Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-472 TOWN OFSOUTHOLD BOARD OF SOUTHOLD TOWN TRUSTEES SOUTHOLD, NEWYORK WETLANDS P~ER MIT This Wetlands Permit No..,.4,,7..2, ............ has been granted .by the Town Trustees according to information furnished in Application No. ,.,4,.4..6. ...... ~ ..... filed by Applicant .,.P.,e,.t,.er.....&,...B...a,,r..b.~:~.,J;],c.r,g on July 30, 19.8..6....;.. A map of the proposed work will be kept on fife in the Trustee Office under the application number given. Permit granted to do the following work ...T..o....c,.o,,n..s..t..r..u..c..t..,.a....o.,n,.e....f,.a,~l,y....,d,w.~i~, ........................... Location of property on which work to be done ~'~''~'.~.~.C.'?'d.~.r.~.~''~'¢.~.t'~.'D'.r.~''v'.e``~.E'~`.~t.~.~;~1;b~.6 ......... Creek, Bay or I~ar.bor fronting property Midway. [nlet .............................................. Size of work: Length Width Height Above High Water 3?" Depth Below Low Water ............ ,.~,,/.~ .............................................................................. Yards ' to be Excavated ..................................................................................................... Yards to be Filted n/a Manner in which material is to be removed or deposited ......................................................................... Intended use of property Residential .. , No topsoil is to be b~ou~;ht in on the site ' Conditions ~ an ¢ ..................................................................................... ~ .............................................. Expiration Date Ma.r. ch .26a. ~,2~ ~..~o.r.k..]~-.,,%..~9.~:...<;;,9~.e4~..c~...~¥..~a.J.ct..da~ ................... u red 2-Trustees ' ' ' of the Number of Inspections Req ......................... ~.~.g...¢9..b.e,.~Qtif~¢.d...~p.o~a..~O~al~]~ifl~ .................. work. Inspection Fees . $1d.00 paid. . . . - Liability Policies in the Amount of ....T.T.T.7.7.T.T.7.T.T.7.T.~.7.:'.7.T.7.7.T.r.7.7.7.7 .................................................... The validity of this permit is or may be subject to the approval of other governmental or municipal authorities. The Town accel:m no responsibility in applying for or obtaining such approval. In the 'event that such approval is necessary, the holder of this 9ermit shall not commeh'ce operations here- under until such approval has been obtained in writing. The failure to obtain such ether approval when required shall subject this permit to immediate re~ocation by the Trustees upon receipt by the Trustees- of written not~ce from such other governmental or municipal authorities of its refusal or disapproval. The applicant does by the acceptance of this permit, assume all responsibility for operations under- taken pursuant to this oermit, and shall take ail precautions for the prevention of injuries to persons and property resulting from such operations. By such acceptance, the applicant aisc agrees to indemni- fy and save harmless the Town, and its officers, agents and employees from any and all claims arising from operations under this permit and any and all acts or omissions of applicant, his agent and employees, The applicant and the owner and occupants of the premises u pon which the operations authorized by this. permit are being conducted, do, by the acceptance of this permit, give consent to the Town, and -its officers and employees to enter u pon the premises where such operations are being conducted To make such inspections as the Town may deem necessary to insure that such operations are being con- ducted in conformity with this permit, This. operation will not substantially: A. Adversely affect the wetlands of the town. Cause damage from erosion, turbidity or siltation. C. Cause saltwater intrusion into the fresh water resources of the town. D. Adversely affect fish, shellfish or other beneficial marine organisms, aquatic wildlife and vege- tation or the natural habitat thereof. E. Increase the danger of flood and storm-tide damage. F. Adversely affect navigation on tidal waters or the tidal flow of the tidal waters of the town. G. Change the course of any channel or the natural movement or flow of any waters. H. Weaken or undermine the lateral support of other lands in the vicinity. Otherwise adversely affect the health, safety an, d general welfare of the people of the town. Signed . . ~:"'" ........... '~> uthol~ To~n. Trustees Bate ...... *** IT IS NOTED FOR THE RECORD THAT AN EXTENSION HAS BEEN GRANTED ~OR THIS PERMI~F-;--, THE EXPIRATION DATE WITH THE EXTENSION IS MAIICH 26, 1989. HENRY P. SMITH, .. JOHN M. BREDEMEYER, I%I, President John Bednoski, 'Jr. ALBERT KRUPSKI, JR., Vice-President TELEPHONE (516) 765-I892 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Tovg~.~all, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 March 28, 1988 Mrs. Patricia C. Moore, Esq. Attorney at Law Suite 3 Clause Commons Main Road, P.O. Fox 23 Mattituck, New York 11952 Re: Peter & Barbara Herz Dear Mrs. Moore: Your recent request no extend the permit for the above referenced has been approved at the Trustee meeting held on March 24, 1988. Your request has been approved by resolution, adopted at this meeting, for one year. Your permit will expire on March 26, 1989. This letter is an amendment to the original permit and as such, shall be attached thereto. Ail other terms and conditions remain as written in the orlginal permit. Very truly yours, John M. Bredemeyer, III Presiden~ Board of Town Trusta~ JMB:ip ~: BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTMOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 March 27, 1987 TELEPHONE f516] 765-I892 Mrs. Patricia C. Moore gdson & Bruer Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Peter & Barbara Nerz Dear Mrs. Moore: The following action was taken by the Board of Trustees during their regular meeting held on March 26, 1987 regarding the above referenced matter. WHEREAS, Patricia C. Moore on behalf of Peter & Barbara Herz applied to the Southold Town Trustees for a permit under the provisions of the Wetland Ordinance of the Town of Southhold, application dated July 30, 1986, 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 26, 1987 at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard, and no objections were raised, and WHEREAS, the Board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question and the surrounding area, and ~EREAS, the Board has considered all the testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application, and 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 PATRICIA C. MOORE ON BEHALF OF PETER & BARBARA HERZ BE AND HEREBY IS GRANTED PERMISSION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE WETLAND ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: Construct a one family dwelling on property located at 170 Cedar Point Drive East, Southold with the provision that no topsoil is to be brought in on the site. This permit is approved as per the application submitted. Page 2. Peter & Barbara Herz by Patricia C. Moore This permit will expire on March 26, 1988 if work has commenced by said date. There are two inspections required and the Trustees ars to be notified upon the completion of the work. Prior to the issuance of said permit by the Clerk, the applicant shall file with the Clerk a certificate that he has public liability mnsurance policies insuring against any liability which may arise in the performance of the operations pursuant to such permit in such amount as shall be fixed by the Trustees, which said policies shall name the Town as a name insured. Please take further notice that this declaration 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. THERE ARE WETLAND INSPECTION FEES DUE. PLEASE REMIT $10.00 FOR SAFiE. UPON REMITTANCE YOUR PERMIT WILL BE FORWARDED BY MAIL. THANK YOU. HPS:ip Cc: Very truly yours, Board of Town Trustees Robert A. Greene, D.E.C., Stony Brook Commissioner Henry G. Williams, D.E.C., Albany Stephen Mars, Army Corps of Engineers Thomas Hart, Coastal Management Conservation Advisory Council Bldg. Dept. Board of Appeals File HENRY P. SMITH. President JOHN M. BREDEMEYER. Vice-Pres. PBILLIP J. GOUBEAUD ALBERT KRUPSKI, JR. ELLEN M~ARSEN BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTItOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold. New York 1 I971 TELEPHONE (516) 765- I892 April 1, 1987 TO WI{OMIT MAY CONCERN: PLEASE RETURN TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT FOR A DETERMINATION ON THE NEED OF ANY OTHER TOWN PERMITS THAT MAY BE REQUIRED FOR THIS PROJECT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ANTICIPATED COOPERATION IN THIS MATTER. SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS, PLEASE DO NOT HESITATE TO CONTACT THIS OFFICE AT THE TELEPHONE NUMBER LISTED ABOVE. BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES Page 2. Peter & Barbara Herz by Patricia C. Moore This permit will expire on March 26, 1988 if work has commenced by said date~ There are two inspections required and the Trustees are to be notified upon the completion of the work. Prior to the issuance ~of said permit by the Clerk, the applicant shall file with the Clerk a certificate that he has public liability insurance policies insuring against any liability which may arise in the performance of the operations pursuant to such permit in such amount as ~hall be fixed by the Trustees, which said policies shall name the Town as a name insured. Please take further notice that this declaration 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. THERE ARE WETLAND INSPECTION FEES DUE. PLEASE REMIT $10.00 FOR SAME. UPON REMITTANCE YOHR PERMIT WILL BE FORWARDED BY MAIL. THANK YOU. HPS:ip CC: Very truly yours, H~n~ry~P. ~e~ ith~~~ Board of Town Trustees Robert A. Greene, D.E.C., Stony Brook Commissioner Henry G. Williams, D.E.C., Stephen Mars, Army Corps of Engineers Thomas Hart, Coastal Management Conservation Advisory Council Bldg. De~. Board o/ Appeals File F Albany BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTttOLD Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold,.New York t 197 l TELEPHONE f516) 765-1892 S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOTICE OF NO-SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON TBE ENVIRONMENT Date: February 27, 1987 APPLICATION NO.: 446 NAME: Peter and Barbara Herz by Patricia C. Moore This notice is issued pursuant to the provzsions of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law State Environmental Quality Review and 6NYCRR Part 617, Section 617.10 and Chapter 44 of the Code of the Town of Southold, notice is hereby given that the Southotd Town Trustees, as lead agency for the action described below has determined that the project will not have a significant effect_on the environment. Please take further notice that this declaration 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. TYPE OF ACTION: Unlisted DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: To construct a single family dwelling. LOCATION OF PROJECT: i70 Cedar Point Drive East, Southold. REASONS SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: 1. An environmental assessment form has been submitted which indicated that there would be no adverse effect to the environment should the project be implemented as planned. 2. Because there has been no response in the allotted time from the Southold Town Building Dept. and the New York State D.E.C. it is assumed that there are no objections nor comments from those agencies. HENRY P. SMITH, President JOHN r~. BREDEr4EYER. Vice-Pres, PHILLIP J. GOUBEAUD ALBERT KRUPSKI, JR. ELLEN M. LARSEN BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1892 February 2, 1987 Mrs. Patricia C. Moore Edson & Bruer Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Peter & Barbara Herz The following action was taken by the Board of Trustees during their regular meeting held on January 29, 1987 regarding the above referenced matter. