subject of an Article 78 proceeding. This estimate assumes a substantial effort will be necessary to resolve this application. If you have any questions or require further information, please contact me. Yours truly, Timothy Collins, AICP TC:tc Prom:Timothy Collins To:Jiff SOard flf Trustees Date::9129195 Time:11.46:12 Page 2 of 2 Timothy Collins,AICP Environmental;Planning&IaW Development Consultant 27 Joshua Edwards Court East Hampton, New York 11937 (516)329-5930 Fax(516)329-6932 September 29,1995 Town of Southold Board of Trustees 533095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold New York 11971 RE: Wetland Permit application of Connors,Southold Dear Board Members: With reference to the above application, I estimate the total number of hours to field inspect the site; flag the wedaud,and conduct an environmental assessment of the project pursuant to the requirements of SEQRA to be approximately 25 hours. At an hourly rate of$65.00 the estimate cost for this project is$1,625.00. While this estimate may seem high, it should be noted that this project has had an extensive history which has already been the subject of an Article 78 proceeding. This estimate assumes a substantial effort will be necessary to resolve this application. If you have any questions or require further information,please contact me. Yours truly, Timothy Collins, AICP TC:tc Albert J. Krupski,President J Town Hall John Holzapfel, Vice President90 2 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 William G. Albertson . ? Southold, New York 11971 Martin H. Garrell Peter Wenzel �'hpYY �N Telephone (516) 765-1892 Fax (516) 765-1823 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD September 29, _1995 Timothy Collins, AICP Environmental, Planning & Land Development Consultant 27 Joshua Edwards Court ; East Hampton, NY 11937 The following action was taken by the Southold Town Board of Trustees on Thursday, September 28, 1995; RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board of Trustees retains TIMOTHY COLLINS, AICP, Environmental, Planning & Land Developement Consultant of 27 Joshua Edwards Court, East Hampton, New York 11937, 329-5930, as the Trustees Environmental Consultant as needed at a rate of $65. 00 an hour. Affective September 1, 1995. Also, RESOLVED that this resolution be sent to the Town Board for there verification. Fees will be a charged back to the applicant after an estimate of each particular project is given. If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Sincerely, Albert J. Krupski, Jr. President, Board of Trustees AJK:jmd cc: Town Board 'f KENNEY'S BEACH CIVIC ASSOCIATION Monday, September 11, 1995 - - - Mr.Timothy Collins SEP 1 4 Southold Town Consultant �. r Southold Town T � Mai Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Connorsl59-5-29;3 Dear Mr. Collins, I; I was advised that you would be reviewing the above referenced new survey as the wetland lines are not correctly defined on the old revised survey. Because of the severe drought that we are experiencing, this wetland area and the wetlands around it, are dry. Great Pond is at an all time low. The Executive Board of the Kenny's Beach Civic Association feels it is inappropriate to have the wetlands lines redefined at this time. Establishing a groundwater table at this time of severe drought will also lead to erronious readings. We would suggest local observations after a normal winter and spring. I would like to extend to you the invitation of visiting the area You may also gain access to Great Pond from my property on Lake Drive (The Ark - 5th house in on Lake Drive) to see the amount of drastic deprivation of water due to this drought. Sincerely, Arline Richter, President / cc: Mr Albert Krupski, Trustee r i s The first step in any wetland permit application should be the identification and delineation of the wetland. Without an accurate representation of the wetland an assessment of the project cannot be conducted nor can the Board provide the , applicant with clear direction. In this particular application, it appears that the Board has some concern that the wetland edge presently shown on the survey is not accurate. Based upon my field inspection, I would concurwith the Board. On Tuesday (September 12, 1995) I will flag the upper edge of the wetland contained on this site. when the Board conducts your field inspections on. September 20, 1995, I would like to arrange to meet with the Board on-site and review the location of the flags. If the Board agrees with the delineation of the wetlands, the applicant should be requested to revise the survey to- show the wetland line as delineated by the Town of Southold Town Trustees. I would also suggest that the survey be revised to include the location of the disturbance and filling which previously took place. Additional initormaton may be necessary at a later date, depending upon the finAl design. Given the past history of this application, it would be worthwhile to resolve this difficult project through a cooperative effort. This should include the Board, applicant and interested parties. Once the survey has been revised the Board may wish to schedule :a work session to discuss alternative development proposals for the site. I would be more than happy to prepare a number of alternative for consideration. However, the first step should be obtaining a revised survey which includes a accurate representation of the wetlands. If the :Board agrees with this approach, it would be my recommendation that the application be deemed incomplete pursuant to Chapter 97, :Wetlands, and Chapter 44 (Environmental Quality Review);. The Applicant should be notified in writing and requested to submit the revised survey at their earliest convenience. If the Board and/or Applicant has any questions or requires further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours truly, Timothy Collins, AICF TC: to C � d a SEP i 2 i995 i ins,F!C { Fnvirownentai,Planning&LAnd Development ConglYna-m LF SATN OF S THOLD raSt HampeOYi, Newi©rk i 937 (5161329-5930 September 10, 1995 BY FAX\MAIL Board of Trustees Town of Southold 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 RE: Wetland permit application of Christopher Connors, West Drive, Southold. Dear Board Members: I have had an opportunity to review the application and survey for the above project and conducted a preliminary field inspection of--' the site. As indicated,.by the- Board -and other correspondence contained in the ,file the. subject site is composed primarily- of freshwater wetland vegetation and tidal wetland' vegetation. - - This vegetation consists of Common Reed= (Phragmites) , Marsh Fern (Thelypteris palustris) , Purple Loosestrife (Lythrum'salicaria) , Wool Grass (Scirpus cyperinus) , Red Maple (Ater rubrum) and Groundsel bush (Baccharis halimifolia) . The red maple and groundsel bush are along the upper edges of the wetland. The site has also been previously disturbed as a result of past filling operations. If funds are not available from the State, County, Town or other conservation groups for the purchase of this property the Board should be aware that the property owner has a right to a reasonable uses of the property. The Trustees on the other hand are given the responsibility to protect, preserve and insure the proper maintenance and use of the wetlands (Section 97-11 B) . The goal in the Board's review of this application should be to provide a reasonable use of the property for the owner and .at the same time minimizing, to the greatest degree possible,_ the disturbance and impacts to the wetlands. 'From-my field inspection of the site it ;appears that there will '-be some 'disturbanee to -the wetlands; no matter where on the site the improvements are placed., This -is _unavoidable, if development is to take place. ALL 5 M 0 JAMES MANOS ATTORNEY AT LAW '�'/S!p(g{� O. E_n ? 2147 LAKE DRIVE TOWN �6 P.O. BOX 1543 SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971 516-765.1316. July 5, 1995 Mr. Albert J. Krupski , Jr. , President Southold Board of Trustees Town Hall , 53095 Main Road, P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re: Matter of Connors Dear Mr. Krupski , Mr. Holzapfel was quite correct in giving 150 feet as the minimum separation distance between wells and septic systems. This is provided for under the new SCHDS standards which Roy Reynolds said will be promulgated shortly. The new standards also continues the separation requirement of 100 feet between leaching pools and surface waters. The uplands portion of my property is large enough to accommodate a well and leaching pools with a minimum distance of 150 feet between the two and still fulfill the 100 foot separation distance between those leaching pools and the seasonal surface waters on the northerly side of the property. The pools would be located in the most southerly corner of my property since they are required to be a minimum of 100 feet from the seasonal surface waters on the northerly 'part of my property. The well would have to be 150 feet to the north of the leach pools. Placement of leaching pools in the NE corner (lower right quadrant) of the Connors' property which as you know would locate the pools immediately adjacent to seasonal surface waters on my property, would mean that I would have the further constraint of the 150 foot separation requirement from the Connor pools for my well . There would be no place I could locate the well . I believe that my property as a consequence of the above would be unbuildable. Very truly yours, JM:ng � �7�2 P N / JAMES MANOS ATTORNEY AT LAW 2147 LAKE DRIVE P.O. BOX 1543 SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971 516-765-1316 �+ May 19, 1995 i55J \J Board of Town Trustees , Town of Southold Town Hall � �� 53095 Main Road 4i P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re; Connors Property, SCTM #59-5-29.3 Gentlemen: I am certain that if the Trustees were aware of the hazards and health risks that would result in the operation of an in-ground disposal system for greywater and a separate toilet composter for blackwater on the Connors ' wetlands lot, they would not have proposed them as solutions to Mr. Connors' problems. I am enclosing a copy of an advisory letter dated March 18, 1992 dealing with composting toilets and greywater prepared by James D. Decker, P.E. , Chief of the Residential Sanitation Section of the Department of Health of the State of New York. Mr. Decker is a high ranking State expert in residential sanitation in the employ of the N.Y. State Department of Health. Indeed one of his functions is reviewing health standards proposed by local health authorities for residential sanitation systems which he has recently done, for example, with respect to the SCDHS new standards for residential septic systems. Enclosed also is an advisory letter dated August 12, 1994 prepared by Kevin C. Scheuer,a , senior Sanitary Engineer of the NYS Department of Health. It is relevant only as to what Mr. Scheuer says about the nature of greywater, since its subject matter, a Clivus Multrum system for greywater, is not an issue in this case. These letters show that greywater "is contaminated and therefore must be treated in the same manner as household sewage" , and that Greywater contains harmful "bacteria and athogens" , "organic matter" and "inorganic material ". 