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Trustees TABLE the Wetland Application submitted by Patricia C. Moore on behalf of Peter and Barbara Herz pending another inspection by the Trustees on February 19, 1987. Please be advised that the Trustees indicated that they would not have any problems with the application if the house was set back in line with the house directly on the South. Very truly yours, President Board of To~m Trustees HPS:ip cc: Trustees file HENRY P. SMITH. President JOHN M. BREDEMEYER, Vice-Pres. PHILLIP J. GOUBEAUD ALBERT KRUPSKI, JR. ELLEN M. LARSEN BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 798 Southold. New York 11971 TELEPHONE November 7, 1986 Mrs. Patricia C. Moore Edsoi~ & Bruer Attorneys at Law Main Rd. Southold, N.Y. 11971 Re: Peter & Barbara Herz Application' No. 446 Dear Mrs. Moore: Gn September 26, 1986 we wrote to you advising of the Boards actions at their meeting of September 25th. At that time we requested you complete and return to this office a long environmental assessment form on the above listed application. As of this date we have not received this information. The Board can not continue to revue this without this information. Please submit this your intentions, at your earliest convenience. application form or advise Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Very truly yours, Henr7 P. Smith, Pres. Board of Town Trustees HPS:ao HENRY P. SMITH. President JOHN M. BREDEMEYER Vice-Pres. PHILLIP ]. GOUBEAUD ALBERT KRUPSKI, JR. ELLEN M. LARSEN BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold. New York 11971 TELEPHOI~E ¢516~ 765-1892 October 22, 1986 Mrs. Patricia C. Moore Edson & Bruer Attorneys at Law Main Rd. Southold, N.Y., 11971 Re: Peter & Barbara Herz Application No. 446 Dear Mrs. Moore: On September 26, 1986 we wrote to your advising of the Boards actions at their meeting held on September 25th. At that time we requested you complete and return to this office a long environmental assessment form on the above listed application. As of this date we have not received this information. We would appreciate your response,as soon as possible, so the Board may continue to revue this application. Very truly yours, Henry/P. Smith, Pres. Board of Town Trustees HPS:ao HENRY P. SMITH. President JOHN 51. BREDEMEYER. Vice-Pres. PHILLIP J. GOUBEAUD ALBERT KRUPSKI, JR. ELLEN M. LARSEN BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 September 26, 1986 TELEPHONE f516~ 165-1892 Mrs. Patricia C. Moore Edson & Bruer Attorneys at Law Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Peter & Barbara Herz 170 Cedar Point Drive, Southold Dear Mrs. Moore: The following action was taken by the Board of Trustees during their regular meeting held on September 25, 1986 regarding the above captioned matter. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Trustees declare itself lead agency in regard to the State Environmental Quality Review Act in the matter of the application submitted by Patricia C. Moore on behalf of Peter & Barbara Herz for a Wetland Permit on certain property located at 170 Cedar Point Drive, Southold. Please complete the attached long environmental assessment form and return it to this office for revieW. Ver~y ~ruly yours,t? ~rfryPj S?aith, President Board of To~ Trustees HPS:ip cc: Trustees file HENRY P. SMITH, President JOHN M. BREDEMEYER, Vice-Pres. PHILLIP J. GOUBEAUD ALBERT KRUPSKI, JR. ELLEN M. LARSEN BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall. $3095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 September 26, 1986 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1892 To Whom It MaM Concern: Attached hereto is a Short Environmental Assessment Form submitted by Edson & Bruer on behalf of Peter & Barbara Herz in connection with their application for a wetland permit to construct a single family residence on property located at 170 Cedar Point Dr., East, Bayview, Southold. Very truly yours, HPS:ao Posted: 9/26/86 Henry P. Smith, Pres. Board of Town Trustees HENRY P. SMITH, President JOHN M. BREDEMEYER. Vice-Pres. PHILLIP 3- GOUBEAUD ALBERT KRUPSKI, JR. ELLEN M. LARSEN BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Halt, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 September 26, 1986 Mr. Robert -A. Greene Alternate Regional Permit Administrator N.Y.S. D.E.C. Building 40, SUNY - Room 219 Stony Brook, New York 11794 Dear Mr. Hamilton: Transmitted herewith is wetland application no. submitted by Peter & Barbara Herz. 446 TELEPHONE (516) 765q892 We would like rio coordinate with you in our role as lead agency regarding this application. May we have your comments on same by Thank you for your input. Ver~ truly/y~urs, Henr~P. Smith, President Board of Town Trusfie%s Ilene P f ff f/e~l lng ~/ ~ Secretary to Board Attachments cc: Commissioner Williams Southold Town Building Dept. file BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road -. P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE f516) 765-1892 Mr. Martin Garrell, Chairman Southold Town Conservation Advisory Southold Town Hall Southold, New York 11971 Council Dear-Mr. Garretl: Transmitted herewith is application ~o.446 for a wetland permit submitted by Peter & Barbara Herz. Please prepare a written report of findings and recommendations with respect to this application. Very truly yours, Henry P. Smith, President Board of Town Trustees Ilene Pfifferling ~ Secretary to Board Attachment HENRY la. SMITH. President JOHN M. BREDEMEYER. Vice-Pres. PHILLIP J. GOUBEAUD ALBERT KRUPSKI. JR. ELLEN M. LARSEN BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUI'HOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 September 26, 1986 TELEPHONE f516) 765-1892 TO Whom It May Concern: Attached hereto is a Short Environmental Assessment Form submitted by Edson & Bruer on behalf of Peter & Barbara Herz in connection with their application for a wetland permit to construct a single family residence on property located at 170 Cedar Point Dr., East, Bayview, Southold. Very truly yours, r . Smith, Pres. Board of Town Trustees HPS:ao Posted: 9/26/86 HENRY P. SMITH, President JOHN M. BREDEMEYER, Vice-Pres, PHILLIP J. GOUBEAUD ALBERT KRUPSKI. JR. ELLEN M. LARSEN BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF $OUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 September 26, 1986 Mr. Robert-A. Greene Alter~ate Regional Per~it Administrator N.Y.S. D.E.C. Building 40, SUNY Room 219 Stony Brook, New York 11794 Dear Mr. Hamilton: Transmitted herewith is wetland application no. submitted by Peter & Barbara Herz. 446 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1892 We would like Lo coordinate with you in our role as lead agency regarding this application. May we have your comments on same by Thank you for your input. Ve~ truly)y~urs, Henr~P. Smith, President Board of Town Truste'es Ilene P f i(~i~ Secretary to Board Attachments cc: Commissioner Williams Southold Town Building Dept. file HENRY P. SMITH, President JOHN M. BREDEMEYER. Vice-Pres. PHILLIP J. GOUBEAUD ALBERT KRUPSKL JR. ELLEN M, LARSEN BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Sonthold. New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1892 September 8, 1986 Mrs. Patricia C. Moore Edson & Bruer Attorneys at Law Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Peter & Barbara Herz 170 Cedar Point Drive, Southold Dear Mrs. Moore: The following action was taken by ~he Board of Trustees regarding the above referenced matter during their regular meeting held on Aug. 28, 1986. RESOLVED to DENY the request for a WAIVER of the Wetland Ordinance as requested by Patricia C. Moore on behalf of Peter & Barbara Herz, 170 Cedar Point Drive, Southold, New York for the construction of a residence within 75' of wetlands. RESOLVED to TABLE the Wetland Application submitted by Patricia C. Moore on behalf of Peter & Barbara Herz, 170 Cedar Point Drive, Southold pending a coordination request for Lead Agency Status with the Southold Town Board of Appeals. Very truly yours, HPS:ip cc: Henry P. Smith, President Board of Town Trustees Ilene Pfifferling, Clerk Richard J. Cron, Cron & Cron, Attorneys Board of Appeals~ Trustees C.A.C. / file HENRY P. SMITH. President JOHN M. BREDEMEYER. Vice-Pres. PHILLIP J. GOUBEAUD ALBERT KRUPSKI, JR. ELLEN M. LARSEN BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hail, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 September 5, 1986 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1892 Firs. Patricia C. Moore Edson & Bruer Attorneys at Law Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Peter & Barbara Herz 170 Cedar Point Drive, Mattituck, NY Dear Mrs. Moore: Please forward the Wetland Application fee of ~50.00 to this office for the wetland application for the above referenced. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to call this office. Very truly yours, Henry P. Smiht, President Board of Town Trustees Ilene Pfifferling, Clerk HPS:ip cc: Trustees file HENRY P. SMITH. President JOHN M. BREDEMEYER, Vice-Pres. PHILLIP J. GOUBEAUD ALBERT KRUPSKI. JR. ELLEN M. LARSEN BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, $3095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1892 September 4, 1986 Mr. Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Southold Town Board of Appeals Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Barbar~ & Peter Herz 170 Cedar Point Drive, Southold, New York Dear Mr. Goehringer: Transmitted herewith is wetland application no. 446 submitted by Rudolph H. Bruer, Attorney on behalf of Peter and Barbara Herz. We would like to coordinate with your Board in determining the Lead Agency for this application. May we have your comments on same by September 17, 19867 Very truly yours, Henry P. Smith, President Board of Town Trustees Ilene Pfifferling, Clerk HPS:ip Attachments cc: Patricia C. Moore on behalf of Barbara & Peter Herz Richard J. Cron, Cron & Cron Trustees file HENRY P. SMITH. President JOHN M. BREDEMEYER Vice-P£es. PHILLIP J. GOUBEAUD ALBERT KRUPSKI, JR. ELLEN M. LARSEN BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516] 765-1892 September 4, 1986 Mrs. Patricia C. Moore Edson & Bruer Attorneys at Law Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Peter & Barbara Herz 170 Cedar Point Drive, Southold Dear Mrs. Moore: The following action was taken by the Board of Trustees regarding the above referenced matter during ~r regular meeting held on Aug. 28, 1986. RESOLVED to DENY the request~made by Patricia C. Moore on behalf of Peter & Barbara Herz, 170 Cedar Point Drive, Southold for the construction of a residence within 75' of wetlands. RESOLVED to TABLE the Wetland Application submitted by Patricia C. Moore on behalf of Peter & Barbara Herz, 170 Cedar Point Drive, Southold pending a coordination request for Lead Agency Status with the Southold Town Board of Appeals. Very truly yours, Henry P. Smith, President Board of Town Trustees Ilene Pfifferling, Clerk BPS:ip cc: Richard J. Cron, Cron & Cron, Attorneys Board of Appeals Trustee~ Discussion regarding the Merz matter: Trustee Bredemeyer: I believe when we did the field survey, we were somewhat concerned. We thought that Tabling was in order because it seemed that the issue of the set back would be properly addressed and the~Lead Agency might be the ZBA. The ZBA to our knowledge has not declared the lead. We had general thoughts to discuss. We thought that we could not go with a waiver, The additional thoughts of jurisdiction it might be wise to ask for a full application which we could accept but we would have to table until such time that we would coordinate with the ZBA. There seems to be a question about which Town agency would most properly take it. And that has to be decided by the Boards. The rule for taking lead agency is one of three things, 1. The agency that has the most to do with it. 2.The economic impact and 3. the Ability to analize the impacts. I would recommend to table this applicaiton pen~ing a coordination of lead agency. You would have to fill out an application to ~his board. Mr. Moore: I will accept that as a denial of the waiver and do a full application. Trustee Krupski: This is for the house on the bay. Trsutee Bredemeyer: There were questions about there were wetlands on the site, the board looked at it and in some general ways, and thought that the setback would have to be addressed by the ZBA. Maybe to far forward and bring it back, ~aybe putting in wetlands. There was a whole mix of things in there. Trustee Bredemeycr: I move to table the application and to send a coordination requesn of lead requesn to the ZBA. Trustee Goubeaud: I'll second that. Trustee Bredemeyer: That will include the denial of the request for the waiver, move to table-the application and a coordination request to the ZBA. So much for S.E.Q.R.A. Clerk: Ail approved: Trustees Ayes: Ail Pat Moore: Will you contact the ZBA? Trustee Bredemeyer: Yes, they apparently felt that they would wait for our determination. I think properly we are suppose to contact them in writing requesting their coordination and determination. Pat Moore: Thank you. HENRY P. SMITH. President JOHN M. BREDEMEYER, Vice-Pres. PHILLIP ]. GOUBEAUD ALBERT KRUPSKI. JR. ELLEN M. LARSEN BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1892 September 4, 1986 Mr. Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Southold Town Board of Appeals Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Barbara & Peter Herz 170 Cedar Point Drive, Southold, New York Dear Mr. Goehringer: Transmitted herewith is wetland application no. 446 submitted by Rudolph H. Bruer, Attorney on behalf of Peter and Barbara Herz. We would like to coordinate with your Board in determining the Lead Agency for this application. May we have your comments on same by September 17, 19867 Very truly yours, Henry P. Smith, President Board of Town Trustees Ilene Pfifferling, Clerk HPS:ip Attachments cc: Patricia C. Moore on behalf of Barbara & Peter Herz Richard J. Cron, Cron & Cron Trustees file TELEPHONE (516) 165-1801 S ~ SOUTROLD TOWN' CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 N6~vember 25, 1986 To: Southold Town Tgustees From: Southotd Town CAC The following recommendations were made at the regular meet,i~g of the CAC held November 20, 1986: On a motion made by John Tuthill, seconded by John Holzapfel, it was RESOLVED to ~r~eco~mmend .to t~be -$o.,ut. ho/d Town Trustees app. rova ~d~ll~a'r 15'§ ra ~, 'a single f~ily dwelling w~th the stipulation ~"~'b~tation buffer is maintained between the ~ ~nd pond and the property and bay. On a motion made by Martin Garrel , seconded by Heather Cusack, it was RESOLVED to recommend to the Southold Town Trustees disapproval of Wetland Application No. 450 submitted by C & D Realty to construct a single family dwelling. The Council disapproves pend- ing a better map with drawn contours. The Council would also need to be supplied with more details; the exact house location, vegetatienand landscaping measures. On a motion made by Martin Garrell, seconded by John Holzapfel, it was RESOLVED to recommend to the Southold Town Trustees approval of Wetland Applicaiton No. 452 submitted by Stephen Eich to construct a floating dock 6' x 18'. On a motion made by John Holzapfel, seconded by Heather Cusack, it was RESOLVED to recommend to the Southold Town Trustees approval of Wetland Application No. 453 submitted by Walter H. Burden, III to construct a 4' wide catwalk 40' ~ long. On a motion made by John Holzapfel, seconded by Heather Cusack, it was RESOLVED to recommend to the Southold Town Trustees approval of Wetland Application No. 454 submitted by Eh-Consultants, Inc.on behalf of Friedrich ~9 to replace (within 18") 74' of existing timber bulkhead. Dredge area within cut-out (8' x 58') to 4' below MLW. Place resultant 65+ c.v. of sooil hohinrl h,.IL-h~Hc BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE f516) 765q892 APPLICATION NO.__~_~ DATE OF APPLICATION ADDRESS OF APPLICANT 100 Oak Drive, East Hills, New York PHONE NO TAX MAP NO. 1000 - 90 -- 02 -- Lot 11 and 13 AGENT Patricia C. Moore PHONE NO. PERMIT REQUESTED TO Cons~ruc= 1 family dwelling LOCATION OF PROPERTY FOR WHICH PERMIT WANTED 170 Cedar Point Drive East, Bayview Southold HOME ADDRESS OF PERMIT APPLICANT IF DIFFERENT FROM AFOmESAIO LOCATION [00 Oak Drive, East Hills, New York CREEK, BAY OR HARBOR FRONTING PROPERTY Little Peconic Bay, Midway Inlet LENGTH 31' x 53' WIDTH 53' HEIGHT ABOVE HIGH WATER 37" YARDS TO BE FILLED N/A WIDTH OF CANAL, CREEK OR BAY FRONTING PROPERTY DEPTH AT LOW TIDE See Survey AVERAGE RISE IN TIDE See Survey DISTANCE TO THE NEAREST CHANNEL FT. DISTANCE PROJECT EXTENDS SEYOND SIMILAR PROJECTS IS THIS FOR PRIVATE OR BUSINESS USE? Private AREA ZONING A - Residential IN THE AREA FT, MANNER IN WHICH MATERIAL WILL ]BE REMOVED OR DEPOSITED used no landscape INTENDED USE DESCRIBE ~NY OF PROPERTY rsidence KNOWN PRIOR OPERATIONS CONDUCTED ON THE PREMISE none AND WHETHER ANY PRIOR LICENSE OR PERMITS HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO ERRECT STRUCTURES OR TO DREDGE OR DEPOSIT PILL ON SAID PREMISES AND WHETHER ANY PERMITS OB LICENSES WERE EVER SUSPENDED OR REVOKED BY A GOVERNMENTAL DEC permit for bulkhead prior to '77 DESCRIBE FULLY THE REHABILITATION AND PROPOSED CONDITION OF THE pREMISES AFTER THE WORK IS COMPLETED INCLUDE AN ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE PROJECT SITE IF NECESSARY See Survey WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTy, I F NOT THE SAME AS THE APPL I CANT. ARE THERE ANY COVENANTS OR PROH!BI~ THIS PROJECT? RESTRICTIONS IN No YOUR DEED THAT WOULD COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STATE OF NEW YORK ) )ss: AND SAYS THAT HE I$ THE APPLICANT FOR THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PERMITS, AND THAT ALL STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE TRUE TO THE BEST OF HIS KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF, THAT THE WORK WILL BE DONE IN THE MANNER SET FORTH IN THIS APPLICATION AND AS MAY BE APPROVED BY THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. 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, IF GRANTED. In completing this applieatio~ I hereby authorize the Trustees, agent or representative to enter onto my property to inspect the premises in conju~io~ wit~rev~ew of this application. ~ ~ ~ -_ Agent for Applicant SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS EXJ%M I NED APPROVED "WETLANDS" PERMIT (CHAPTER 97) X APPROVED "BOAT.DOCKS, WHARVES" PERMIT (CHAPTER 32) DISAPPROVED "WETLANDS PERMIT" (CHAPTER 97) DISAPPROVED "BOATS.DOCKS, WHARVES" PERMIT (CHAPTER 32) CONDITIONS, IF ANY EXAMINING BODY SIGNATURE OF CHAIRMAN COMPUTATION OF FEES Approved 2/27/85 [ne ,;.Y.S~.nvlronm:nt,,I QuaJlty J{~;v.~, Act requires sub- mission of ff ] form, and an environ.mn'x] review will be made by this~D'Oard before any action is ?a~ken. In order to anewer the questions in this short gAF is is assumed 'that will use' currently available i~for.-.~aticr~ concernln~ ~ther investigations w~l be ~dertaken, If any questio~ ha~ been answered Yes the project ~y be ~e~d Envlrc~ental Assessment Fo~ l~ necessary. questions have been answered No it l~ likely t~mt :hl~ pro~ ~al A~sessment ~ W~i project reset In a large physical c~mn~e ~to the p~oJect site or physically alter more ~.L~' - ~'-' - R. Will there be a ~Jor change to any ~lSue or unusual land fo~ fo~d on the site? · , , , Yes 3. W~i project alter or ~ve a large effect on an existlng body .of water? . , , , . . , , . W~I project h~ve a potentially latE, ~ on W~! prozac: si~ificantly effect drainage ~ ~% Will project affec~ any t~em%ened or endangered plant or angel ~pecies? . · · · · · · · · · · Yes X No 7, W~I project res~t In a major adverse effect on air quality? , · . · · · · · · · y~ X. 8, W~i project have a major effect on vise,1 kno~ to be ~portant to the community? * * * -- Yes . X ~o 9, Wit1 proJec~ adversely ~pac~ any si=u or st~c~ ute of his:eric, pru-hlstorlc~ or paleontological importance or any site desi~a~ed as a critical envlro~en~l area by a local a~ency? · · · ~es X No 10, W~I p~oJec~ have a meier effect on exist~ or !1. Will project result ~n ~Jor traffic problems or 12. Will project reg~arly cause objectionable odors, noise, glare, vibration, OF electrical dlatur~ 13. 'Will project have any impact on public health or PREP~4ER,3 S.,,,ATt~a..~ Fatricia C.'~ooSe TI~E: ... Legal Assistant FR~S_.,TIJG DATE: 7/11/86 Yes, X l{o. ~- · Yes X No _ (Tcd~y~$ DaCe~ To: Southo!d Town Board of Appeals Main Road Sou~hold, NY 11971 Appeal Application of Location of Property: P~ter llerz 170 Cedar Point Drive~ Southold Dear Sirs: In reference to the New York State Tidal Wetlands Land-Us Reguiations, 6 NYCRK, Part 661, and Article 25 of the New York State. Environmental Conservation Law, please be advised than t~ subjecu property iQ the within appeal application: (please check one box) [ x ] May be tocatad within 300 foes of tidal wetlands however, constructed along the water-lying edge of this prope~uy is a bulkhead in very good condition and at least 100 feet in length.~ [ ] May b~ located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands however, constructed along ute wauer-lyin? edwe of this properuy is a bulkhead in need of (minor! (major) repairs, and approximately feet in length. [ ] May be located within 300 feet of tidal wet!ands; however, constructed along the wauer-lylng edse of this property is a bulk!lead less than i00 fee[ in length. [ ] May be located within 300 fees of tlda! wetlands; and ~here is no bulkhead or ccn'~ ~' ..... wa__l~ e:~is~in on the premises. -[ ] Is non located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands to the best of my knowledge. * [. ta._ed items (*) indictate your orooerzy docs no~ appear to fail within tile jurisdiction of the ~J.Y.S. D.E.C. Sincerely yours, (Sl3na~ur-2 p!cJ$c; NOT£: If proposed project falls wi~in D.E.C. jurisdiction, approval muss be received an{/ sul~m~ttdd to our office befo£e your application can be scheduled fo£ a public hearing. BOARD OF TOW~ TOWN OF SOUTtlOLD ~A~ or TO~ MOORE & MOORE MAiN ROAD P.O, BOX 23 May 6~ 1988 Southold Town Trustees Town Hall, Main Road Southold, N.Y. 11971 Re: Dr. and Mrs. Herz/Cedar Drive, Southold Dear Trustees: Enclosed please find a check in the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00) for the inspection fee for the permit in reference uo the above. Ver~uly yours, Patricia C. Moore PCM:er encl. DocId:050688.6 PATRICIA C. MOORE MOORE & MOORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW SUITE 3 CLAU$tE COMMONS MAIN ROAD P.O. BOX 23 March 14, 1988 John M. Bredemeyer, President Board of Trustees Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Peter and Barbara Herz, 170 Cedar Point Drive East Southold, New York Dear Mr. Bredemeyer: Enclosed please find a copy of the Trustee's permit granted March 27, 1987 ~o expire on March 26, 1988. Due to scheduling problems we have nou received final approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals and we will require an extension of our Trustee's permit for construction on the above referenced property. We respectfully request a one year exuension of time on the wetlands permit while additional approvals are sought. Very truly yours, Patricia C. Moore PCM encl. cc: Mr. and Mrs. Herz DocId:031488.1 PART Iii ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM PETER AND BARBARA HERZ AT 170 CEDAR POINT DRIVE EAST SOUTHOLD In~ccordance with the rules and reoulations of SEQRA, a Part III of the Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) has been prepared to more clearly add~ess the Part II of this EAF. A Part III is no~ considered as the impacts are assumed to be large. Responses found within necessary, ~owever, since none of because of the apparent attempt by the representative of some of the proper~y owners to link this ~roject with another, which could have significant impacts, this discussion is ~ppropriate. The answers to questions 12 and 18 of Part II both relate ~o another project which will apparently seek to dredge an inlet ad~acen~ to this subject parcel. In a letter dated Augus~ 28, 1986 from Mr. Richard J. Cron, Esq., of Cron and Cron, Cutchogue, it is apparent that the opposition to the construction of a residence is intended to promote or improve the chances of acceptance of the dredging proposal. CR~%.