'Emphasis supplied . Last month Judge Cohalan issued his decision in favor of the Trustees. He upheld the Trustees' action in denying a permit to the Connors on the bases of the immediate and direct contamination of surrounding groundwater and Great Pond that could be caused by the proposed disposal system "in the event of even a slight malfunction" of that system. Everything that the Trustees alleged in that proceeding with respect to the health hazards of the then proposed sanitary system is applicable to an in-ground disposal system handling greywater effluent only. Support by the Trustees of such a system would represent an irrational reversal of their former position. In my view, it would be legally indefensible. Judge Cohalan in upholding the Trustees ' decision to deny the permit on health grounds and thereby implicitly repudiating the SCDHS' issuance of a permit for the construction of a sewage disposal system, stated "there exists substantial evidence that septic effluents could infiltrate the groundwater and surface waters and that any contamination by sanitary system malfunction could contaminate the groundwater in the surrounding area including Great Pond". Greywater effluent is septic. It contains harmful bacteria, pathogens. and other organisms that cause disease. Judge Cohalan made no dis- tinction in his decision between illness caused by blackwater and that caused by greywater. As you are aware my home is located directly in line between the Connors lot and Great Pond. When Judge Cohalan talks of contamination of groundwater in the "surrounding area" he is referring to the only source of my household water. Be assured that-1 will take whatever legal steps are necessary to protect the health of my family and the value of my property. Mr. Decker, in his advisory letter, warns that "users should be aware of the limitations of composters". Contrary to advertising claims and representations made by vendors of composters , Mr. Decker warns that "composted humus contains numerous bacteria and may also contain viruses and cysts. . . . the composted humus should be periodically removed by a professional septage hauler". He states that if the homeowner elects to dispose of it himself it should be buried or well mixed in soil "distant from food crops, water supply sources (i .e. , wells, springs) and watercourses". From Mr. Decker's description a composter is a high maintenance item which requires careful attention and effort, as well as a dedicatiion to the composting concept by the homeowner, to make it function. By allowing composters to be used on wetlands the Trustees , in my opinion, would be exposing the public to disease. It is not far fetched to believe that at least some homeowners either through ignorance or design would dump their compost in the wetlands or some other inappropriate place. That is now being done with household garbage by individuals in Southold to save the cost of an 75¢ bag. Consistent with New York State wastewater treatment standards, Mr. Decker points out that "Composters should be considered for household use only where insufficient water exists to support a flush toilet and on-site soils are compatible with satisfactory greywater treatment It is obvious that neither of these predicates are satisfied. In addition, Mr. Decker discloses that since the NYS Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code requires "water carriage" disposal of household wastewa- ter, composting toilets "should not normally be constructed as part of a new residence". I invite the Trustees' attention to the fact that NYS wastewater stan- dards for residences apply when they are stricter than the standards of local authority, viz. , SCDHS. Thus, an in-ground system for g,reywater must meet the same set back requirements and criteria as a conventional system, and composters also must comport with several- set back require- ments and criteria which are in the NYS standards but not in the new SCDHS standard. Everything that Mr. Decker and Mr. Scheuer state in their advisory letters militates against the use of the above sanitary system on a wetlands lot. These gentlemen 's opinions should be given paramount consideration by the Trustees, not only because they are experts but because they have absolutely no interest in this matter - they are unaware of its exis- tence. The Trustees may be operating under the mistaken belief that if they deny a permit then a "taking" has occurred for which compensation must be made. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, in writing the majority opinion in Lucas v.South Carolina Coastal Council , stated that permits could be denied without compensation under common law principals that prohibit people from using their property in a way that harms the public, or in ways that create public nuisances.Certainly the installa- tion of the sanitary system discussed above would result in a public health hazard and nuisance and may be prohibited without compensation. Very truly yours, JM:ng En c: 2 cc:Town Attorney Town Supervisor CAC Roy Reynolds , SCDHS NFEC STATE OF NEW YOR � J DEPARTMENT OF HEALT MAY 221995 Center for Environmental Health 2 University Place b Than M. Lorna Executive D put ono Execuhvtb Deputy Commissioner OFFICE OF PUBLIC HEALTH March 18, 1992 Sue Kelly Executive Deputy Director William N.Slasiuk,P.E.,.Ph.D. Center Director C Mr. John G. Prentiss P.O. Box 10 =iPiseco, New York 12139 "RE: Composting Toilets and Greywater "'Dear Mr. Prentiss: Mr, Peter Smith requested me to reply to your March 7, 1992 letter regarding the above-noted subject. Composting toilets should not normally be constructed as part of any t new residence since Part 900 of the State Uniform Fire Prevention and . , Buijding Code requires water carriage sanitary facilities. Sections „i '75-A.10(b) (1), (2), and (5) of the enclosed copy of "Wastewater Treatment Standards - Individual Household Systems" address a necessary use of i composting toilets plus the required treatment of greywater (i.e. ,, household Kwastewater without toilet wastes) . Greywater systems shall be designed upon a flow of' 75 gallons per bedroom per day. f Body wastes are present in wastewater from showers, tubs, hand washing sinks, and clothes washers. Food preparation/serving wastes are present in wastewater from sinks and dishwashers. Miscellaneous wastes are present in wastewater from garbage grinders and sinks used for G, equipment cleaning (i.e. , paint brushes, mops, etc. ) . Greywater is j contaminated and must therefore be treated in the same manner as household sewage. Composters have been successfully used for public toilet facilities 6 where the vast majority of wastewater generated comprises toilet/urinal flushing such as at roadside rest areas, public gathering sites and rustic camping areas. In such settings, the volume of wastewater produced and the demand upon water resources are greatly reduced by using composters. 1,' In a household setting, the volume of greywater to be handled remains at 75 gallons per day per bedroom and must receive conventional subsurface treatment. �'. Composters accept only toilet wastes and kitchen food scraps (i.e. , blackwater) coupled with supplemental additions;of carbon-rich bulking agents such as planer shavings or coarse sawdust. Household cleaning products should not be placed in the unit. Failure to add adequate bulking agents or maintaining adequate moisture can result in the composting pile becoming hard (and difficult to remove) or anaerobic. The composted humus contains numerous bacteria and may also contain viruses and cysts. Residual wastes (i.e. , the composted humus) should be periodically removed 1 by a professional septage hauler. If a homeowner chooses to personally It remove the composted humus, it should be disposed of at a sanitary landfill or buried or well mixed into soil distant from food crops, water supply sources (i.e., wells, springs) and watercourses. Users' should be aware of the limitations of composters. A flow of 110 ,gallons per day per bedroom may be used to design 'a complete household subsurface wastewater treatment system when the household is equipped with a water saving toilet (i.e., 1 .6 gallons per flush) and water saving faucets/showerheads (i.e. , 3.O gallons per minute maximum) Use of water saving toilets and water saving fixtures is recommended to provide satisfactory sanitary facilities and simultaneously reduce water needs and reduce wastewater treatment volume/cost. Composters should be considered for household use only where insufficient water exists to support a flush toilet and on-site soils are compatible with satisfactory greywater treatment. Sincerely, ync°v James D. Decker, P.E.>� Chief, Residential Sanitation Section Bureau of Community Sanitation and Food Protection dam/92078 P RO0334 Enclosure cc: Mr. Smith Mr. Amberman - Saranac Lake District Office Mr. Svenson Page 2 4 S -ATE OF NEW YC�K DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH , 5zl � Center for Environmental Health 2 University Place Albany, New York 12203-3399 Mark R.Chassin,M.D.,M.P.P.,M.P.H. OFFICE OF PUBLIC HEALTH Commissioner LloydF.Novick, M.P.H. -Paula Wilson Director Executive Deputy Commissioner ' Diana,Jones Ritter Executive Deputy Director A I1Q11 St. 12; 1994 William N.Stasiuk,P.E.,Ph.D. Center Director Ms'. Eileen O'Connor Director of:Environmental Health Cayuga County Health Department 160 Genesee Street Auburn, New York%13021 Dear Ms, O'Connor: Thank you for your letter of July 28, IM4 and information regarding Clivus Multrum greywater systems and greywater pressure infiltration pipe. You've asked for my opinion of these items. What follows are my evaluations of these products and an overview of greywater systems in general. Greywater systems may be used in conjunction with non-waterborne toilet waste systems as an alternative to standard household wastewater where there is a desire or need to conserve water. Greywater contains organic matter, inorganic material, bacteria and pathogens that may be harmful to.humans and animals: Greywater systems do not eliminate the requirement for treatment and ultimate disposal of household wastewater. IONYCRR Appendix 75-A, Section 75-,A 10(b)(5) requires greywater Svgf-lrls to conform to the requirements for individual wastewater treatment systems. Greywater systems shall be designed upon a design flow of 75 gpd/bedroom: A greywater system must incorporate all of the features and components of a standard septic system. This will include an appropriately sized septic tank, distribution device and a soil absorption facility. The Clivus Multrum greywater systems consist of a pretreatment filter box followed by soilbed. The soilbed vvorks conceptually similar to an intermittent sand filter by filtering the pretreated greywater through successive layers of topsoil sand, gravel and stone. Some evapotranspiration of the pretreated greywater takes place via vegetation planted in the soilbed: Effluent from the soilbed passes on to some form of soil absorption facility. No data was provided to evaluate the duality of effluent from .the soilbed: It would appear that this arrangement is providing a level of pretreatment similar to a standard septic tank/sand filter arrangement. The pretreatment filter box clarifies the greywater while the soilbed provides filtration and some nutrient uptake. The performance of the above-ground soilbed in the winter climate of New York State is suspect. The soilbed and related shallow absorption pipe would be subject JAMES MANOS ATTORNEY AT LAW 2147 LAKE DRIVE P.O. BOX 1543 SOLITHOLD, N.Y. 11971 �`yFl7 516.765.1316 May 19, 1995 7 Board of Town Trustees , Town of Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold , New York 11971 Re; Connors Property, SCTM #59-5-29.3 Gentlemen: I am certain that if the Trustees were aware of the hazards and health risks that would result in the ,operation of an in-ground disposal system for greywater and a separate toilet composter for biackwater on the Connors' wetlands lot, they would not have proposed them as solutions to Mr. Connors' problems. I am enclosing' a copy of an advisory letter dated March 18, 1992 dealing with composting toilets and greywater prepared by James D. Decker, P.E. , Chief of the ,Residential Sanitation Section of the Department of Health of the State of New York. Mr. Decker is a high ranking State expert in residential sanitation in the employ of the N.Y. State Department of Health. Indeed one of his functions is reviewing health standards proposed by local health authorities for residential sanitation systems which he has recently done, for example, with respect to the-SCDHS new standards for residential septic systems. Enclosed also is an advisory letter dated August 12, 1994 prepared by Kevin C. Scheuer,a, senior Sanitary Engineer of the NYS Department of Health. It is relevant only as to what Mr. Scheuer says about the nature of greywater, since its subject matter, a Clivus Multrum system for greywater, is not an issue in this case. These letters show that greywater "is contaminated and therefore must be treated in the same manner as household sewage" , and that Greywater contains harmful "bacteria and atho ens" , "organic matter" and "inorganic material Emphasis iedl. Last month Judge Cohalan issued his decision in favor of the Trustees. He upheld the Trustees' action in denying a permit to the Connors on the bases of the immediate and direct contamination of surrounding 'groundwater and Great Pond that could,be caused by the;proposed disposal system "in the event of even a slight malfunction" of that system. Everything that the Trustees alleged in that proceeding with respect to the health hazards of the then proposed sanitary system is applicable to an in-ground disposal system handling 'greywater effluent only. Support by the Trustees of such a system would represent an 'irrational reversal of their former position. In my view, it would be legally indefensible: Judge Cohalan in upholding the Trustees ' decision to deny the permit on health ;grounds and thereby implicitly repudiating the SCDHS' issuance of a permit for the construction of a sewage disposal system, stated "there exists substantial evidence that septic effluents could infiltrate the groundwater and surface waters and that any contamination by sanitary system malfunction could contaminate the groundwater in the surrounding area including'IGreat Pond". ` Greywater effluent is septic. It contains harmful bacteria, pathogens and other organisms that cause disease. Judge Cohalan made no dis- tinction in his decision between illness caused by blackwater and that caused ;by greywater. As you are aware my home is located directly in line between the Connors lot and Great Pond. When Judge Cohalan talks of contamination of groundwater in the "surrounding area" he is;`referring - to the only source of my household water. Be assured that I will take whatever legal 'steps are necessary to protect the health of my family and the value of my property. Mr. Decker, i,n his advisory letter, warns that "users should be aware of the limitations of composters". Contrary to advertising claims and representations made by vendors of composters , Mr. Decker warns that "composted humus contains numerous bacteria and may also contain viruses and cysts. . . . the composted humus should be periodically removed by a professional septage hauler". He states that if the homeowner elects to dispose of it himself it should be buried or well mixed insoil "distant from food crops, water supply sources (i .e. , wells , springs) and watercourses". From Mr. Decker's description a composter is a high maintenance item which requires careful attention and effort, as well as a dedicatiion to the composting concept by the homeowner, to make it function. By allowing composters .to be used on wetlands the Trustees', in my opinion, would be exposing the public to disease. It is not far fetched to believe that at least some homeowners either through ignorance or design would dump their compost in the wetlands or some 'other inappropriate place. That is now being done with household, garbage by individuals in Southold to save the cost of an 75t bag. Consistent with New York State wastewater treatment standards, Mr. Decker points out that "Composters should be considered for household use only where insufficient waterexists to support a flush toilet- and on-site soils are compatible with satisfactory greywater treatment". It is obvious that neither of these predicates are satisfied. In addition, Mr. Decker discloses that since the NYS Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code requires "water carriage" disposal of Household wastewa- ter, composting toilets "should not normally be constructed as part of a new residence" I invite the Trustees' attention to the fact that NYS wastewater stain lords for residences apply when they are stricter than the standards of ' local authority, viz., SCDHS. Thus, an in-ground system for greywater must meet the same set back requirements and :criteria as a conventional system, and composters also must comport with several set back require- ments and criteria which are in the NYS standards but not in the new SCDHS standard Everything that Mr. Decker and Mr. Schauer state in their advisory letters militates against the use of the above sanitary system on a wetlands lot. These gentlemen's opinions should be given paramount consideration by the Trustees;, not only because they are experts but because they have absolutely no interest in this matter - they are unaware of its exis- tence. The Trustees may be operating under the mistaken belief that if they deny a 'permit then a "taking" has occurred for which compensation must be made. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia , in writing the majority opinion in Lucas v.South Carolina Coastal- Council , stated that permits could be denied without compensa ion under common law principals that prohibit peop'e from using their property in a way that harms the public, or in ways that create public nuisances.Certainly the installa- tion 'of the sanitary system discussed above would result in a public health hazard and nuisance and may be prohibited without compensation. Very truly yours, JM:ng �� En c: 2 cc:Town Attorney Town Supervisor CAC Roy Reynolds, SCDHS NFEC STATE OF NEW YOR. DEPARTMENT OF HEALT ' MAY 22.1995 Center for Environmental Health 2 University Place Than pg pgg Lorna McBarnene TONN iV`()f S V. Executive Deputy Commissioner OFFICE OF PUBLIC:HEALTH- March 18, 1992 Sue Kelly Executive Depury Director//- William N.Stasiuk,P.E...Ph.". Canter Director L Mr. John G. Prentiss P.O. Box 10_ Piseco, New York 12139 RE: Composting Toilets and Greywater Dear Mr. Prentiss: Mr. Peter Smith requested me to reply to your March 7, 1992 letter regarding the above-noted subject. Composting toilets should not normally be constructed as part of any new residence since Part 900 of the State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code ,requires water carriage sanitary facilities. Sections 75-A.10(b)(1),(2), and (5) of the enclosed copy of "Wastewater Treatment Standards - Individual Household Systems" address a necessary use of composting toilets- plus the required treatment of greywater (i.e., household wastewater without toilet wastes). Greywater systems shall be designed upon a flow of 75 gallons per bedroom per day. Body wastes are present in wastewater from showers, tubs, hand washing sinks, and clothes washers. Food preparation/serving,wastes are present in wastewater from sinks and dishwashers. Miscellaneous wastes are present in wastewater from garbage grinders and sinks used for equipment cleaning (i.e., paint brushes, mops, etc.) . Greywater is contaminated and must therefore be treated in the same manner as household sewage. Composters have been successfully used for public toilet facilities where the vast majority of wastewater generated comprises toilet/urinal flushing such as at roadside rest areas, public gathering sites and rustic camping areas. In such settings, the volume of wastewater produced and the demand upon water resources are greatly reduced by using composters. In a household setting, the volume of greywater to be handled' remains at 75 gallons per day per bedroom and must receive conventional subsurface " treatment. Composters accept only toilet wastes and kitchen food scraps (i.e. , blackwater) coupled with supplemental additions of carbon-rich bulking agents such as planer shavings or coarse sawdust. Household cleaning products should not be placed in the unit. Failure to add adequate bulking agents or maintaining adequate moisture can result in the composting pile becoming hard (and i difficult to remove) or anaerobic. The,composted humus contains numerous bacteria and may also contain viruses and cysts. Residual 'wastes (i.e. , the composted humus) should be periodically removed by a professional septage hauler. If a homeowner chooses to personally remove the composted humus, it should be disposed of at a sanitary landfill or buried or well mixed into soil distant from food crops, water supply sources (i.e., wells, springs) and: watercourses. - 'Users should be aware- of the limitations of composters. A flow of 110-gallons per day per bedroom may be used to design a complete household, subsurface wastewater treatment system when the household is equipped with- a water saving toilet (i.e. , 1.6 gallons per flush) and water saving faucets/showerheads (i.e. 3.O gallons per minute maximum) . Use of water saving, toilets and water saving fixtures is recommended to provide satisfactory sanitary facilities and simultaneously reduce water needs and reduce wastewater treatment volume/cost. Composters should be considered for household use, only where insufficient water exists to support a flush toilet and on-site soils are compatible with satisfactory greywater treatment. Sincerely, James D. Decker, P.E. Chief, Residential Sanitation Section Bureau of Community Sanitation and Food' Protection dam/92078PRO0334 Enclosure cc: Mr. Smith Mr. Amberman - Saranac Lake <District Office _Mr. Svenson Page 2 STA`- E OF NEW YOkK ` . fey DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Center for Environmental Health 2 University Place Albany, New York t 2203-3399- Mark R.Chassin,M.D.,M.P.P.,M.P.H. OFFICE OF PUBLIC HEALTH. Commissioner Lloyd F.Novick,.M.D.,M.P.H. Paula Wilson Director Executive Deputy Commissioner Diana Jones Ritter August 12. i994 - Executive Deputy Director William N.Stasiuk,P:E.;Ph.D. Center Director Ms. Eileen O'Connor Director of Environmental Health Cayuga County Health Department 160 Genesee Street Auburn, New York 13021 Dear Ms. O'Connor: Thank you for your letter of July 28, 1P94 and information regarding CliVUS Multrum greywater systems and greywater pressure infiltratinn pipe. You've asked for my opinion of these items. What follows are my evaluations of these products and an overview ofgreywater systems in general.. Greywater systems may be used in conjunction with non-waterborne toilet waste systems as an alternative to standard Household wastewater where there is a desire or need to conserve water. "Greywater contains organic matter, inorganic material, bacteria and pathogens that may be harmful to humans and animals. Greywater systems do not eliminate the reduirementfor treatment and ultimate disposal of household wastewater. IONYCRR Appendix 75-A, Section 75 A 10(b)(5) rAquires greywater svgfPnis to conform to the requirements for individual wastewater treatment systems. Greywater systems shall be designed upon a design flow of 75 gpd/bedroom, A greywater system'must incorporate all of the features and components of a standard septic system. This will include an appropriately sized septic tank; distribution device and'a soil absorption facility: The Clvus Multrum greywater systems consist of a pretreatment filter box followed by a soilbed. The soilbed works cnnceptualiy similar to an intermittent sand filter by filtering the;pretreated greywater through successive layers of topsoil. sand, gravel and stone. Some evapotranspiration of the pretreated greywater'takes place via vegetation planted in the soilbed. Effluent from the soilbed passes onto some form of soil absorption facility. No data was provided to evaluate the quality of effluent from the soilbed. It would appear that this arrangement is providing a level of pretreatment similar to a standard septic tank/sand filter arrangement. The pretreatment filter box clarifies the greywater while the soilbed provides filtration and some nutrient uptake. The performance of the above-ground soilhPd in the winter climate of New York State is suspect. The soilbed and related shallow absorption pipe Would be subject to freezing. Nutrient uptake by vegetation planted in the soiibed would not take place.. Clivus Multrum literature indicates that several greywater-irrigated greenhouses are in operation in New England. I cannot make an educated evaluation of this type of treatment regime. However. i would recommend against installing a greywater soilbed inside the living quarters of a house (i.e.. greenhouses/solariums attached to houses). Physical contact with sewage or greywater contaminated soils must be avoided. No data was provided to indicate the effects of flow attenuation and soilbed plant uptake on the design of absorption facilities located downstream from the Clivus Multrum greywater systems. Downstream absorptinn facilities must be designed in accordance with Appendix 75-A criteria coupled with applicable design flows. Site and soil conditions will dictate the type of absorption facilities constructed (i.e., standard absorption trenches. shallow absorption trenches, raised system. etc.). The Clivus Multrum greywater filter box stores and pumps the filtered greywater to the soilbed in specific doses. The filter mechanism must be changed on a regular basis depending on use. A service contract with a Ciivus Multrum authorized s representative should be maintained throughout the useful life of the greywater system, Pumped systems must be equipped with audible or visual pumpalarms to notify owners of system failure. Single pump systems must have sufficient storage capacity to accommodate one day's design flow above the pump-on level to facilitate repairs. Duplex pump systems do not require additional storag e ge capacity but must be equipped with independent alarms. Problems;associated with soilbed freezing, filter box/pump maintenance and exposure to untreated greywater must be addressed before Clivus Multrum greywater systems are approved to treat household greywater. A specific waiver allowing the use of Clivus Multrum greywater systems in lieu of a standard septic tank is required. Clivus Multrum greywater pressure infiltration pipe is a unique product with applications in drip soil absorption systems. The drip soil absorption system is a relatively new technology with origins in agriculture. Most research on this subject has been performed in southern states. l am not aware of any research being done in New York State with these systems. I've enclosed copies of articles from the Spring 1994 issue of Small Flows that cover this topic in detail. I hope you find this information useful_ Please feel free to contact meat 518-458-6706 if you have any questions. Sincerely. Kevin C. Scheuer. P.E. Sr. Sanitary Engineer Bureau of Community Sanitation and Food Protection MAY 105 Viking Rd. PO Box I 1995 Glenwood Landing, NY711547 ® F SOUTHOLD May 9, 1995 Board of Trustees, Town of Southold Town Hall 531195 Main Rd. P©Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 uMf Aft: Albert J.Krupski,President 3 Re: Conners 350 best Drive 4 SCTM#59-5-29.3 Dear Mr.Krupski, 4 Thank you for responding to our letter dated 4114/95. r§ J i° As per your instructions in your previous letter dated 8/11/94,we are in the process of contacting 0 � our neighbor, Mr. Schwartz with respects to the relocation of his well. A copy of our request d dated 5/8/95 is enclosed. If this is acceptable to him,we will then prepare a proposal which would include a smaller kt� ri dwelling(approx. 