%4ER & VOO~{~IIS ASSOCIATES Environmentzl and Plannin~ Consultants 2 erosion. and the dredqed CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Given the width of the inlen, the height of existing fill, compliance with the given standards, the inlet could be to only one foot below mean high water. Deeper dredgmng Environmental and Planning Consultants Although to date, no applications have been filed for the dredging, one wonders how sincere the project is. Ev'en-if an application was submitted, the two projects are separate. They have different sponsors; take place on different parcels; and have different impacts on the environment. Furthermore, the impacts associated with the dredging would be considered as significant on the environment and on adjoining parcels in particular; while the construction of the residence would have minimal, if any, impacts. As stated above, the opposition (question 18, Part II) is based on the preclusion of future recreational opportunities (question 12, Part II). While insuring that recreational opportunities are considered in the review process ms important, it is also extremely important to consider the potential impacts of the recreational activity on the environment and on the surrounding property owners. The subject parcel has two areas of bulkheadin9. The southern bulkheaded area fronts on Little Peconic Bay 90.5 feet and extends back 40.5 feet along th~ closed Midway Inlet. This bulkheading ms considered as functioning, erosion has occurred in the southwest corner where a board has been damaged. The northern area of bulkheading is dilapi~ated although it appears to be functioning to a limited degree. This area includes a one hundred foot section along Midway Inlet. The remaining portion of Midway Inlet (±50 feet) is unbulkheaded; furthermore, the wood jetty in the southwest property corner is for all intensive purposes non-existing. While the condition of the bulkheads do not effect the proposed construcslon of & residence as the parcel is stable, they do affect the dredging proposal. Midway Inlet is 30 feet wide and is presently filled to a height of 3 to 4 feet above sealevel. Current policy (NYSDEC) for dredging requires a minimal of a 1 one 3 side slope to avoid would have the potential for significant erosion and damage to the adjoining properties and structures. The drsdgtng could be carried out to a suitable depth for navaga~ion, with minimal erosion hazard, if the inlet was rebulkheaded by the persons proposing the dredging. There are, however, other considerations and impacts. The dredge spoils sites are no longer existing. The spoil site to the west of the inlet has a house built on it and to the east is the subject of this application. The littoral drift, and movement of sand, in this area is from east to west. Considering this and the facts that the wood jetty to the east is non-functioning and the jetty to the wes~ of~the proposed inlet is functional, then it is obvious that sand will be deposited to the east of the west jetty; or that is, in the inlet. The inlet would not remain open or at the very least require constant maintenance dredging with no place to dispose of the spoil. Opening of the inlet would result in substantial biological and chemical changes to the pond, and thereby potential signfficant environmental impacts. The dredging would create a situation where the existing cesspools for the house to west would be within 100 feet of open water. Furthermore, it would create a situation that the lot on which the proposed structure is located would be unbuildable. Under the current situation, Suffolk County Department of Health Services setbacks, 100 feet from open wa~r, are met or exceeded, and permits have been received. If the inlet was dredged, there would be open water within 80 feet or less on any portion of this lot. CRAM_ER & VOOiRHIS ASSOCIATES Environmen:al and Planning Consultants A review of historic aerial photographs show no inlet existed at this location from 1969 to date. It is not known the exact date of the last opening. However, since the inlet has been closed a substantial period of time, the pond's ecosystem has adapted so that a reopening to the bay would significantly impact the pond. The introduction of saltwater to a brackish system would alter the plant and animal communities existing. In addition, a the activities In regard in the August 28th observations. navigable inlet would allow the intrusion of and pollution associated with boat traffic. to the other statements made and questions letter, we w~sh to make the following raised It is recognized that the Town Trustees are not bound, nor should they be, by other agencies decisions. However, consideration is usually given no such approvals. An attempt has been made by persons to cast doubt on other agencies decisions where they relate 5o this application. 1. New York State Department of Environmental Conservatmon waived jurisdiction on the projecn as a result of a map review. It is important to be aware of the procedures of the DEC in making such determination for tidal wenlands. The DEC will request an application package_to be submitted which would include survey, projec~ description, environmental assessment form and recent site photographs. This information is reviewed in conjunction with the State's Tidal Wetlands Maps. The maps and other submitted information is sufficient to make a determination as to whether DEC has jurisdiction on an application. 2. with regard to the DEC waiver predating the survey submitted with the Trustee application, this is true. However, when one considers the dates on both, certain facts are evident. There were only ~wo months between the DEC waiver and the new survey. Given nhe time necessary no prepare a survey, it can be assumed CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Plznning Consultants that the field work, for same, was conducted at the sam~ time as the waiver issuance. 3. Given that the site conditions have not changed significantly in six (6) years, since the 1982 survey, it is safe to assume that conditions were the same at the time of the walver and survey. 4. Considering the site conditions, there is only a limited area where construction may take place with no significant impacts. Aside from the potential impacts of locating the project on other areas of the site, there are also DEC and Suffolk County Department of Health Services regulations and policies which dictate where development can take place. been consulted and the building area has agencies. These agencies have been approved by both 5. The rules and regulations for the implementation of the State Tidal Wetlands Act allowed the State to issue a waiver. The bulkhead which is o~ principal concern is the functional one on the south propersy line. The bulkhead adjacent 5o the pond, while shown as dilapidated, is greater than 75 feet from the proposed residence. It is implied that the dilapidated and non- existing bulkheading along Midway Inlet, at the west property line, is a problem. However since the ~nlet is non-existant, and the area is uplands~ and was such when the waiver was issued, the argument is not relevant. CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants EN-CONSULTANTS, INC. 1329 NORTH SEA ROAD, SOUTHAMPTON NEW YORK 11968 Augusv 26, 1986 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 516-283-6360 Southold Trmstees Town of Southold Post,Office Box 728 Southold, New Yerk 11971 Re: Proposed Dredging of Midway Imlet Dear Sirs: I represent the Mid~ay Inlet Residents Association for the purpose of determining the feasibility of re-opeming the inlet voMidway Pond. At one point, Miaway Pond was cormected To Pecomic Bay by means of a bulkdaeaded inlet. Tnroug~ lack of periodic maintenance, the inlet has entirely filled with sand being carried in by the littoral drift along the shoreline of Peconic Bay. This has nov only pre- vented use of the pond as a navigable waterway; but it has caused odor and water quality problems according To the residents. At the present time, nine of the elev, en owners of propervy around the pond and inlet wish to umdertake a project To reopen the pond. Al- though no formal applications have been filed, a ~enva- tire inquiry To the N.Y.S.D,E.C. indicates that they would consider the project and pass upon its merits subjec~ to the specifics of the proposal. At the present time, we would requesv that the trustees make a sit, ilar tentative evaluation and notify us if this is the sort of project which would be 3onsidered favorably. I enclose two sheets of a tentative work plan for your consideration. Would you kindly ex-_mine this material and contact ~le with your opinion. It is understood that this in no way binds you To a~y position and that you reserve the right to review all ~terial and information submitted with a formal application at a later date. Yo~uly~ President F~nc. cc: Richard Cron, Attorney at Law Joseph Hubb s~d APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER. CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONI$. JR. SERGE DOYEN. JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWlCKI Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN RrlAD- STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I,, N,Y, 11971 TELEPHONE (516 765-1809 September 12, 1986 Mr. Henry P. Smith, President Southold Town Board of Trustees 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Appeal N6. 3543 - Barbara and Peter Herz Location of ~roperty: 170 Cedar Point Drive, Southold Dear Mr. Smith: In response to your September 4th letter concerning above matter, please be advised that we have no objection your declaring Lead Agency status on your pending Wetlands Aoplication. Inasmuch as our jurisdiction deals with the setbacks, as regulated by Part 617.13, subsections (d)[2], the variance woJld not be subject to SEQRA [see copies of SEQRA, attached]. the to Please feel free to continue the SEQRA process as you deem necessary. If information is found, however, that the location of the dwelling, excavation, etc. would directly disturb wetlands or the environment in any manner, please coordinate such findings with our office since the same could affect our initial Type II Declaration. If we may assist you in this matter, please don't hesitate co let us know. lk Enclosures CHAIRMAN July 30, 1986 Board of Town Trustees Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Herz, Peter and Barbara 170 Cedar Point Drive, Southold Dear Sirs: Enclosed please find application for Wetlands Permit. Applicants wish to build a residence within 75 feet of Wetlands, however, we request that you waive jurisdiction over this matter. The applicants have received a letter dated October 2, 1981 from D.E.C. stating than no permit is required under Article 25 (Tidal Wetlands). See attached Schedule "A". Furthermore, the property in question is entirely bulkheaded as shown on survey dated January 15, 1982 prepared by Young & Young, a Professional Engineer and licensed land surveyor. See attached Schedule "B". Thanking you in advane for your consideration. Very truly yours, Patricia C. Moore PCM/lk cc: Mr. and Mrs. Peter Herz BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES -- TOWN OF SQUTHOLD .... SHORT ENVIR0~ENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Project Information [To be completed by, Applicator=or Project sponsor) I 3. Project Iocatie.: Southold Mu. iciDalitv County Suffolk Construct 1 family dwelling 170 Cedar Point Drive,_ Southold I.kially 27,450 sq-ft..c~e~ Uk~atel~_ 27,450 sq-ft-a=~e~ ~ Yes ~ NB If No. descri~ ~ Variance ~ Resident,al ~ I.d.sWi. I D C~mercia[ ~ A~ricukure ~ P~r~l~.dJo~. soace ~ Other Bulkhead built prior DEC waived jurisdication result ol oroDosed action will ex~sting De~mluaDoroval ~e~ulre modificatioc' Bldg. 40, SU~Z - POC~ 219 Sb~y Brook, t%~r York 11794 (516) 751.-7D00 . Very .truly yours, ~ I ~';h J. Regional P~t 1'~ /o' Hand delivered August 28, 1986 Board~of Town Trustees Town of Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Application of Peter and Barbara Herz, 170 Cedar Point Drive, Southold Dear Sirs: This office represents a number of property owners in the Cedar Beach Park Subdivision, adjacenn no Midway Inlet, all of whom are deeply concerned with the application of Peter and Barbara Herz pending before this Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals. A review of the documents submitted by the applicants indi- canes that they seek from the Town Trustees a waiver of permit or jurisdiction with respect to proposed construction pursuant no Article II, §97-20(B). The basis for this application to the Trus- tees lies in the fact that the New York State Department of Environ- mennal Conservmtion granted a waiver of jurisdiction with respect no the applicants' premises in October, 1981. Needless to say, the Town Trustees, under the Southold Town Wetlands Ordinance, are non bound, nor should they be bound, by the waiver of the Department of Environmental Conservation. This becomes particularly applicable when one views the following: 1. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation's waiver of jursidicnion was solely predicated on a map inspection and not a visual inspection of the premises; 2. It is obvious that the Department of Environmental Conservation's waiver could not have been predi- cated on the map dated January 15, 1982, which sets forth the proposed construction of the applicants; Board of Town Trustees August 28, 1986 Page two 3. The condition and area of construction of the bulkhead may have been substantially different on the map submitted to the Department of Environ- mental Conservation, upon which the waiver was granted in 1981; 4. The ar~a of proposed construction may have also been substantially different than shown on the applicants' survey of January 15, 1982; 5. The Department of Environmental Conservation's waiver indicated that Lot No. 110 was entirely bulkheaded. The applicants' survey of January 15, 1982 shows a dilapidated bulkhead running along the westerly portion of the premises and in the area of the construction of the residence, and-within te~ (t0') feet of Midway Inlet, ap- parently no bulkheading at all exists. In light of the conditions that exist this date, the Department of Environmental Conservation should be called upon to make a visual inspection of the applicants' premises with respect to the proposed construction and zn particular as to whether a DeDartment of Environmentgl Conservation waiver of jurisdiction is valid and should exist in the light of the dilapidated bulkhead condition and the apparenn lack of bulk- head in the area of construction, approximately ten (10') feet from Midway Inlet. As concerns the Short Environmental Assessment Form submitted by the applicants, it mppears to be erroneous in two (a) The answer under question 10 should be "yes", for the reason that approval of the proposed construction requires variances from the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals; and (b) The answer under question 12 should be "yes", in that existing conditions should be brought to the attention of the Depart- ment of Euvironmental Conservation for a determination as to whether a waiver of jurisdiction granted in 1981 is still valid and would exist in the light of the condi- tions set forth on the applicants' survey of January 15, 1982. Board of Town Trustees August 28, 1986 Page three The significance of item (b) above becomes quite apparent when one reviews the questionnaire submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals, dated July 30, 1986 in connection with Article 25 re- quirement of the Environmental Conservation Law, a copy hereto annexed. In the form submitted, the applicants indicate that the bulkhead is in very good condition along the water's edge. Both the survey submitted and a visual inspection will show that to be clearly erroneous. It is anticipated in the near future that a substantial number of property owners bordering on Midway Inlet will be seeking approval from the Town Trustees to engage in dredging operations, ar their own cost and expense, with a view to opening the Inlet to Little Peconic Bay. The property owners do not wish to see any action by any governmental body, including but not limited to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, the Town Trustees, or the Town Zoning Board of Appeals, which would in any manner whatsoever impair their subsequent application for ap- proval of any such proposed dredging application. Due to the significance and consequences envisioned by this application, the Trustees should demand full compliance with Southold Town Wetlands Law and a thorough SEQR process under which the Trustees adopt lead agency and compel the submission of a Long Form Environmental Assessment Form prior to any determination of significance or non-significance. In light of the foregoing, the Trustees should mot grant to the applicants a waiver of permit or jurisdiction pursuann to Article II, 97-20(B). The applicants fall within the confines of Article I, §97-13(A)(3) and should be required to comply with ,Article II, §97-20(A), unless there is clear and convincing proof of compliance with the standards required by Article II, §97-28. A review of all documents submitted would indicate that this has not been demonstrated by the applicants. RJC:e Enclosure cc: Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals Dr. John H. Hubbard, c/o Cedar Beach Park Properny Owners Very truly yours, Mr. & Mrs. Severus DeLeo NOTICE OF HEARING COUNTY OFSUFFOLK STATE OF NEW YORK SS: NEW :~ YORK, 7' ON .. _'.T~_ _ SDAY, MARCH 261 1987~ ON THE FOLLOWING ;~:j APPLICATIONS FOR PER~ ?!MITS UNDER THE PROVI- z'.× .$IONS OF THE WETLAND :~ ORDINANCE OF THE ,~ {:}JOWN OF SOUTHOLD~ :'- ?:30 P.M.- In the_matter*° ~f the. ~;? aoolication of ."%, L~d Use ;i~}Comvan¥ on behalf of Nunzio ~& S~mhanie Rea~ to conStruct ~ii?},a 4 ',X 32 '~ fixed db~k leading ;~'f~i, to-a 3 ,x 10, i-amp leading to ~. a 6 X 20 float dock to be at- ~tachedto two 6 X20 float .~ docks. ' . ~ Property is located_ on Fleet- 7:32 P.M.- Intbe matter of the ) ! application of Fatficia C. Moore "~'pn bermlf of Peter &. Barbara Herz to construct a single fatal- ·. ly dwelling on property located Southold.at 170 Cedar Point Drive East. 'r 7:34 P.M.- In the matter of the . Y~42 p.M..- Ih {fie-uiAffer 6~ ........................... application of Ernest Tarmin to construct stalrsfromthe bluff to the beach; install.a gazebo with a deck at the top Of bluff. Pro- perty is located on Main Road, .Orient. 7:36 P.M.- In the matter of the appllcatio~ of Eh-Consultants, In¢ on behalf of Olof Nelson to construct a timber dock con- slsting of a 4' X 5 ' romp exten~. ding from lfiwn brite a 10' X 10' deck landward of marsh fringe; a 4' X 60' fixed, elevated {4' above grade of marshl walkway a 4' X 16' hinged ramp; (2) 8' X 16' floats secured by (5~ 12" pilings. Property is located on Fishers' Island. 7:38 P.M.~ In ~e matter oftbe application of Peconic Associates, Inc. on behalf of Sa] P~to to constructa 30' X 40 building and a 30' X 50' fenc- ed in storage area. Property is, located on Kerwin Blvd., Greenport. 7:40 P.M.- In the matter of the application of Robert E. Johnson to register an existing bulkhead which replaced an 82' builqbead~est~'oyed by hurricane Gloria, Property is located ar 430 Koke Dr. & Core,/ Creek Road~ Southotd. Patricia Wood, being duly sworn, says that she is the Editor, of THE LONG ISLAND I[~AVELER-WATCHMAN, a public newspaper p?inted at Southold, in Suffolk County; and that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in said Long Island Traveler-Watchman once each week for .................. ./. ....... weeks successively, commencing on the . /2~ ~ ~...cz~ _ ~ ~; .hinged ramp; (2) ~ ,~20 ~oats da~~~..., 19 ~ ~. ~'~th,~iX~20 ~'/$~b~;~T;"~ C ~-~ Gill P<d ~ Corp. ro ~ constru~a singl~ ~mity dwell- /~ lng, ~<~,~an/t~y's~stem and 5wc m to before me this .......... ,.~ . . · - · .... ~e~M~imallandsc~ng. ~C~: ~ ' ~ V 'Pro~erfy'~i~ located o~~D~wn ...... ] 9 . ~ . . . ~ Drive~ Gr~nport~.~v~ ~ :?:52'RM. In thema~t~'Of lhe ~f En-ConsMtams. ~ ~'~half ~ ~ iNotary Public BARBARA FORBES Notary Public, State of New York No. ,t8068~ Qua!ified~n SuffoLk CounL2r C~mmi~sion Expires~ .5~ 19 ~ Rat~h Levv?~ 'J 'to cfeek at a depth of 2 ;3" in an area 6' X 75;-_property is l_ocated at 885 Arshamomaque Ave., Southold. ~ihe matter of the application of Coste4in Mar~ ~ontracting Corp. on behalf of Nick Tsouris to armor 125' of eroded~bluff with ~-4 ton rock at 3 ton/lineal ft.; to install core stone and filter clotk base 1 below MLW and 5' seaward of 3 ton we stone, Install (2) 24' returns at each end of property located off Of Kenny's Road. Southold. 7:46 P.M. In the.matter of the application of En-Consultants~ Inc. on behalf of Bombard Pepgr to rebuild existing damag- ed dock consisting of: 4' X 32' fixed elevated 0.5 above grade or marsh) walkway; 4' X !2' hinged romp; 6~X 20' float secured by (2) 8" pilingsl .~ located at 955 Lupron ~=~X. cMat tit-~ - _7:_48 P.M. ~ th the . application of Coas~ilants, Inc. on behalf of Joan LaCaille timber dock consisting of a 4' X 12 ' fixed elevated (3.5 above grade of marsh1 walk; 4' X 10' 'IN- ~MAT- Date: March 5, 1987 ['T-3/12/87(I) CRA~MER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants P.O. BOX _62 2 Miller Place. New York 11764 (516) 473-6302 Thomas W. Cramer, LA Charles J. Voorhis January 13, 1987 President Henry P. Smith Board of Town Trustees Town of Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road, P. O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 Re: Peter and Barbara Herz 170 Cedar Point Drive East, Southold Dear President Smith: I am pleased to submit to you herewith long Environmental Assessment Forms, including parts I, II and III, for the above referenced project. If there is any additional information we can supply you with, please feel free to contact us. In addition, we have a 100 scale aerial photograph of the site that we intend to use in our presentation to the Board of Trustees. If you feel this would helpful %o you in your site inspection and review of the project, please contact we will have it delivered to you prior ~o the hearing. Very TWC:lf Enclosure cc: Mrs. Patricia C. Moore Edson and Bruer Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Cramer, R.L.A. EAF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Purpose: The E~F is designed to help applicants and agencies determine, in an orderly manner, whether a project or action is likely to be sig- nificant. The question of whether an action is significant is not al- ways easy to answer. Frequently, there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasurable. It is also understood that those who will meed to determine significance will range from those with little or no fornnal knowledge of the environment to those who are technically expert in environmental analysis. In addition, many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be awar~ of the broader concerns affect- ing the question of significance. The EAF is intended no provide a method whereby the preparer can be assured that the determination process has been orderly, comprehen- sive in nature, and yet flexible to allow the introduction of informa- tion to fit a project or action. EAF CO~0NENTS: The 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. Part 2: This phase of the evaluation focuses on identifying the range of possible impacts that may occur from a project or action. It provides guidance as to whether an impact is likely ~to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a potentially-large impact. The form also identi- fies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced. Part 3: Only if any impact in Part 2 is identified as potentially- large, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the impact is actually important to the municipality in which the project is located. Determination of Significance If you find that one (or more) impact is both large and its con- sequence is ~mportans, then the project is likely to be significant, and a draft environmental impact statement should be prepared. ~coping If a draft ElS is needed, the Environmental Assessment Form will be a valuable tool in determining the scope of the issues to be covered by the draft EIS. 14-16-2 [12178 APPENDIX A EAF ENVIRO;IMENTAL ASSESSMENT - PARl ! Project Information NOTICE: This document is desiqned :o assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect on toe enVlror~nent. Please conmlete the entire Data Sheet. Answers to these questions will be considered as cart of the aoolication for aoproval and may be subject to further verification and oublic review. Provide any additional information you believe will me neeoeo to complete PARTS 2 and 3. It )s exoecteo that completion of the EAF will be deoendent on information currently available and will not involve new studies, research or investioation. If information reQuirinq such additional work is unava~ble. so indicate ant s~ecify each instance. NAPIE OF PROJECT: NAME AND ADDRESS OF OWNER (If Different) Peter and Barbara Herz (Name} 100 Oak Drive 170 Cedar Point Drive East Southold AD~ESSANDN~EOFAPPLI~: (Street) East Hills, New York Patrlcla C. Moore (P.O.) (State) (Zip) (Name) Edson and Bruer, Main Road BU~NESSP~NE: 765-2500 P. O. Box 1466 (Street) Southold, New York 11971 (P.O.) (State) {Zip) DESCRIPTIONOFPROJECT? (Briefly describe typeof proj~toractien} Construction of one family dwelling on 27,450 sq. ft. lot at Bayview ("Cedar Beach Park" Lot 110, P/O Lots 109 and 152), Southold (PLEASE COMPLETE EACH OUESTION - Indicate N.A. if not applicable) SITE DESCRIPTION (Physical setting of overall project, both develoned and undeveloo~ areas) 1. General character of the land: r, enerally uniform slope ~ Generally uneven and rolling or irregular 9!1178 Meadow or Brushland 0.4 ± Forested 0.2 ~ AQricuttural tetland (Freshwater or Tidal as Der Articles 24. ?5 or F.C.L.} Present land use: Uroan , Industrial . , Commercial , Suburban . , Agriculture , Other ~acant Total acreage of oroject area: 0.6 acres. Amoroximate acreage: Presently After Comnletion acres 0 . 3 ~ acres acres 0 . 1~ acres tna~ is Qreoom~nant soil type(s) on ~roject site? Hater Surface Area Unvegetated {rock. earth or fill) Roads. buildings ano other hayed surfaces Presently After Conmletion __acres ___acres acres 0 . 