3W2)on pilings,with a chvis multrim type toilet system, gray water septic ' system in the N/E comer. However,we cannot submit a formal proposal until we have obtained both the approvals from Mr. Schwartz and the SCHD. Any input you can give us will be greatly appreciated. 1 Of course, our greatest concern is in the event, Mr. Schwartz does not accept our proposal, the '{ SCHD would not approve any plans for the gray water septic system within 100 ft. of the neighboring well. We would appreciate your cooperation in advising what alternatives you would d a accept. We want to avoid any litigation as I am sure you are. s } s f Finally, in both your letters dated 8/1 1194 and 4/28/95, you make mention of setting up a meeting ll I wh h was what our fetter dated 4114/95 was hoping to accomplish. However, ft is not exactly Gear as to when this meeting would be set up. We want to proceed with this project in proper order,we are hoping that a meeting would accomplish this. We appreciate and need your assistance and cooperation and took forward to hearing from you, 3J, Sincerely, Colleen Connors cc encl. 3 cc: Judge Cahalan t' r ' I jl: + 5 Viking Rd. PO Box 278 • Glenwood Landing, NY 11547 • • May 8, 1995 • • Mr. Daniel L. Schwartz & Mrs. Sydney Schwartz + 490 Fourth Street Brooklyn, NY 11215 + Re: 350 West Drive Southold, NY • Dear Mr. Schwartz& Mrs. Schwartz, As you may know, my family and I own the vacant lot(350 West Dr.)adjacent to your property. We purchased this land in'87 with the hopes and dreams of raising our children in the Southold community. Regrettably, there have been endless road blocks in the building of our home. We have submitted many proposals to the Trustees, none of which has been accepted. We ask that yourefer to the enclosed letter from the Town Trustees dated 8/11/94. The Trustees have requested that we submit a'plan which calls for a special type of enviromental_septic system. As this system would be located within 100 ft. of your well, this plan would require the relocation of your existing well. This relocation of course would be at our expense. • Please advise if this proposal would be acceptable to you. A self addressed stamped envelope is enclosed for your convenience. Of course if you should have any questions, or would like to personally discuss this matter, please feel free to give me a call. My home#is 516 671-8751. + My family and 1 would like to thank you in advance for giving this matter your attention. • Sincerely, • Colleen Connors cc • encl. +\r cc A Krupski, Jr: Board of Trustees-Southold CERTIFIED MAIL r O��gpfFO(k�, \ J Albert J. Krupski,President ti� aGy Town Hall John Holzapfel;Vice President o= < 53095 Main Road y ,? P.O. Box 1179 William G. Albertson p Southold,New York 11971 Martin H. Garrell Peter Wenzel j Tel ephone(516)765-1892 Fax(516)765-1823 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD April 28, 1995 William T.' Connors 1988 Knollwood Road Syosset, NY 11791 RE: Connors Property SCTM #59-5-29 .3 Dear Mr. Connors : The Board of Trustees would be glad to meet with you on any specific project which you seek to have approved in a presubmission conference. However, we are not architects or designers and do not offer home design advice to the public. We have told you our concerns, which focus primarily on contamination of groundwater by a project involving the installation of a septic system on wetlands . I am sure that your architect can come up with several solutions, including a Clivis Multrum system (composting toilet) plus alternative small septic system for gray water. The fill and activity would be limited to house foot print only. Let us know when you have a proposal, and we will set up a meeting with you. Sincerely, /� n Albert J. Krupski, Jr. President, Board of Trustees AJK: jmd encl. cc: Town Attorney CAC Roy Reynolds,SCDH 0 w , APR 2 T M D _. OWN OF SOUTHOLD 4 for rhome'cottage,houseboat,shop, stable or m ome.o h r oto SR'EDISH s Regardless of location ur DRY TOILET climate,INCINOLET .IDEAL FOR LaUarnnteE You COTfAGESI ` et NO WATER :0 COtLVEN1ENCE tt NO PLUMBING t CLEANL01ES5 *NO CHEMICALS r AfFORDAIILFfY :NO:ODOR INCINOLEY R Sir troompcs"tecM1nalo bu,eaby wy�d.. . incinerntes c�maa�amaacana�,wmcrsaosra�o�P�edsm�i� s[etl andA&S^Iasticmnsm,cean,NSFappmved. ;. wasie>'lectridal(Y nash.. im�eme nr-wArbtOotvsmvArroNsrsrsus,sic to Olea - Davwomm9quere.Oept.Y.Conmra,MA01]42 ojilmul Water, (see)a8e-3ee1 or(800)452 1 imliutiom or_od°r. Pt....d St for cobr4ro .a Oealerinamms nmtea Gall1-$00=5`17-5551 for immediate Askabout aurGmy+vaterreeatment Systems . raal p °n response! � mom 7WU fLECTRI C TOILET. �SE[Ia FOR"p , Free cat- COMPOSTING TOILET SYSTEMS stun"T. rederick - ''�" _ 'ork NY Advanced Waterless&Low Water Models For C s,Homes&Commercial Use l• waterless&.Low Water Systems • For Cottages,Homes&Industry �w ers . clean,Sanitary&Odor-Free "SON•MAe COMPOSTING TOILETS ns east SANCOR 1ao•wmfl.'e..s<m gk aseuers. '=*O.ea^etla msaaa Several models available ) - ^e^°"a'eu"c: Call For Free Brochure 8 Video •NO Septic System w. .On-99 i , ,- •. •NO Chemicals • Save the Origi- IN CANADA CALL T-auu3875245 Environment! h'.• �1MC. Rule Back to Nature! k. . _..-------- SUN-MAR CORP. 1.800.461-2461 fi00MaQ5aeetronawa,Ea. PO.Ii N.Y.14150•mUSA FREE-L2 Page CoiorCatalog APR 1 T M �" mm OF sOyUT L 1988 Knollwood Road Syosset, New York 11791 April 14,' 1995 Board of Trustees, Town of Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road, P. 0. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re: Connors vs. Town of Southold Gentlemen: Per Judge Cohalan's decision dated April 6, 1995, and his reference to your letter of August 11, 1994, wherein you feel the proper type of dwelling can be, constructed on my property, kindly set up your meeting with all interested parties so that a building permit can be issued. , We look forward to hearing from you soon so that we will see if you can deliver on your word. Be advised we want to know specifically what you will approve in the construction of a one family dwelling. Thank you. Very truly yours, Wi�T. Connors P.S. Surely, after eight (8) years, and after dozens and dozens of hearings and environmental studies at taxpayer's expense and my expense, we should be able to resolve this problem. cc: Judge Cohalan cc: Town Supervisor, Wickham M E M 0 R A N D U M her SUPREME COURT, SUFFOLK COUNTY TRIAL TERM, PART 24 -------------- ------------ ----X In the Matter of the Application BY: Cohalan, J. S.C. Of' CHRISTOPHER CONNORS and DATED: April 5, i995 WILLIAM CONNORS, INDEX No. 20674-94 Petitioners, Mot. Seq. #001-MD For a Judgment Pursuant to Article CDISPSUBJ - 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules -against- BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES FOR THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, AND THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, Respondents . -----------------------------------X WICKHAM, WICKHAM & BRESSLER, ESO'S . SOUTHOLD TOWN ATTORNEY Attys . for Petitioners By: Laury L. Dowd, Esq. Main Road Atty. for Respondents P.O. Box 1424 Southold Town Hall Mattituck, NY 11952 P.O_ Box 1179 53095 Main Rd. Southold, NY 11971 Petitioners are the owners of a vacant piece of property situated in the Town of Southold who have instituted this proceeding pursuant to _Article 78 of the CPLR for a judgment setting aside the denial by respondent Board of Trustees (Trustees) of petitioners' application for a wetlands permit on the grounds that said denial was in violation of the law and was arbitrary and capricious . Petitioners seek as alternative relief an order that compensation for a taking of their property be given to them. Respondents oppose petitioners` application (s) in all respects . The vacant lot which is at the center of this proceeding is approximately one-half acre, bounded on the north by a developed lot, on the south by an undeveloped lot, and on the west by Peconic Dunes- County Park, a camp and recreational area owned by Suffolk County. Within the park and located approximately four hundred feet from the property is Great Pond, a body of water fed by groundwater which is used for recreational boating, fishing and swimming. Prior to their purchase of the property on March 19, 1987, petitioners obtained from the Town of Southold building inspector a certificate of occupancy certifying that the vacant lot conforms to the zoning code provisions applicable to an Residential Agricultural zoned district . A survey dated April 21, Connors v Board of ,.-own Trustess \' for the Town of Southold Index No. 20S74-94 Pace 2 1987, prepared for petitioners noted most of the property to contain "phragmites in water. " on or about May 14, 1987, a Notice of Violation was issued to petitioner Christopher Connors for an alleged violation of the Southold Town Code, in failing to obtain a wetlands permit prior to adding , fill to the property. Petitioner Christopher Connors thereafter submitted an application to respondent Trustees to obtain a permit to fill a` portion of the property and build a dwelling on the parcel . By declaration dated June 25, 1987, the Trustees determined that the provisions of the. State Environmental Quality 'Review`Act, ECL §8-0101 et seg., (SEQRA) applied, that the Trustees would act as lead agency under SEQRA and that a Draft Environmental ' Impact Statement (DEIS) would be required. Petitioners thereafter had a DEIS , prepared and submitted same to the Trustees on April 1, 1988 . By letter dated April 22, , 1988, however, the Trustees declared the DEIS to be incomplete and requested that more information be supplied. Correspondence from petitioners' consultant dated May 24, 1988, purmorting to address their inquiries was sent to the Trustees, but by letter dated June 24, 1988, the Trustees declared that the DEIS was still .incomolete and that a violation charged by the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) under state law had to be resolved first . Thereafter, petitioners' ' DEIS was accepted as complete and a hearing, under SEQRA was conducted. The Trustees indicated to petitioners, however, that the permit application filed pursuant to the Town Code would notbe considered until all other applicable governmental permits were obtained, in accordance with the Town Code. On or about June 25, 1992, upon request of petitioners, the DEC issued petitioners an exemption from the obligation to obtain a wetlands permit under ECL §24-0701. On or about January 5, 1994, the Suffolk County Department of Health approved the installation of a five shallow pool sanitary system for the proposed development of the property. Such approval was thereafter amended on July 15, 1994, to provide for less fill on the property. On July 28, 1994, a hearing was conducted before the Trustees concerning petitioners' application for a permit to construct a dwelling on the property. A resolution was thereupon adopted by the Trustees, setting forth detailed findings and conclusions . Among the many findings set forth, it was noted that the property is located in a flood zone, with "nearly all of the lot" being freshwater wetlands and the depth of the water table being between ten inches and 1.1 feet; that the proposed sanitary system would be on freshwater wetlands, requiring excavation and filling of wetlands, as well as the erection of a waterproof concrete retaining wall in the freshwater wetlands; that any contamination by a malfunction of the sanitary system could cause a direct and immediate contamination of 'groundwater in the surrounding area, Connors v Board of 'Town Trustess for the Town of Southold Index No. 20674-94 Page 3 including Great Pond, approximately four hundred feet to the south of the property; and that a smaller dwelling could be built on the northwest corner of the property with a contained or closed sanitary system or clivus multrum_ The Trustees concluded that the development project, as proposed, will adversely affect the Townwetlands, the marine organisms, aquatic wildlife and vegetation, and would otherwise adversely affect the general welfare ofthe people of the Town. 'Petitioners' application was thereupon denied. Among the many documents of in opposition to petitioners' application is a survey dated: February 22, 1988 on which it is indicated that, according to a study conducted by DEC, over ninety per cent of the property is wetlands`. The site ;plan filed by petitioners shows that, if the project were to be approved, fill would be denosited to a depth of six feet over an area consisting of approximately 12, 000 square feet, resulting in a loss of more than half the wetlands on the subject property. A report prepared by an Administrative Law Judge;who conducted a hearing on November 14, 1989 in connection with petitioners' DEC permit application, recommended denial'. of the application for a DEC freshwater wetlands permit . Such denial was based upon numerous findings, including the close proximity of the proposed placement of the sanitary system to surface water and wetlands, indicating a threat to surface and groundwater contamination'. Among the conclusions reported were that there was an inadequate demonstration "that the , surface water and groundwater would be adequately protected from contamination by septic wastes and the evidence indicates that some degree . of Contamination can be expected. " Thereafter, by decision of the Commissioner of the DEC, dated January 23, 1990, the petitioners' application was denied on the grounds that the potential for problems identified with the operation of the septic system indicates its incompatibility with the public health and welfare, and the construction of the project of the freshwater wetland act. Nevertheless, upon their request submitted to DEC in 1992, petitioners were granted an exemption to the requirements of the freshwater wetlands act under its "grandfather" clause. In Article 78 proceedings, the courts cannot interfere unless there is no rational basis for the exercise of discretion or the action complained of is arbitrary and capricious (Pell v Board of Educ. , 34 NY2d 222, 231, 356 NYS2d 833 [19741 ) . The arbitrary or capricious test chiefly relates to whether a particular action should have been taken or is justified and whether ' the administrative action is without foundation in fact, (Pe11 v`Board of Educ_ , supra, at 231) Moreover, it is well settled that a court ,may not substitute its judgment for that of the board or body it reviews unless the decision under review is arbitrary; and unreasonable and constitutes an abuse of discreticn (Diocese of Rochester v Planning Bd. of Sown of Brighton, I NY2d 508, 520, 154 NYS2d ' 849, 136 NE2d 827 119561 ) . Furthermore, judicial review of an administrative determination is, limited to the grounds invoked Connors v Board of Town Trustees for the Town of Southold Index No_ 20674-94 Page by the agency (Aronsky,v Board of Education, 75 NY2d 997, 1000, 557 NYS2d 267, 75 NY2d 998 [1990] ) . " A reviewing court, in dealing with a determination which an administrative agency alone is authorized to make, must judge the propriety of such action solely by the grounds invoked by the agency (Scherbyn v Wayne-Finger Lakes Bd. of Coop_ Sduc. Sere. ,; 77 NY2d 753, 758 , 570 NYS2d 474, 573 NE2d 562 [19-011 ) . The determination of the respondent Trustees denying the Petitioners, application for a wetlands permit for the proposed development of their land is supported bysubstantial evidence in the record (see, CPLR 7803 [41 Pell v Board of Educ_ , supra; CardullO v County of Suffolk, AD2d , 610 NYS2d 317 [2d - Dept 1994] ) . Under the Wetlands Ordinance of the Town of Southold (Southold Town Code §9'7-10 et seq. ) , the Trustees are charged with implementation of the permit process to provide for "the protection, preservation; proper maintenance and use,, of the Town' s wetlands in order to minimize loss of 11beneficial marine organisms, aquatic wildlife and vegetation and the destruction of the natural habitat' thereof and to otherwise protect the quality of wetlands . . " (Southold Town Code 97-11 [B] ) . It cannot be reasonably disputed that a substantial portion of the subject property contains wetlands, in view of the notation "phragmites in water" noted on plaintiff' s 1.987 survey, the report of Tsontakis Associates, and the findings of En-Consultants, Inc. , the petitioners' consultant. Thus, the Trustees were authorized to require - a permit for the proposed development of the parcel and to designate itself as "lead agency" under SEQRA (ECL §8-0111 [61 ) . As such, the Trustees had the responsibility of determining whether the proposal would have a significant effect on the environment (ECL §8-0111 [61 ; see also 'Glen Head Glenwood Landing Civic Council, Inc. , 88 AD2d 484, '453 N'rS2d 732 [2d Dept 1982] ) . Furthermore, it is not disputed that the installation of the Proposed sanitary system would require the excavation and filling of a substantial portion of the wetlands, and that the proposal was rejected by an administrative law judge from DEC following a hearing, by the Commissioner of DEC, who adopted the findings and conclusions of the administrative law judge, and by the 'Town Conservation Advisory Council . Moreover, based upon the information received by the Trustees, and in view of the shallow water table on the property, noted by petitioners to be 1.1 feet, there exists `.substantial evidence that septic effluents could infiltrate the groundwater and surface waters and that any contamination by sanitary system malfunction could contaminate the groundwater in the surrounding area, including Great pond. Sufficient factual findings were set forth by the Trustees to support their conclusion that petitioners' proposal would adversely affect the wetlands, aquatic wildlife and vegetation, and would otherwise "adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the Town. ,, Connors v Board of Town Trustess for the Town of Southold Index No. 20674-94 Page 5 In addition to the foregoing, the procedures undertaken by the Trustees throughout the application process were appropriate and proper. The suspension of a determination on petitioners, application until certain other agency permits and approvals were obtained was , permissible (see; Carlson Assoc. v Town Bd. of Smithtown, AD2d , 615 NYS2d 407 [2d Dept 19941 ) . There is no requirement that the property wetlands be so identified on a map before the regulation of same can be _undertaken by the Trustees ' (see, Drexler v Towa of New Castle, 62 NY2d 413,, 477 NYS2d 116, 465 NE2d 116 - [1984] ) . Furthermore, the respondents are not precluded from asserting their regulatory authority on the basis of statements alleged to have been made by Town employees concerning whether the . property- was "buildable. ' Petitioners sought no written confirmation from respondents that development of the property had been approved or that they were authorized to proceed g with fillin without a permit (see,, Slemp-v New York State Dept. of snv. Cons. , 176: AD2d 1112," 575 NYS2d 419 [3d Dept 19911 ) This court further finds that there is no merit in petitioners, claim that the denial of a wetlands:' permit constitutes an unconstitutional taking of their property. The Trustees specifically noted in their findings that a °smaller single :'family home" could be built on the property, thereby acknowledging that their disapproval of the plans submitted did not serve to preclude all development„propos,als. Furthermore, petitioners have otherwise failed to demonstrate that under no use permissible by the Wetlands Ordina nce would the property be capable of producing reasonable return (see, Sastbrook Constr. Co_ v Armstrong, 205 AD2d 971, 613 NYS2d -776 [3d Dept . 19941 ) Accordingly, the determination of the Trustees denying the petitioners, application for a permit under the, proposal submitted is confirmed, and the petition is hereby dismissed. submit judgment DATED: APR O 5 ::f J.S.C. P� � _ ���� �� � � � �� C �� � . � ��� �`� /� Albert J. Krupski,President �� Town Hall John Holzaplel, Vice President �� y' 53095 Main Road x P.O. Box 1179 William G. Albertson Southold, New York 11971 Martin H. Garrell Peter Wenzel a�1 �� ^ Telephone (516) 765-1892 Fax (516) 765-1823 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD September 29, ,1995 Timothy Collins, AICP Environmental, Planning & Land Development Consultant 27 Joshua Edwards Court East Hampton, NY ,11937 The following action was taken by the Southold Town Board of Trustees on Thursday, September 28, 1995; RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board of Trustees retains TIMOTHY COLLINS, ,AICP, Environmental, Planning & Land Developement Consultant of 27 Joshua Edwards Court, East Hampton, New York 11937, 329-5930, as the Trustees Environmental Consultant as needed at a rate of $65.00 an hour. Affective September 1, 1995, Also, RESOLVED that this resolution be sent to the Town Board for there verification. Fees will be a charged back to the applicant after an estimate of each particular project is given. If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Sincerely, f�t��.e�s.a Albert J. Krupski, Jr. President, Board of Trustees AJK:jmd cc: Town Board Albert J. Krupski,President %Oy�c,UFFD� �4y` Town Hail John Holzapfel, Vice President c < 53095 Main Road William G. Albertson P.O. Box 1179 Martin H. Garrell r Southold,New York 11971 Peter Wenzel �� O� p� �O Telephone (Slb) 765-1892 Fax(516) 765-1823 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD September. 29, 1995 Timothy 'Collins,, AICP Environmental, Planning & Land Development Consultant 27 Joshua Edwards Court East Hampton, NY 11937 i The following action was taken by the Southold Town Board of Trustees on Thursday, September 28, 1995; . I RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board of Trustees retains TIMOTHY COLLINS, AICP„Environmental, Planning & Land Developement Consultant of. 27 Joshua Edwards Court, East Hampton, New York 11937, 329-3930, as the Trustees Environmental Consultant as needed at a rate of $65. 00 an hour. Affective September 1, 1995. Also, RESOLVED that this resolution be sent to the Town Board for there verification. Fees will be a charged back to the applicant after an estimate of each particular project is given. If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Sin�cerel Albert J. Krupski, Jr. President, Board of Trustees AJK:jmd CC: Town Board Albert J. Krupski, President N5S�� UFFiI(,j � Town Hall John HolzapfeI, Vice President 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 William G. Albertson Southold, New York 11971 Martin H. Garrell Peter Wenzel ��� a�Q Telephone (516) 765-1892 Fax (516) 765-1823 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD September 29, ;1995 Christopher Connors 5 Viking Road Glenwood, NY 11597 RE: SCTM #1000-59-5-29.3 Single Family Dwelling Dear Mr. Connors: Please find the enclosed estimate for the Environmental Review of the above referenced project. This estimate is due in full as soon as possible. once payment is received the review will continue. Any monies left over after completion of review, will be returned to you. if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Sincerely Albert J. Krupski, Jr. President, Board of Trustees AJK: jmd CC: Tim Collins From:Timothy Collins To:dill-Board of Tmsteas Date:RMIGI5 Time:11:4i:12 Page 2 of 2. Timothy Collins,AICP Emimnmcntal;Planning&Land Development Consultant 27 Joshua EdWards Court East Hampton, New York 11937 (516)32%5930 Fax(516)329-6932 September 29, 1995 Town of Southold Board of Trustees 53095 Main Road P.O.Box 1179 Southold New York 11971 RE:Wetland Permit application of Connors,Southold Dear Board Members.