0 7 acres Other (indicate tyne) acres O.04acres Landscaped .nas ~s 0echo ~o bedrock? ........... ~O]]._f ,.. (!n ~ee~J 6. Aooroxi~te ~ercentape of proposeo oroject site with slopes: 0-10%100~ 1~-15% %; 15% or greater 7. Is project contiguous to, or contain a buildin0 or site listed on toe National Reglster of Historlc Places? ~ Yes X NO 8. What is the depth to toe water table? 6.9~feet(average) 9. Do humting or fishing opportunities presently exist in toe project area? Yes X No 10. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or ~ndangered - __Yes X :4o. according to - Identify each snecies ~'ield Tn~on 11. Are rmere any uniooe or unusual land for~s on the project site? (i.e. cliffs, dunes other geological fo~metie~s- Yes X No. 'Describe "Made" Land veqetated by dune species) 12. Is the project site presently useo ~y :ne co~mJnity or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area - Yes X No. 13. Does the present site offer or include scenic views or vistas Known to be important to toe co~unity? Y~ X No Structure will not be visible from road. 14. Streams within or contiguous to project area: a. Name of stream and name of river ~o which it is tributary N/A 15. Lake~, Ponds, Wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: a. Name Midwa~/.Pond .. ; b. Size {in acres) + 1 acre 16~ What is the ~Iinant land use and zoning classification within a 1/4 mile radius of the project (e.g. single family residential, R-2) end the scale of development {e.g. 2 story). A-Residential IN, DJ ECT DESCRIPTION l. Physical dimmmsioms and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total c~tiguo~s acreage owned by project sponsor 0.6 + acres. b. Project ~creage developed: 0 acres initially~ 0.07~_cres ultimately. c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped 0.53_+ d. Length of project, in miles: N/A {if appropriate) e. If p~oject is an expansion of existing, indicate percent of expansion proposed: age N/A ; developed acreage f. Nu~ber of off-str~.t parking spaces existind 0 peak g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per Iiour 2 h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: One Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium Initial 0 Ultimate i. If: Orientation 2eighborhood-City-Regional Industrial j. building square foot- ; proposed 2 (upon completion of project) Estimated Employment Total height of tallest nroposed structure _ _3_4____feet. How much natural material (i.e. rock. each. etc.) will De re~ved from the si~ - 0 tons 0 cubic yaros. 3. ~ow many acres of veoetation (trees. snrups, ground covers) will De re~veo from site - 0. l~cres. 4 Will any mature forest over lgO years old) or other locally-important vegetation De removeo Dy this pro.lect ? 'es X NO 5, Are there any plans for re-vegetation to replace tna~ removeo during~construction? )f Yes NO 6 tf single phase projecT: Anticipated ~eriod of construction 6 months. {including demolition) 7. ~f ~lti-~naseo project: a. Total pumper of phases anticiDateo N/ANO. o. Anticipated date of commencement phase I month year (including demol i tior) c. Approximate completion date final phase month year. o. Is ~hase 1 financially oepenoent on supseeuent phases? Yes No 8. Will blasting occur during construction? Yes X No 9, Number of jobs generated: during construction 8-F ; after project is complete 0 . l0 Number of jobs eliminated Dy this project 0 ll Will ~roject reou~re relocation of any projects or facilities? __Yes X NO. If yes, explain: Gee Pa~t III 12. a. Is surface or suosurface liquid waste disposal involved? }f Yes No. b. If y~s, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) Se~aqe c. If surface disposal name of stream into which effluent wily be discharged 13. Will surface area of existing lakes, ponos, streams, Days or other surface waterways be increased or decreased by proooaal? __Yes ~ No, IA. Is project or any portion of project located ~n the 100 year flood ~lain? ~ Yes No 15. a. Does project involve disposal of solid waste? X..~es No b. If yes, will an existing solid waste disposal facility De used? ~ Yes No c. If yes, give name:So~thold Landfill: location Sou:hold o. ~ill any wastes not'go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? __Yes X 16. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? __Yes X No 17. Will project routinely produce odors (~re than one Pour Der day)? Yes ~ No 18. Will project ~roduce operating noise exceeding the local ambience noise levels? __Yes ~ No 19. ~ill project result in an increase in energy use? X Yes No. If yes, indicate type(s) B~el 0±1, electric, gas. No 20. If water supply is from wells indicate pumping capacity 21. Total anticipated water usage per day _~0]~ gals/day. 22. Zoning: 3 0 0 gal s/~ i~%ZAe.day. a. I.~hat is dominant zoning classification of site? A-Residential b. Current specific zoning classification of site A-Residential c. Is proposed use consistent with present zoning? Yes~ Use is consistant;ho~ever, variance is needed for wetlands d. If no, indicate desired zoning .......... ~k~D~k_..~' -3- a. Is any Federal permit reouired? Yes ~- NO b, Does oroject involve State or Federal funding or financing? c, Local and Regional aDerovals: Yes X No Approval Required Submittal AoDroval (Yes, No) (Type) (Date) (Date) City, Town. Village Board City, Town, Village Planning Board City, Town. Zoning Board City, County Health DePartment Other local agencies Other regional agencies State Agencies Federal Agencies ves w~-n-d-s-~bk, yes ~s ~12-50-08SCDH~ ~82 ~_s _T_r_U~J~_~L_ yes no N-N~q~D~~2- exempted-~/~2/81 INFORMATIONAL DETAILS ~_~ adverse impacts associated with the proposaj~j~a~e~__a~l~scl~g~ such imp~t~ and the ~asures which can be .ken to mitigate or avoid them. ~~~ TITLE: ~.~ T~omas W. Cramer, R.L.A. R~PRESE~ING: Cramer and Voorhis Associates January 6, 1987 EAF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - PART II Project Impacts ano Their Magnitude General Information 'Read Carefully} - IF completing the fo~m the reviewer should oe guided Dy the oues~ion: Have m9 decisions ano determinations Peen reasonable? The reviewer is not exoecteo to De an expert environmental analyst. - Identifying that an effect will De Potentially large (column 2) does not mean that it is also necessarily ~. Any large effect must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance. By identifying an effect io column 2 simply asks that it be looked at further, - The ~ provided are to assist the reviewer Dy showing types of effects and wnerever possible the threshold of ma~ that would trigger a response in column 2. The examples are generally applicable throughout the State and for n~st situations. But. for any specific project or site other examples and/or lower thresholds may be more appropriate for a Potential Large Impact rating. - Each project, on each site, in each locality, will vary. Therefore, the examples nave peen offered as guidance. They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each puestion. - The hUm/Jet of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question. INSTRUCTIONS (Read Carefully) Answer each of the 18 ouestions in PART 2. Answer Yes if there will be any effect. Maybe answers should be considered as Yes. answers. If answering Yes to a auestion them check the appropriate box (column i or 2) to indicate the potential size of the impact. If imPact threshold eouals or exceeds any exanmle provided, check colu~ 2. If impact will occur but threshold is lower than examele, check column 1. If reviewer has doubt about the size of the impact ~Qen consider the impact as potentially large and ~roceeo to PART 3. If a potentially large imnact or effect can be reduced by a change in the project to a less than large magnitude, place a Yes ir colbert 3. ~ No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible. IMPACT ON L~ND WILL THERE BE AN EFFECT AS ~ RESULT OF A PHYSICAL CHANGE TO PROJECT SITE? E.xamples that Would Apply to Colunm, 2 88 Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise per 100 foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10%. Construction on Land where the depth to the water table is less than 3 feet. SMALL TO POTENTIAL [' C~N IMPACT BE MODERATE LARGE REDUCED BY IMPACT IMPACT PROJECT CHANGE X -- ronstruction of paved oarkinq are, ~or 1,?gO or more vehicles. C~nstruction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within 3 feet of existing ground surface. Construction that will continue for m~re than 1 year or involve more than one phase or stage. Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,O00 tons of natura] material (i.e. rock or soil) per year. Construction of any new sanitary landfill. -5- x Construction ,n a deslqnated floodway.I-Ioille %o be above flood level. ~'3 YES 2. WILL THERE BE AN EFFECT TO ANY UNIQUE OR UNUSUAL LANO FOUND ON THE SITE? (i.e. c]iffs, du~es, oeologtcal for:m- tl~s. etc.) S0ecific land f0m~s: Manmade land from previous dredging operations, colonized with dun( species. ?~PACT ON WATER Nn YES 3. WILL PROJECT AFFECT ANY WATER BODY DESIGNATED AS .......... PROTECTED? (Under Articles 15, 24 25 of the Envir- oriental Conservation Law, Examples that Would Apply to Column 2 Dredging ~re than 10g cubic yares of nmtertal fr~ channel of a orotected stream. Construction in a designateo freshwater or tidal wetland. Other imoacts: WILL PROJECT AFFECT ANY NON-PROTECTED EXISTIBO OR NFW NO YES ,ODY OF WATER? ............................................ Examples that Would Apply to Column 2 A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water or more than a IQ acre increase or decrease. Construction of a body of water that exceeds ID acres of Other impacts: __ NO YES WILL PROJECT AFFECT SURFACE OR GNOUNOWATER OIIALITY? ~ ~ Examples that Would Apply to Colunm 2 Project will require a discharge permit. Project requires use of a source of water that does not have aporoval to serve proposed project. Project requires water supply from wells with greater than 45 gallons per minute pumping capacity, Construction or ooeration causing any contamination of a oubltc water supply system. Project will adversely affect groundwater. Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently do not exist or have inadequate capacity. Pro~ect requiring a facility that would use water in Project will likely cause s~ltation or other discharge qnto an existing body of water to the extent that there w~ll be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. S!~ALL TO POTE'~TIAL CAN t~IP~CT BE ~nDERATE LARGE' REDUCED BY IMPACT IMPACT PROJECT CHANGE X SttAtL TO POTENTIAL CAN IMPACT BE ~ODEP~ATE LARGE REDUCED DY ! ) 6. ',~ItL PROJECT ALTER DRAINAGE FL9u, PATTEPtIS OR SIIRFACE !lATER NO YES RUNOFF? ...................................... Example that '.~ould Anply to Colu~ 2 Pro~ect would imQede flood water flows. P~.iect is likely to cause substantial emsion. __ Pmject is incompatible with existing drainage pattems. Other impacts: IMPACT ON NO YE! 7..ILL P.JECTAFFECT AIRQUALtTY? ........................... Examples that Hould Apply to Column 2 Project will induce l,O00 or mom vehicle trips.in any given Project will result in the incineration of mom Gan 1 ton of mfuse per hour. PmJect emission rate of all contaminants will excee4 5 million BTU's per hour. Other tmoacts: IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANImaLS 8. WILL ~P,~ECT AFFECT ANY THREATENED OR ENOANGE~E~ S~ECIES? 0 O Examples that Would Apply ~ Column Reduction of one or mom s~¢ies listed on the New York or Federal list, usi,g the site, over or near site or found on the site. Removal of any ~ortion of a critical or significant wild- Ap~licatinn of Pesticide or he~icide over m~ro than -- Lwice a yea)-other than (or~icalt~l parodies. 9. NILL PROJECT SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECT NON-THREATENED OR ND YE: ENDANGERED SPECIES? ....................................... G 0 Example that Would Apply to Column 2 h~ject would substantially interfere with any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. Project requires the re~val of more than lq acres of -- mature forest (over 19~ years in ade) or other locally important vegetation. Examnles that l!ould Apply to Column 2 ~- incompatible visual affect causeo Dy the of ~ew materials, colors anoyor forms in contrast to tile A project easily visible, not easilj screenec~that is obviously different from nthers arouno Project will result in the elimination or major screering of scenic views or vistas Knovm to De Other imPacts: IMPACT ON HISTORIC RESOURCES II, WILL PROJECT IMPACT ANY SITE OR STRUCTURE OF HISTORIC, PRE4IIST~PIC ~P PALEONTOOICAL I)~PORTANCE? ................ Examples that W~uld Apply to Column 2 Project occurlnQ wholly or nartially withiF or contiguous to any eacilitv or site listed on the National Re~ister of historic ~laces. Amy impact to an archeological site or fossil b~ located within the project site. Other impacts: NO IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE & RECREATIgN 12. WILL THE pR(1JECT AFFECT ~HE OUANTITY OR QUALITY OF EXISTI)(G NO OR FUTURE OPEN SPACES OR RECREATIONAL OPPORTU~IITIES? ...... Examples that Would Apply to Column 2 The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opmortunity. A major reduction of an open space important to the community. m Other impacts: ~ ~rt TTT I~PACT AN TP~ANSPORTATION 13. UILL THERE BE AN EFFECT TO EXISTING TP~ANSPORTATION Examples that Would Anpt% to Column 2 Alteration of present patterns of movement of people -- and/or goods. Project will result in severe traffic Qroblems. NO Other impacts: YES YES yE.~ ~ALL TO ~OTEt!TIAL CAN ItlPACT BE qODERATE LA(}GE REDUCED BY I~PACT I'~PACT PROJECT CHANG~ I?ACT ON ENERqX l~. ~,ILL PROJECT AFFECTTHE COMMUNITIES SOURCES OF FUELQR NO YE~ ENERGYSUPPLY? ........................................... QO .Examnles_ that Would ~DDl¥ tQ Column 2 Project causing area~er than 5% increase in any fo~ of energy useQ in municipality. Project requiring the creation or extension of aD energy transmission or SUpply system to serve more than 50 sinele or two family residences. Other i~aots: SMALL TO POTENTIAL CAN IMPACT DE r-~DERATE LARGE REDUCED BY IMPACT t"~PACT PROJECT CHANGE IMPACT ON NOISE 15. WILL THERE BE OBJECTIDNABLE ODORS, NOISE, GLARE, VIBRATION NO YES or ELECTRICAL DISTURBANCE AS A RESULT OF THIS PROJECT? .... Examples that Would APPly to Column 2 Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hosp(tal, school or other sensitive facility. Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). Project will oroduce operating noise exceedinp the local am~ient noise levels for noise outside of structures. Project will remove natural barrier~ that would act as a noise screen. Other impacts: IMPACT ON HEALTH & HAZARD~ N~ YE: 16. !'SILL PROJECT AFFECT PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAF~¥? ............. Ex__~amples that Would Apply to Column 2 Project will cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances (i.e. oil, pesticides, c6emicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or unset conditions, or there will he a chronic low level discharge or emission. Project that will result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" {i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc., includinq wastes that are solid, semi-solid, liquid or contain gases.) Storaoe facilities for one million or more gallnns of limuified natural gas or other liQuids. IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMe!UNiTY OR NEIGHR,QRHO~ "?rT YES WILL PROJECT ~F~.~, THE CHARACTER nF THE EXISTING NO COHMUNITY? ................................................ QO Example that Would Apoly to Column 2 The population of the City, Town Or Village in which the project is located is likely to grow by more than 5% oF resident human popglation. The municipal budgets for capital expenditures or opera- ting services will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this project. W]l) involve any Dermanent facility of a non-agricultural use in an agricultural district or remove nrime agricultural lands from Cultivation. The project will rep ace or eliminate existing facilities, structures or areas of historic importance to the community. Developn~nt will inouce an influx of a oarzicular age group with special needs, Project will set an important precedent for future proiects. Project will relocate 15 or more emnloyees in one or more businesses. Other inmacts: -- NO YES 18, IS THERE PUBLIC CONTROVERSY CONCERNING THE PROJECT? ....... ~ Examples that Would Apply to Column 2 -- Either government or citizens of adjacent communities have expressed opposition or rejected the project or have not been contacted. X Objections to the nroject from within the community. ~ttALL TO POTENTIAL CAN IMPACT BE qODERATE LARGE REDUCED BY It!PACT I)~PACT PROJECT CNANGE Change tc --~- ~ oth~z--prc iect IIF ANY ACTION IN PART 2 IS IDENTIFIED AS A I POTENTIAL LARGE IMPACT OR IF YOU CANNOT DETEPJ4INE I THE MAGNITUDE OF IMPACT, PROCEED TO PART 3. i PORTIONS OF EAF COMPLETED FOR THIS PROJECT: DETERMINATION PART I PART II PART 3 Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF {Parts l, 2 and 3) and considerinq both the maqnitude and imnortance of each impact, it is reasonably determined that: A. The project will resu)t in no major impacts and, therefore, is one which may not cause significant damage to the environment. Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been included as part of the proposed project. The proiect will result in one or more major adverse impacts that cannot be reduced and may cause significant damage to the environment, Signature of Prenarer (if different from responsible officer) PREPARE A NEnATIVE DECLARATION PREPARE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION PREPARE POSITIVE DECLAP:ATION PROCEED WITH LIS © Signature of R-sponsible Official in Lead Agency Print or tyoe na~e of responsiblJ official in Lead Agency PART Iii ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM FOR PETER AND BARBARA HERZ AT 170 CEDAR POINT DRIVE EAST SOUTH©LD In accordance with the rules and regulations of SEQRA, a Part III of the Environmental Assessment Form CEAF) has been prepared to more clearly address the Responses found within Part II of this EAF. A Part III is not considered as necessary, since none of the impacts are assumed to be large. However, because of the apparent attempt by the representative of some of the property owners to link this ~roject with another, which could have significant impacts, this discussion is appropriate. The answers to questions 12 and 18 of Part II both relate to another project which will apparently seek to dredge an inlet adjacent to this subject parcel. In a letter dated August 28, 1986 from Mr. Richard J. Cron, Esq., of Cron and Cron, Cutchogue, it is apparent that the opposition to the construction of a residence is intended to promote or improve the chances of acceptance of the dredging proposal. CRAM'ER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants Although to date, no applications have been filed for the dredging, one wonders how sincere the project is. Even if an application was submitted, the two projects are separate. They have different sponsors~ take place on d~fferent parcels; and have different impacts on the environment. Furthermore, the impacts associated with the dredging would be considered as significant on the environment and on adjoining parcels in particular; while the construction of the residence would have minimal, if any, ~mpacts. As stated above, the opposition [question 18, Part II) is based on the preclusion of future recreational opportunities (question i2, Part II). While insuring that recreational opportunities are considered in the review process is important, it is also extremely important to consider the potential impacts of the recreational activity on the environment and on the surrounding property owners. The subject parcel ha~ two areas of bulkheading. The southern bulkheaded area fronts on Little Peconic Bay 90.5 feet and extends back 40.5 feet along the closed Midway Inlet. This bulkheading is considered as functioning, erosion has occurred in the southwest corner where a board has been damaged. The northern area of butkheading is dilapidated although it appears to be functioning to a limited degree. This area includes a one hundred foot section along Midway Inlet. The remaining portion of Midway Inlet (±50 feet) is unbulkheaded; furthermore, the wood jetty in the southwest property corner is for all intensive purposes non-existing. While the condition of the bulkheads do not effect the proposed construction of a residence as the parcel is stable, they do affect the dredging proposal. Midway Inlet is 30 feet wide and is presently filled to a height of 3 to 4 feet above sea~evel. Current policy (NYSDEC) for dredging requires a minimal of a 1 one 3 side slope to avoid erosion. Given the width of the inlet, the height of existing fill, and the compliance with the given standards, the inlet could be dredged to only one foot below mean high water. Deeper dredging C~A1VIER ~ VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Env~onn~nt~andPlanningCo~u~tan~ - 3 - would have the potential for significant erosion and damage %o the adjoining properties and structures. The dredging could be carried out to a suitable depth for navagation, with minimal erosion hazard, if the inlet was rebutkheaded by the persons proposing the dredging. There are, however, other considerations and impacts. sitm east The dredge spoils sites are no longer existing. The spoil to the west of the inlet has a house built on it and to the is the subject of this application. The littoral drift, and movement of sand, in this area is from east to west. Considering this and the facts that the wood jetty to the eas5 is non-functioning and the jetty to the west of the proposed inlet is functional, then it is obvious that sand will be deposited to the east of the west jetty; or that is, in the inlet. The inlet would not remain open or at the very least require constant maintenance dredging with no place to dispose of the spoil. Opening of the inlet would result in substantial biological and chemical changes to the pond, and thereby potential signi£icant environmental impacts. The dredging would create a situation where the existing cesspools for the house to west would be within 100 feet of open water. Furthermore, it would create a situation that the lot on which the proposed structure is located would be unbuildable. Under the curren~ situation, Suffolk County Department of Health Services setbacks, 100 feet from open water, are met or exceeded, and permits have been received. If the inlet was dredged, there would be open water within 80 feet or less on any portion of this lot. CRA1ViER & VOOl%HIS ASSOCIATES Environmental ami Pl~nni~g consultaa~s A review of historic aerial photographs show no inlet existed at this location from 1969 to date. It is not known the exact date of the last opening. However, since the inlet has been closed a substantial period of time, the pond's ecosystem has adapted so that a reopening to the bay would significantly impact the pond. The introduction of saltwater to a brackish system would alter the plant and animal communities existing. In addition, a navigable inlet, would allow the intrusion of the activities and pollution associated with boat traffic. In regard to the other statements made and questions raised in the August 28th letter, we wish to make the following observations. It is recognized that the Town Trustees are not bound, nor should they be, by other agencies decisions. However, consideration is usually given to such approvals. An attempt has been made by persons to cast doubt on other agencies decisions where they relate to this application. 1. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation waived jurisdiction on the project as a result of a map review. It is important ~o be aware of the procedures of the DEC in making such determination for tidal wetlands. The DEC will request an application package_to be submitted which would include survey, project description, environmental assessment form and recent site photographs. This information is reviewed in conjunction with the State's Tidal Wetlands Maps. The maps and other submitted information is sufficient ~o make a determination as to whether DEC has jurisdiction on an application. 2. With regard to the DEC waiver predating the survey submitted with the Trustee application, this is true. However, when one considers the dates on both, certain facts are evident. There were only two months between the DEC-waiver and the new shrvey. Given the time necessary to prepare a survey, it can be assumed CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Pls~r~nin~ Consu~/:an. ts that the field work, for same, was ~onducted at the sam~ time as the waiver issuance. 3. Given that the site conditions have not changed significantly in six (6) years, since the 1982 survey, it is safe to assume that conditions were the same at the time of the waiver and survey. 