- With reference to the above application, i estimate the total number of hours to field inspect the site,flag the wetland, and conduct an environmental assessment of the project pursuant to the requirements of SEQRA to be approximately 25 hours. At an hourly rate of$65.00 the estimate cost for this project is $1 625.00. While this estimate may seem high, it should be noted that this project has had an extensive history which has already been the subject of an Article 78 proceeding. This estimate assumes a substantial effort will be necessary to resolve this application. If you have any questions or require further information, please contact me. Yours truly, d Timothy Collins, AICP TCctc Timothy Collins,AICPU; OCT Environmental,Planning&Land Development Consultant 27 Joshua Edwards Court East Ham ton, New York 11937 (516)329-5930 v �' L Fax(516)329-6932 October 5, 1995 Town of Southold Board of Trustees 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold New York 11971 RE: Wetland Permit application of Christopher Connors,West Drive,Southold. Dear Board Members: I have had an opportunity to review the latest survey submitted for the above application and wish to offer the following. The survey has been revised to include the wetland line which I flagged and has been verified by the Board of Trustees. The wetland line was identified based upon the predominance of freshwater wetland vegetation. While there may be other tidal and freshwater wetland vegetation found on the site,this wetland vegetation is also mixed with upland vegetation. Therefore, those areas can be considered to be a transitional area and not a true wetland. Given the predominance of the wetland vegetation found on the site the quality of the wetland should also be considered. The freshwater wetland presently shown on the survey is considered to be a high quality wetland, with the best wetland system being located within the northwest section of the property. In a review of this latest survey and the application submitted it is recommended that the survey be further revised to include a clear identification of the wetland line and also clearly identifies the proposed improvements. Specifically, I would recommend the following; 1. It appears that by reducing the required front yard setback to approximately 26' and a reduction in the size of the proposed dwelling, a dwelling could be placed on the property with a minimum disturbance to the wetland. While this would require applying to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance, the Board should explore all options which would minimize the disturbance to the wetlands. Therefore, the applicant should be requested to explore this option. 2. Because of the location of the adjacent well to the north, it appears that the most appropriate location of the proposed sanitary system would be within the southeast portion of the property. However, if not already attempted,the applicant should contact the adjacent property owner and offer to relocate their well. A copy of that offer and the adjacent owners response should be include in the Board's file. 3. Only one sanitary system should be shown on the survey. Further, building envelope setbacks and the old wetland line should also be removed from the survey 4. The proposed sanitary system should be located out of the wetlands, if at possible. If it is necessary to disturb wetlands, this should be kept to a minimum. It appears that a sanitary system could be located within the southeast corner of the property. By,locating the fill and retaining wall approximately 20 feet off of the property line, it appears a dwelling and sanitary system could be shown, with minimal disturbance to the wetland. As part of the proposal, a proposed grading plan and cross sectional detail of the proposed sanitary system should be included. The cross section should demonstrate that the proposed leaching pool will maintain a 2 foot separation between the groundwater and bottom of the leaching pool. The quantity of fill should be shown. To provide further protection to the groundwater and the adjacent wetland/surface water system, it may appropriate to increase the separation distance to 3 feet. 5. A proposed clearing line should be shown on the survey. This clearing line should minimize the disturbance to the wetland to the greatest degree possible. b. Calculations should be provided for the total lot area, area of wetland, area of pervious surfaces, and area of clearing. 7. The Board should discuss the possibility of requiring Health Department approval for the new plan,prior to granting the final wetland permit. However, you way wish to consider the revised plan and provide some comments to the applicant. If the plan is reasonably acceptable to the Board, then the applicant can proceed to the Health Dept. Based upon the above information,it is recommended that this application be deemed incomplete until such time as a revised survey is submitted and the applicant addresses each of the above items. If the Board has any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours truly, Timoth Collins, AICP TC:tc JAMES MANOS [[99 ATTORNEY AT LAW j§ -- 2147 LAKE DRIVE I'} P.O. BOX 1543 SEP — 81 a SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971 516-765.1316 TOWN r e� N F �� �16H€M September 8, 1995 Mr. Albert J. Krupski , Jr. , President Southold Board of Trustees Town Hall , 53095 Main Road, P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re: Matter of Connors 350 West Drive Dear Mr. Krupski, Enclosed is a survey which includes the Connors plot done for a former owner of the property, J. Meo. The Meo survey is of particular value because it shows elevations above groundwater. The test hole shown on the Meo survey is within the preferred location for the mounded septic system approved by SCDHS next to Schwartz as depicted on the latest Connors survey. The Meo survey shows the elevation above groundwater as 10 inches at that lo- cation. The elevation above groundwater is one foot (two inches more than at the preferred location) at the surveyor's pipe which is next to the alternate septic system site located in the lower right corner of the plot adjacent to Manos and the roadway shoulder. The actual grade-to-groundwater level at the alternate site should be at least 6 to 10 inches less than at the surveyors ' pipe. This is because in constructing the shoulder it was bermed slightly upward from the macadam to slightly beyond the plot lines. As a result the elevation of the pipe is not representative of the true elevation of the area beyond it. The only conclusion to be drawn from the above is that both locations are unsuitable with the SCDHS approved location being somewhat less unsuitable. Very � truly yours, JM:ng l�aflt,w�o 17WAwe— enc (//! u .d�ru a u."1/)l 1 +/ Gl .• .il/f",41J,.[.. 1 39-z's'IV./ i o 149D io 133. 3-0' CM {T` M$O Ta CONN ERS 5 s F�SV • . ^----- NiGivuls?. J ti/17'7S ,. {. Q I ste.v 1 s to 14 vi rk 'Me L� tll ; 'U BS.56 'o l33, 33 .9 �{,"..<u l33. 3•� �� t t J l l n c SUFFOLI{ COUPITY HEALTH LEpARTi!E2;T C\c o �` nAT I 2 7.t915 H. D. REF: k - 1L . , i The sewage disposal and water u c a t facilitio t'or tat spp}lY . .C• �a iris location havu bebn i Cq D o r b C.), Pbctea bY. this �u � O c x ti:to be satisfactor 1i en ^ , Chiof of Cener G n ti i 1 1. Enginserii'I t n Sor ges r- cl, 0. � t Ul tj7lCl a; i � C:::)_a. o T ' p � � ^i i pD^o ny o�i �• } l f J ��••� � x n [^. > >. > p x 'c �0 Ca 4 II q p •� � 1 I d _7�1 > > cx .�t.'"�F ? tT .ILa hi, .. l KENNEY'S BEACH CIVIC ASSOCIATION, INC. P. 0. BOX No. 881 SOUTHOLD, N. Y. 11971 1 [ T � 3 AUG 3 1 1995 September 6,. l W i Mr Albert Krupski, Trustee Southold Town Main Road Southold,, MY '11971 Re: Conners 59-5-29.3 Dear Trustee Krupski , The Executive Board of the Kenneyts Beach Civic Association strongly urges the Southold Board of Trustees to deny a Wetiand Permit for the above referenced subject. This parcel of land on West Court is located on freshwater wetlands. To permit the installation of any sanitary system w€`€l endanger the fresh water of Great Pond and surrounding groundwater Intrusion if the system malfunctions. We feel the Southold Town Board of Trustees'shou#d protect our freshwater wetlands and our water supply and deny permits for building on this and any other wetland properties. Very truly yours, L/ArlinecR�lchter President Albert J.Krupski,President �O� OG Town Hall John Holzapfel,Vice President o yt 53095 Main Road William G. Albertson H x P.O.Box 1179 Martin H. Carrell Southold,New York 11971 G ! `� Peter Wenzel d,�P� �.a0� Telephone (516) 765-1892 Fax(516)765-1823 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES' TOWN OF SOUTHOLD August 29, 1995 Louis Chiarella N.Y.S.D.E.C. SUNY, Bldg. 40 Stony Broak, NY 11790-2356 RE'. Christopher Connors SCTM #1000-59-5-29.3 Dear Mr. Chiarella: Enclosed is an application to the Board of Trustees on the alcove referenced property for a one family dwelling. As we understand the DEC. has determined no jurisdiction for a similar application on this property in the past. If you have any comments, feel free to contact this office. Thank you. 'ncerel Albert J. Krupski, Jr. President, Board of Trustees AJK:jmd enc. cc: Roy Reynolds, SCDHS S.E P 6 — 9 5 WED. 1 4 2.7 H O O D •C O N N O R S .T Fl C K S O N _P _0 2 UxY .Iy'"— rM•nw rarrv.u'w-.;,.F.Fn'F++�tla�rt't-lFl9r:cMr i>wY^`JVTn•W+�ww.r•1".'/ti'�1M•'1� + ,. :� ws a Special Term Pa"*Z If Gf the Supreme Court of thO-Stat6 of New York, held in and for the County Of day on the y JMe Y p R E S E N T! Hon. iOMAS Mt �CAI#1�► SUPREME COURT OF •THE' STATE OF rE4W YORK FFLZ COUNTY OF; SU----- _ In the Matter of the Application Of �xRISTO�H,ER CONNO�R t_and WI-MI COS petitioners, Index No. 89-13214 For a Judgment Pursuant to, Article 78' JUDGMENT of the Civil Practice Law and Rules -against- j W YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF (EKED: JUL 1 U 1992 NE Eta ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, AT: / 00 P/n Respondent. ----------- ----X Petitioners, CHRISTOPHER CONNORS and WILLIAX CONNORS, by Wickham 6 Bressler, P.C. , having their attorneys, Wickham, commenced proceeding under CPLR Article 78 and the Environmental . Conservation Law seetlon' 24-0705(7), for a judgment to set aside petitioner's application No. 10-88-1572 for respondent`s. denial of a Freshwater wetland Permit or to, require respondent to proceed under the condemnation law to acquire petitioners` real property and the `respondent having issued a letter of exemption pursuant toi ECL 24=1305 exempting the real property at issue from the hwater wetlands permit for certain land requirements of a fres 4z a SEP - 71995 - yJ, (1 g I7�— tJ� , � �r �iA�gr1'd9 G p rN, ' S E P — S 9 5 W E D 1 4 2 8 H O O.D — C O N N O R S — _7 A C K S O N P 0 3 y 3N � x �itMs'�ui nlj! 4•"IF'� „': ,i° 1Ri Y.4e 4 .,s YtJn14 �f/" *txj -. + �e a e •'i N31� `.' Yr•.. i te. a ..r.. .,n.�t e•aa..f.. .ta .. ✓a . „ .f"v.'rif� t1 b a uses, including but not limited to the, construetion and use of a , one-•family dwell parties having consented to the entry of this judgmentA it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that, the 'real- property which is the subject of this,proceeding as more particularly described in the deed recorded March 31;_ 1987 at deed- Liber 102 3 page 133 in the office of the Suffolk county Clerk also referred to as Suffolk County Tax Map' number 1000/59/5/29. 3 and subdivision lot number 2 on the final subdivision map approved by the -Zoning i board of ,Appeals number .1506 dated March, 1972 is exempt pursuant_ to ECL 24-1305 from having the requirement of a freshwater wetlands permit for land uses as referred lto in respondent's June 25, 1992, , correspondence which- uses include but are not-limited to . the construction A.nd use of a ,one familt dwelling, and it is 'further ORDEAEDO ADJUDGED AND DECREED that based on the I foregoing this proceeding is dismissed. I E N T E R, ti GRANTED MoXts X s um. JUL l 1992 J.S.C. i Edward P. Romaine Clark of Suffolk County , {7 E conj udg 77 FILED JUL 3 0 1992• w I EDW90 P.P4"*E CLERK OF SUFFOLK OOUWV •++u._ .maim. ,._. .. l�..� .. .. 1 New York State , I Water Resources Institute The water program of the Center for the Environment 472 Hollister Hall,Cornell University Tel:(607)2555941 Ithaca,NY 14853-3501 - Fax:(607)2555945 Email:wri@coe.comell.edu 19% 22 Augutst 1995 �� ' Mr. Albert Krupski l �3G 25 1 Town Hall, Main Road Southold, NY 11971 ABOUT: follow-up to phone conversation last week Dear Mr. Krupski: As,I mentioned by phone,our Institute staff have no specific experience with this combination. As we also discussed, high water tables are usually a concern for septic systems, and the wetland on the property indicates the presence of a water table near the surface. This is particularly a concern if the dry land's elevation is not much higher than that of standing water in the wetland. The only item from our 1993-94 septic system training project archives that seems relevant to your case is a draft handbook from the New York State Health Department, entitled"Individual Wastewater Treatment Design Handbook." That mixes State legal guidance with technology descriptions. It may now be available; our contact was Kevin Scheuer(518) 458-6706 of the Office of Public Health. This State handbook includes extensive materials about the"mound" systems we discussed by telephone. Those and similar"raised" systems essentially create a filled area above the natural land surface to foster some extra contact time between unsaturated soil and the tile effluent before the effluent reaches the water table. I saw one under construction in New Hampshire in a bayfrom lot, which made me link that possibility to the development proposed in your Town. I do not know whether this is permitted in Suffolk County. Hopefully the State information is now available and will be of some value in your efforts to evaluate or help mitigate the effects of the proposed septic system on the wetland. Regards, ` Steven Pacenka Water Specialist Cornell C'ewerfor the ENVIRONMENT Ucrote AUG 2 5 1995 To �. 0 9ILrl �� Telephone 0 P.O. Box 2179 (616) 765-1801 � Dl ����' Southold, New York 11971 SOZ THOLD Tt>Yr*1i CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL At the meeting of the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council` held Thursday, August 24, 1995 the following action was taken: No. 1290 Moved by Bruce Loucka, seconded by Stephen Angell, it was RESOLVED to recommend to the Southold Town Board of Trustees DISAPPROVAL of the Wetland Application of WILLIAMD AND CHRISTOPHER `CONNORS 59-5 29.3 to construct a single family dwelling. The CAC recommends disapproval for the following reasons 1 . Project is located on Wetlands 2. "Lot size is inadequate. 3. 67% of the lot is wetlands. 4. Located in flood zone. 5. Shallow watertable septic system could impact the groundwater, 350 West Drive, Southold Vote of Council: Ayes: All Motion carried. ' AUG ! 7199,5 � [!OWN OF SOUTHOLD C arv"J August.15, 10,95 AlbertKrupski Boatl of trustees,Southold Soutttold,Ny II971 Dear Mr.Krupski: After a very beautiful weekend in Southold,I v�rite this letter to inform you that my mother and I have yet to receive an acknowledgment of our response to the Connors'reguests to relocate our well. our last letter to Colleen Connors(both Iettersare attached for your easy rv€et -;ce)outlined some reasonable requirements that the Connors*must meet t in exchange for the relocation of our well at heir expense. Basically,we want the Connors'to make a commitment that the their new house wouldconsistent with the size and locakrnis of other houses in our neighborhood--i.e.have a foot print be similar to'the footprint of our current house and be an above ground one story house. I think that these u In.Rmons are cons Steatt with the dimensions that you outlined for us during your visit to our house in July. Should they be willing to make such a commitment,preferably by a change to the deed to their property,we are ready and willing to relocate our well at their expense; Unfortu ately,tc date we Have received no response. I trust that you are having an enjoyable sum rei and wish you the best of luck in this waiter. Sincerely, Daniel Schwartz enclosed:responses to Colleen Connors dated June 20 and July 21. Date: June 20, 1995 To: Mrs. Colleen Connors Re; your letters datad May S and June 7, 1995 . Dear Mrs.Connors: This letter is to confirm our reeiept of your letters dated May 8 and June 7,1995. Despitce my currently busy schedule,I have taken the time to respond to your requests inconsideration of the urgency that rewired you to send us two letters by registered mail within one month. Unfortunately,our schedule probably will not permit us to attend the working session on June 29 -- vm are unable to commit to attend a meeting in Southold on a weekday evening. My mother and I are considering your request and will respond to it more fully as soon as we are able. in order to enable us to better evaluate your proposal,please advise us as to the nature of the j house you are hoping to build'(how many floors,to support how many families,etc.). j Sincerely, Daniel Schwartz 490 Fourth Street Brooklyn,NY 112I5 I cc:A.Krupski,Jr,,Board of Trustees _ Daniel Schwartz 490 Fourth street Brooklyn,NY 11215 my 21, 1995 Ms, Colleen Connors 5 Viking Road FQ Box 278 Glenwood landing,NY 11547 Dear Ms.'Connors: We received your letter dated mid Duly and were relieved that the lack of answer to our phone calls was due to your travels My mother and 1 have continued to consider your proposal to relocate our well. At this time we feel that we are open to your request. Unfortunately,we are unable and unwilling to consider it further without having the chance to evaluate the plans for the house you wish to build. Specifically the location and height of the house are of concern. Absent the opportunity to evalu pla s f the,kwuse pliar topyr ant tor. , ref6ca#ion of our well we have another proposal to relocate our well, we request that you pe�ently chat a the deed to tho property?to limit �. i ` the height 4any house buuilt-oxn the property to a one Amy lxotise.' I took forward to hearing from you and enjoy the summer Sincerely, n>u; Daniel Schwartz cc: Albert Yrupsid,flown of Southold Board of Trustees a i Y, / v " 5 Viking Rd. PO Box 278 Glenwood Landing;NY 11547 August 8, 1995 Board of Trustees Town of Southold Town Hall 53M Main Rd. PO Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971 tyw Attrr Jill Rw Connors 350 West Drive SCTM#59-5-29.3 Dear Jilt, As per our conversation, I have enclosed the completed Full Environmental Assessment form, pages Z 3, 4&S. Please attach this to our previously submitted application of 814795. 1 trust this will fully complete our application. p In addition, t have attached a copy of the Trustees letter dated 8/11194 which states that the It application tee would be waived(please refer to paragraph 4.) Finally,to reconfirm my instructions with respects to the survey. l have contacted our surveyor and they will stop by your office to see just where the trustees had indicated at the June meeting,where the best location for the dwelling should be. He will prepare a new survey and stake out accordingly. Thank you for all your help and assistance. if does not go unappreciated. Most sincerely, Colleen Connors cc encl. M Albert J: ki,Presid t � FF 1 r a �1 Town Hall Jghn Helza el, ice Presi nt f ` '. � 53095 Main Road William G. Albertson P.O. Box 1179 Martin H. Garrell outhoId New York 11971 Peter Wenzel Prjyy Telephone (516) 765-1892 Fax (516)765-1823 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD August 11, 1994 �I IV Christopher Connors �9 Q` 340 Jericho Tpke. Floral Park, NY 11001 RE: SCTM #1000-59-5-29. 3 Dear Mr. Connors: This note represents our thoughts in addition to the resolution passed by the Board during our last meeting on July 28, 1994. We wanted to emphasize the significance of the alternative we proposed in our resolution as an alternative to expensive and time consuming litigation. We think the site problems can be addressed by some additional time and effort and ,we suggest setting up a meeting at your convenience. We would certainly be interested in entertaining a new proposal from you that called for an alternative sanitary system in the one-story dwelling, e.g. a composting toilet (clivus multrum) . To satisfy Board of Health ,_—juirements, a gray water septic system would also have to 7 the plan. To minimize fill on the wetland, it could bE on the upland portion of the property provided the appr4 iistance from your neighbor' s well could be maintained. would require relocation of your neighbor' s well. _ We suggest you work with your neighbor to drill a new well. Perhaps you could enter into discussion with that neighbor and find a way to cover the cost of a new well, probably a few thousand dollars at most. We would be glad to help with the discussion. Should you be interested in resolving this technical difficulty and discussing the matter with us, we would be happy to set up a meeting that included all parties concerned. Assuming successful resolution, we would: then entertain a new application, waiving the tees and expediting the process. That way, you could get on with the construction of the one-family dwelling that you want. m, Let us know as soon as possible how you feel about this idea. We look forward to hearing ffom y6U". Sincerely, Martin H. Garrell, er Board of Trustees t1, UIG.jmd cc-• Town Attorney Wickham, :Wickham & Bressler r f-- Cass2E'G \• 2 4� � `t31- Cf-'Nvl vt a9 Y 5 Viking Rd. PO Box 278 Glenwood Landing,NY 11547 August 4, 1995 Mr.Albert J. Krupski,President =OF Board of Trustees,Town of Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Rd. PO Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971 Re: Connors 350 West Drive SCTM M-5-23.3 Dear Mr. Krupski, Enclosed you will find a new application as requested. i have completed same to the best of my ability. Please review and let me know if there is any additional information you need. Complying with your letters of 8/11194, 4/28/95 and Judge Cohalan`s decision of'4/6195,we have been diligently working on trying to accommodate the Trustees preferential location of the septic system to the N/E comer of our property. As you know,this requires the cooperation and approval of the neighboring;landowner to relocate their existing well (at our expense)to a distance of 109 from both our septic system as well as their own. In addition,we would also need the approval of the SCHO. We regretto advese that ftt date,we have not beerrabte to obtain a firer response with respects 9f ttte tteioghot tlg`.welt'faaccoArulodate yob-t#es»eittocatierxof-m se s+ t tef nurtremus letters fo ar+ci from aurae r we-have not been able to make s1ZCep�i~o l e tiosf we'-have received thus€ar is a maybe,lF we wemto peffamently 0w deedto[unit the dwelling#o a one story house. We have already submitted proposals for the only two remaining possible locations of the septic system.These were submitted for the June 29, 1995 monthly meeting for your review. One has the septic system location in the N/W corner for which we already have SCHO aPProval. ;�tiis local on adjoins the neighboring land which has already been fitted in and would dust eten¢the ahtoun#of improved land by the length of the septic system. Although this ioc ,anon has prevlOusly been denied by the Trustees,we have since then reduced the amount of f#lf,rduced the size of the dwelling, proposed a self-composting toilet and gray water septic y system*'-a This proposal uses Only approximately 38%of our total land usage(which in total is m onl �/2cne.) The*Ond proposal'locates the septic system in the S/E corner of the property, if this would be a me des5ratue focntion,we ask that you help to coordinate this with the SCHO. As we do not have a perr'Alt from them for this location. We thank you for all your efforts and hope that we can continue to work towards our final goal of obtaining a Trustee Wetlands Permit without any further undo delay. Most sincerely, dp-� ao' � Colleen Connors GC encl. cc: Judge Cohalan mdex#20674-94 *We ask that you re-review your position on the ciivis multrim type toilet system. According to our environmental impact statement,the$CHO and other evidences given to the.Mustees, the use of a standard black water system would be less of an environmental threat than that of a self composting toilet and a gray water system; Thank you. Daniel Schwartz 490 Fourth Street Brooklyn, NY 11215 July 21, 1995 B Ms. Colleen Connors ¢ JUL 2 919% 5 Viking Road PO Box 278 $ g a € a r�:f0 5 fla , a. s Glenwood Landing,NY 11547 Dear Ms. Connors: We received your letter dated mid July and were relieved that the lack of answer to our phone calls was due to your travels. My mother and I have continued to consider your proposal to relocate our well. At this time we feel that we are open to your request. Unfortunately,we are unable and unwilling to consider it further without having the chance to evaluate the plans for the house you wish to build Specifically the Ioc concern. ation and height of the house are of Absent the opportunity to evaluate plans for the house prior to our consent to relocation of our well we have another proposal. In exchange for the right to relocate our well, we request that you permanently change the deed to the property to limit the height of any house built on the property to a one story house. I look forward to hearing from you and enjoy the summer Sincerely, Daniel Schwartz cc:Albert Krupski,Town of Southold Board of Trustees A -[^.:---- CONN 0 RS Jq CKSCN J U Ln 2 6 9 5 WED 1 ,.,�_ -M1-_ s-'- -.- __. _ P _ 8 1. . . 0 O HOOD ,�:: �:.rt� .: .-,— q� c (516) 4884330 Gvll/lLGL9 ��` Z 93Ai (778) $47-0146 INSURANCE :._ _ _- TOWN OF O THOLD JERICHO TURNPIKE FLORAL PARK, N.Y.. 1.:1001 i' FAIMIL COVER PAGE DATE'__ �` ! // Please 8e1'v/e the following ( pages with cover sheet tot �( as soon as possible. If you do not receive all of the pages, or if other problems 1 occur, please telephone (516) 488 3330 or ( 718 ) 347 0146 as I soon as possible. Comments: Y- 0'�l ��e� � 4o- SC Thank you for your assistance. Sent by: , � s Time: Our Fax Number is : (516 ) 775 0831 i I e� I- ,SULb- Z6 - 95 WE ]] 11 ��91 HOOII - CONN ORS - S qCK SON P _ 92 y..[.. ' u.._.�� .�. :w +• Y I.6/r .. iy,YLYi iVb due�Y� July9, 1906 5 Viking Rd. PO Box 278 Glenwootl Landing,NY 11547 Mr. Daniel Schwartz&Mm Sydney Schwartz 490 Fourth St. Brooklyn, NY 11215 Dear Mr. Schwartz&Mrs.Schwartz, Thank you:foryourresponse of 6/20/95 and.a special thank you for meeting with the Town Tnrstees'on July$rd. 1 am embarrassed to be contacting you again in such a short period of time.-but my family and I will be away from 1110-7/21 and in the event you tried to reach us by phone, It would be to no avail. In,yaylr letter and ao cording to the Trustees you are conoemed with the size of the,house. In all honesty,+v a da not'hav0 the exact.plans as yet. There are a few plans we are working on. I can tali you,that the house will be,smaller than 1500 sq.ft. We'are contemplating using the same plans as our old house.at 705 Leeton Dr. ,That house has abase floor living space of 1100 sq. ft. I am also working on a plan that would be of a split level design where one side of the house would be two story. The actual house size would be approximately 30x30 (three levels of 15x30. As to the number of families, 4.wili definitely be a one family,although the property Is owned jointly between my.husband and I and his parents. " If you have any other concerns,we would be more then happy to meet with you and discuss it personally. Once again,we can't thank.you enough for taking the time to meet with the Trustees. We took forward to hearing from you. Most sincerely, Colleen Connors 0 r'a i i Sou:l�xia � „ram JAMES MANOS j ATTORNEY AT LAW ” ,995 U 2147 LAKE DRIVE P.O. BOX TORN F S Q L SOUTHOLD, N.Y.Y. 11971 516-765.1316 July 5, 1995 Mr, Albert J. Krupski , Jr. , President Southold Board of Trustees Town Hall , 53095`Main Road, P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 i Re: Matter of Connors Dear Mr. Krupski , Mr. Holzapfel was quite correct in giving 150 feet as the minimum separation distance between wells and septic systems. This is provided for under the new SCHDS standards which Roy Reynolds said will be promulgated shortly. The new standards also continues the separation requirement of 100 feet between leaching pools and surface waters. The uplands portion of my property is large enough to accommodate a well and leaching pools with a minimum distance of 150 feet between the two and still fulfill the 100 foot separation distance between those leaching pools and the seasonal surface waters on the northerly side of the property. The pools would be located in the most southerly corner of my property since they are required to be a minimum of 100 feet from the seasonal surface waters on st"k-k the northerly part 'of my property. The well would have to be 150 n + feet to the north of the leach pools. Placement of leaching pools in the NE corner (lower right quadrant) of the Connors ' property which as you know would locate the pools immediately adjacent to seasonal surface waters on my property, would mean that I would have the further constraint of the 150 foot separation requirement from the Connor pools for my well . There would be no place I could locate the well . 1 believe that my property as a consequence of the above would be unbuildable. Very truly yours, JM:ng Corm1p, { i ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING i AND SANITATION Fourth Edition JOSEPH A. SALVATO, P.E., DEE Assistant Commissioner,.Division of Sanitary Engineering(Retired) 'A New York State Department of Health,.Albany,N.Y. Sanitary and Public Health Engineer . y A WHEY-INTER.SCIENCE PUBLICATION JOHN WILEY & SONS, INC. New York • Chichester Brisbane • Toronto ► Singapore V, 6Lb / , o oa 3m' GOAD `�i0p.� O 0O z30oO S. CO.O n I�7 �•' �•. y l� O..N,a G �, n :. � wv..°a. n . 3 3 •.: 3 3 m yA w �- aa �. a ^c _ vrm y e: n' X X. cw 3 e. a . ow a s oo J a h k, 1E y rt ir lA N = w i \ a o _ m i Q N a iv hS p � w �= 3 J +J Stream Pollution and Recovery 481 i he petmrt,. rain, urban and rural land runoff, infiltration;and percolation through the soil J p the groundwater. The pollutants may contain organic and inorganic chemicals, le or man 'ad'pathogens. Specific potential sources are pesticides, fertilizers, and sediments cal or ra . kin agricultural activities; manure spreading, barnyards, loafing barns,and pen j Je sources;' les; logging, skidding, and Iogging roads; highway and other construction, ! nclearing,and land development;surface mining,dredging;oil and gas drilling, Water pol= �uqe tailings; land disposal of sludge;;wastewater, and industrial wastes; landfill strial, arui kite; concentration of failing septic tank systems on small lots; runoff from neasurablt ,' and parking lots; pesticides and fertilizers from lawns and golf courses; civ nnelization, dredging, stream bank modification, and flow regulation 1 's that ma t source o r adon; spills, contaminated sediments, uncovered stored and applied de- r: vhich poi > =g agents; salt water intrusion, leaking underground petroleum and chemical s i, vehicle , smrage tanks; industry stack and motor vehicle emission deposition.'9 Control of nonpoint pollution, including atmospheric deposition, remains a chal- ; kngeand muststart with source prevention and control. Major preventive measures eta is dis ,amland-uselcontrols and land management (erosion control; conservation tillage, r, a Ovate ` ilunal waste storage, integrated pest management, and retention basins). Farm nid avast tors, for Pr example, can implement a plan developed �-, P P ped m cooperation with their Sail€Coase tion Service and the Conservation District. Technical and financial owly. Ex ce is[also available from the USDA Soil Conservation Service and others. the ability ktir Soil Conservation Service has a computerized information system (GIS) to ;h tempe "" ' soil, topographic, land use, and other pertinent data available. Less toxic ' irnicals mpst be formulated and used in lesser amounts in conjunction with is Whe smlegrated Pest management.:See Chapter 10. sewer. ;Storm-water ninoff and combined sewer overflows containing sediment, oil; - sewer a and other toxic materialsican be passed through retention basins to minimize a comb'- polludon;Joad on receiving streams. The EPA requires cities with a population sportatio r than 100;000 to prepare a management program to control storm sewer and ment fined seer.overflows and obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination ' dant, (NPDES},permit. See Combined Sewer Overflow and Separate Storm Sew- ; tins chapter. ;a: ter. Th z k ; on Measurement bon dios nee, th ��y BOD is the best single-strength measure of wastewater or polluted water a� ning degradable wastes. However, organic and inorganic loading, aquatic isms including animal life(benthos)in the bottom sediments,the COD where ? = i Wed,the dissolved oxygen,and the sanitary survey taken all together with the m1bonaceous and:nitrogenous):are the best indicators of organic water pol- Dissolved oxygen is the best indicator of a water body's ability to support . ble aquatic fife and its wasteassimilation capacity. Other chemical,physical, vater Biological parameters, such as bioassay and diversity of species, provide ad- f ition nformation, pazticulazly in relation to chemical pollution. Total and fecal jl • 1981+- R;. 'nt Source Assessment Report,New York State Dept.of Environmental Conservation,Albany, „,:September 1988,pp.1-6,7. Date: June 20, 1995 IN 2 6 1 4t TO. Mrs.Colleen Connors nOMIN OF SO TL Re: Your letters dated May S and June 7,1995 Dear Mrs.ConYLOT : This letter is to confirm our reciept of,your letters dated May Sand June 7, 1995. Despite my currently busy schedule,I have taken the time to respond to your requests inconsideration of the urgency that required you to send us two letters by registered snail within one month. Unfortunately,our schedule probably will not permit us to attend the working session on June 29 --we are unable to commit to attend a meeting in Southold on a,weekday evening,. My mother and I are considering your request and will respond to it more fully as soon as we are able. In order to enable us to better evaluate your proposal,please advise us as to the nature of the house you are hoping to build(haw marg floors,to support how many families,etc.) Sincerely, Daniel Schwartz 490 Fourth Street Brooklyn,NY 11215 cc:A.Krupski,Jr.,Board of Trustees A VYIj � FTIOWrN � 463j5�Viking Rd. PO �x278 /� { ,Jf N - 8 Glenw dLanding, N! 11+.�'Y7 ,�,�,, , oF sou�-Hat Mr. Daniel L. Schwartz& Mrs. Sydney Schwartz 490 Fourth Street Brooklyn, NY 11215 Re: Connors -350 West Drive Southold,NY Dear Mr, Schwartz& Mrs_ Schwartz, I am writing to you once again as a follow up to my letter dated May 8, 1995, 1 First, I would like to start by inviting you to a work session with the Town of Southold Trustees On ThursdaY, June 29th, 6:OOpm at the'town Hall. The Trustees'have agreed to hold this work session and my hope is that we can come up with a feasible plan that will be accepted. As stated in my previous letter, the Trustees' would like us to propose,putting in a gray water septic System in the NIE corner of our property. We cannot however,. make this proposal without your approval to re_bcate your well. We tried to contact you by phone over the Memorial Day weekend,but to no avail: We did leave,a message on your answering machine in Southold, but to date have not heard a response. We understand the position you are put in is not easy and are Bony. It is not by our choice and we too are in an awful position and can only hope that you are understanding. Finally, for all parties conc a med, we ask.#hat you put in writing your response and of course, if you wish to contact us by phone,please feel free to do so. CK r home#is 516 671-8761. Thanking you once again, I am, Very truly yours, tt.ura-r-- Colleen Connors CC cc: A. Krupski, Jr. Board of Trustees CERTIFIED MAIL#Z185 605528 ri+ �B)V T i3o No-r Kfoov) WgAT LA— 'To K A4 co J£ Y4U-k AA-s1 hAC i T-Jnib etw� ec�rV6 �f �Bnitioo-fS 4�127� �Ty, 1; -magevin .-__- 10o_ /Jni 6Now) uQuaf ly 'SZLt' im �Ts y�c� brC '1S /IS t — - - IRt:sf�ws (?2c Cr��RG^A WrT{�IvtwuNlh�i�rfr is OF 1`Ff IpwCtnta / — --- ----- — T!, �t6cuSS To eRouia 1 tlVt w ✓'v�r cTo� �Rr~a<<�it/irriorJ ---- �fiero�.R Yi1r{�at'A-,q,q-nlcc - usw_�� 1}w Twr�s taJu t Nis lip t�Riaw�Z T� VK,NfkLI ,Z ( 6a S of _�j[�NwO"IG—Yj'(.— 49'✓i.11t�w' 1�4E.�e Yi'tJ f.0✓h.4 '(�{t0.1'TCC WIf-13 fni i- 4 vc�5G cT✓}i-0/J Stku.ccK of TK9 M4'ru frI.. -HAiSil' -r, Tl4mag W ck to 67TW,2tJrs' T �i�olk�� l��L:_..�lir4r~t-ry 8� wt I G.✓i)17475y TFIw CoviVeRs ;(�ulcNJtS�{�„ -j}}is or' Wr-n+out Gt��'� u �our�et flo� �nowtslk C�;J 27N� I�t.. Z 4�1.t- IZ-�k {vtiSLtiJtJ�t� � i,q-,vAIrJcS `-! I't'Irs - ___)N FoRvNtF r oU \NeNa OF WiftcR CJiwtw +e�wt ilt� T2usiw� s� QoukD H r4-oE 1Glireu i s lti --D. DrJw 9Uc (i ssuw 4 I i��_ (� Fc 4tii�cw WFS f�i 1ik�uw 4� /7O QWcM_. (ILL i�ccvn C� o� jlk� ��lovoar T� 1�{}tC{{ ��au6t+i —4j f 0nuric," ' to -n+E T2t[sr�~S __ TTraT oJ .___Tiais----Eccu2z�!> (rJ YYI `/--erg J9k7_ IT /3���ra2s ,� __L�wco�.=A_ Vtot.�krlo� �oo+i f��.�ek ICJ rwt3_ 1�4�, GNI .nw 'ak C`eJskeJa—, { i� w l ©9� n /� �j� SAS(�LiVI� 5 Id! f}lG aF YNw >Lltt ,Ws �sWtOJ p �_ Of lJyf + UAS k`wwto�nw iN `r-j+ JQS , l4 AWIs 08u700t.,.o MOO r'ohtc�) _�O AkLou) -_ 70 Sflrnw io ICrit��L rl�J�s � - TF} a�/r7o25 1+Ir �z� S u 6'. Tso�r�t�is -- G'ri wry r_� 6�S181—WTI GY' I:�IJ1A'VYl.l�ltu^^l`it:Y fV{i„''ilS �ri3e40- t` (S Ssr'fle !ar '`�---61 ©1J IEFis _�iTw _su�7 _ �� 4 n7t �Ro3 � wtiS . kivRct4-tr c 4}r�vw !0 3v loo Or ��b� -n-t�: Sc.I����ry t.Jw�.t•. �- ioo �-' _.._ )VwIGlf3y"s Su Fdo�t< tovury) '- ? a rpt�2C� � s Tcn Srntc � Ry oob flpI n-AiI. a � •Ls..Bw _y ha �ro QQ o ¢ g a E u m h I y p �QJO2 a $ o n y �b 01'19. .0�01 d n, .�.' J #6d ,}�, a ¢ O Imo b ?,t y2- zz � e m- o.N y �i-�Q. \^_�. r � •�, •` Ada O � � vet � t, 4. •$ w r-_"-9•y 6v,t � J V�� <• nAm OO. 4 nT i J/ L� Cb �mmm �m m yr o rq� 0 m mm ycl O m cz C)co y il3 a y2omn r � cq � �i`cnOO � � n A W cl rij bN 4 �ti C y ,C cU �1 x` �O ` •� q0. to kJa ' m Nn a S V N .rlv. y 3 d iie w ��.� n .'.0 1 N Z 3 A"X 17 1J t k �" C!�' q Q%ZF w c ti 6 �Po�y •4i 100 f �. -•-.—� �� sue- ���) 4 to 'ti sp AI o •��� mC5y ��' 3`_ 5 -c�D I t c f ion '13 Cs rn2�,o�nob L O.yF' T "r- r-CIO .� m Cif to a`U I A p m � y A CD oZ � lTwy[' Qn N N Ul LJ N U`l ` 'JV7 Un r� co co � cococ�Oo cow� ii vr�0 = � , " �^ Ul U, c"�, � ti p t 2CO OPac 'Y O C c m� � yyas �- - � Z � hm - `• � II B Q e, •i.� saw' � � y C � 3'w = O y c o } 1 w V.4 " q a: Za X ,ID Tu r � � 3 41 ar � l e�' / �, ' � �• ,� � ` � S as J G n b fir � a `'. �y L a m u am OD iw 9 a U - ♦ �. Opp m OWN CAM Cr cl I. N •/ice •(/1 � � ; y._ �. Z)) .• � � � •� O •y .y w ru �� ZfV Lm �Nm > ::z tocr Cy cs, L1, Z O U N O 3 p n °�� 4z. N,�2 us Q Q c a all cif 0 ZC o uN- c o LU 0L a e=Ja E CA . O 1 p '3 Q11 4 w`3c O�r¢�m� ems , sod / u O °w �t4QZZ / J az(Wo -fl, LIC- x C,' LM � c u u 2 w` Rt x WZ� y �r aa, v QE. IQ ro,wk .4 d " Of \ , a So, IQIL O.O 4 S _ # y tQ O web al a op o w �� kG Eg ro Is v.i o � co o VC At i.. ;;Mgt xig Z- 4 0\ wt- 2 } • � y Imo' � Q, � � 11i $J Q� tl Q 15 Ord }} grul � 4 § :. -