4. Considering the site conditions, limited area where construction may take there is only a place with no significant impacts. Aside from the potential impacts of locating the project on other areas of the site, there are also DEC and Suffolk County Department of Health Services regulations and policies which dictate where development can take been consulted and the agencies. place. building area has 5. The rules and regulations for the State Tidal Wetlands Act allowed the State The bulkhead which is of principal concern These agencies have been approved by both implementation of the to issue a waiver. is the functional one on the south property line. The bulkhead adja~en5 to the pond, while shown as dilapidated, is greater than 75 feet from the proposed residence. It is implied that the dilapidated and non- existing bulkheading along Midway Inlet, at the west property line, is a problem. However since the inlet is non-existant, and the area is uplands~ and was such when the waiver was issued, the argument is not relevant. CRA/~ER & VOOI%~-IIS A. SSOCLA. TES Environme~za/and Pl~.,~lg Consuttaa~ November 11, 1986 Henry P. Smith, President Board of Town Trustees Town Hall Main Road Southold, N.Y. 11971 Re: Berz, Peter and Barbara 170 Cedar Point Drive, Southold, N.Y. Dear Mr. Smith: Thank you for your letter of November 7, 1986. cannot Continue to review the above application completed. I am aware that you until the EAF is I have contacted Sidney B. Bowne & Son, Consulting Engineers, to assist us with the EAF. We are awaiting their completion of same. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Truly Yours, Patricia C. Moore Legal Assistant PCM/df EN,CONSULTANTS, INC 1329 NORTH SEA ROAD, SOUTHAMPTON, NEW YORK 11968 August 26, 1986 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 516-283-6360 Southold Trusvees Toma of Southold ?ost. Offic~ Box 728 Southold, N~w York 11971 Re: Proposed Dredging of Midway Inlet Dear Sire: -I represent the Mid~ay Inlet Residents Association for the purpose of determip~ng the feasibility of re-opeming the inlet co Midway Pond. At one point, Midway Pond was cormected co Pecomic Bay by meams of a bulkheaded imlev. ~hrough lack of periodic maintenance, the inlet has entirely filled with sand being carried in by the littoral drift along the shoreline of Peconic Bsy. This has nov only pre- vented use of the pond as a navigable waterway; but it has caused odor and water quality problems according to the residents. At the present time, nine of the eleven owners of property around the pond and inlet wish to undertake a projecv to reopen the pond. though no ~ormal applications have been filed, a tenta- tive inquiry co the N.Y.S.D.E.C. indicates thac they would cormider the project and pass mpon its merits subjecv to the specif~_cs of the proposal. At the present time, we Would requesv that the trustees make a similar tentative evaluation and notify us if this is the sort of project which would be ~onsidered favorably. -2- I enclose two sheets of a tentative work plan for you~ consideration. Would you kindly e ~x_amir~ vhis material and contact me with your opinion. It is understood that this in no way binds you to any position and that you reserve the right ~o review all ~averial and information submitted with a formal application at a later dave. Yo ly President E~c. cc: Richard Cron, Attorney at Law Joseph Hubbard APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGEI~ CHAIRMAN CHARLES GR[GONIS. JR. SERGE DOYEN. JR. ~OBERT J, DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWlCKI September 12, 1986 Mr. Henry P. Smith, Southold Town Board 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 President of Trustees Re: Appeal N6. 3543 Barbara and Peter Herz Location of Property: 170 Cedar Point Drive, Southold Dear Mr. Smith: Ir response to your September 4th letter concerning the above matter, please be advised that we have no objection to your declaring Lead Agency status on your pending Wetlands Application. Inasmuch as our jurisdiction deals with the setbacks, as regulated by Part 617.13, subsections (d)[2], the variance would not be subject to SEQRA [see copies of SEQRA, attached]. Please feel free to continue the SEQRA process as you deem necessary. If information is found, however, that the location of the dwelling, excavation, etc. would directly disturb wetlands or the environment in any manner, please coordinate such findings with our office since the same could affect our initial Type II Declaration. If we may assist you in this matter, please don't hesitate to let us know. lk Enclosures l e What is a Type II Action? 3e Can A Type Il action is a project or action that has been found notto have a significant effect on the en- vironment. Th~se actions are specifically designated in the statewide SEQR regulations (617.13), or in an agency's own SEQR procedures or regulations. any Agency Expand the Statewide Type II List? YES. As stated in 617.13(b), any agency may expand the Statewide Type I! list by adopting a list of additional Type l! actions, provided the list does not contain an action that is less protective of the environment than the statewide Type II list. 2 ~ What are the Procedural Re- quirements~£or a Type Il Action? There are no procedural requirements of any kind for a Type Il action, however, a prudent agency should maintain in its own files, a brief record show- lng that the proposed action had been considered under SEQR and had met tha requirements for a Type II action. 4~ Can an Agency Identify a Statewide Type II Action as Type I or Unlisted? NO. The regulations specifically prohibit an agency from designatin9 as Type I any action on the statewide Type II list (see 617.~3~c~. Type 1I actions are defined as never being significant. Th!s. precludes Tvpe II actions from beinc~ considered the Unlisted category. B-7 TYPE II ACTIONS ~--~oes--not to II Actions.~ A Type II Action is an action apply Ty~e that will not have a significant impact on the environment. DEC has published a Type II list in Part 617. This list is set forth in Box II. A local government may either adopt this list as a part of its local SEQR regulations or develop its own Type II list as long as the local list is no less protective of the environment than the Type II list in Part 617. If on the basis of Part 617 or your own regulations the action your,agency is considering is Type It, it has no further responsibilities under SEQR. BOX II TYPE II ACTIONS ll) Inspections and licensing activiti6s relating to the aualifications of individuals )3) Collective bargaining activities. 17) Rdutine activities of educational institutions which do not i,mlude capital 8 Band delivered August 28, 1986 Board of Town Trustees Town of Southold To,wu Hall Main Road So~uthold, NY 11971 Re: Application of Peter and Barbara Herz, 170 Cedar Point ~Drive, Southold Dear Sirs: This office represents a number af property owners in the Cedar Beach Park Subdivision, adjacent to Midway Inlet, all of whom are deeply concerned with the application of Peter and Barbara Herz pending before this Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals. A review of the documents submitted by the applicants indi- cates that they seek from the Town ~rustees a waiver of permit or jurisdiction with respect to proposed consnruction pursuant to Article Il, §97-20(B). The basis for this application to the Trus- tees lies in the fact that the New York State Department of Environ- mental Conservation granted a waiver of jurisdiction with respect to the applicants' premises in October, 1981. Needless to say, the Town Trustees, under the Southold Town Wetlands Ordinance, are not bound, nor should they be bound, by the waiver of the Department o~f Environmental Conservation. This becomes particularly applicable when one vi&ws the following: The New York State Deparnment of Environmental Conservation's waiver of jursidiction was solely predicated on ~a map inspection and not a visual inspection of the premises; It is obvious that the Deparnment of Environmental Conservation's waiver could not have been predi- cated on the map dated January 15, 1982, which sets forth the proposed consnruction of the applicants; Board of Town Trulstees August 28, 1986 Page two 3. The condition and are,a of construction of the bulkhead may have been substantially different on the map submitted to the Department of Envicon- mental Conservation, upon which ~he waiver was granted in 198t; 4. The area of proposed constr~ctiou may have also been s'ubstanti~lly differenlt~han shown on the applicants' survey' of Jannazy 15, 1982; 5. The Department of Envirgnmen~al Conservatzon s waiver ~indicated that Lot No. 110 was en%mrely bulk~eaded. The applicants' survey of January 15, 1982'ishow~' a di~apidate~ bulkhead rnn'n~ing along ~h~ westerly portion Of tl~e premis,~ and in the area of the .construc~tion of the residence, andi~wi~hin ten (:10~.) .fe~t 0'~ Midway I'nlet,~ ap~ parently no bulkhead~ng at all existsi. In light'of 'the canditfons that exist this date, the Department of Envir,onmental Conservation should b-e called upon to make a visual i~spection of the app~icafits' premises With respect to the proposed 6o~struction an~ in particular As to whether a Department of EnVironmental C'bnservatio~ waiver of jurisdiction is valid and should exist :in ~the light of the dilapidated bulkhead condition and the apparent l~ack of bulk- head in the area of construction, approximately t~e'n (10') feet from Midwa5 Inlet. , As concerns the Shor~ Environmental Assessment Form submitted bY the applicants, it appears to be erroneous in two (a) The answer dnder question 10 should be "yes", for the reason that approval of the proposed construction requires variances flrom the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals; and (b) The answer under question 12 should be "yes", in that existing conditions should be brought to the attention of the Depart- ment of Environmental Conservation for m determination as to whether a wai~er of jarisdictilon granted in 1981 is still valid and would exist in the light of the condi- tions set forth on the app~icantsl survey of January 15, 1982. Board of Town Trustees August 28, 1986 page three The~significance of item (b) above becomes, qu~te apparent When one reviews' the ques~iOnnaire submitted ts 'th~ Zoning Board of Appeals, dated July ~0, 1986 in connection with Article 25 re- qu~irement of the Environmental Conservation Law, a copy ~areto annexed. In the form submitted, the applicants indicate that the b~lkhead is in very good condition along the waner's edge~ Both the Survey submittedi.~nd ~ visual inspection will show that to be clea,r%y erroneous. ~ It is antic number of property c appro.~l from the at t~eir own cosn Little Peconic Bay. action~by any go New Yo~k State Depa Trustees, or the T any manner Whatsoev proval of any such Tru near future that a sub~stantial ordering on Midyay Inlet Wilibe s'eeking t0! engage in dredging pperati.ons, " a view to opening ~he Inlet ~o owners ds.not wish to see any ~=3, ~nctuding but not l~m~ted to the f Envi~ronmental Conservation~ the Town of Appeals, which would in r~ their subsequent application for ap- dredging application. Due to the ~g~if~icance and consequences envisioned by this ~ppiication, t~:~usteesf should demand full compliance with So~thold Town Wetla~A Law and a khorough SEQR process under which the %rustees adopt ~ mgen~Y an~ compel the submission of a Long Form Envzronme~% iSsessment Form prmor to any determznatzon In light of the f0~egoing, the Trustees should ~ot grant to the applmcants a wamve]r~ of permmt or ]urmsdmctzon pursuant to ArCi~le II, 97-20(B;).~'' Th~lappltcahts fall within the confines of Ar~i~ie I, §97-13(A) C3) ~d ~ho~ld be required to comp'~y with ArCic%e II, §97-20(A)~-~ unless there is clear and convincing proof of compliance with ~1~ standards ~quired by Article IZ, '§97-28. A r~eview of all docln~n.ts submitted would indicate that this has not been demonstrate~Lby ,the applu_cants. RJC:e Enclosur. e cc: Soutlhold Town Zoning Boalrd of Appeals Dr. John H. c/o Cedar Mr. & Mrs. Very truly yours, Hubhard,~ Beach P~i Property Owners Severus DeLeo July 30, 1986 Board of Town Trustees Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Herz, Peter and Barbara 170 Cedar Point Drive, Southold Dear Sirs: Enclosed please find application for Wetlands Permit. Applicants wish to build a residence within 75 feet of Wetlands, however, we request that you waive jurisdiction over this matter. The applicants have received a letter dated October 2, 198i from D.E.C. stating than no permit is required under Article 25 ~Tidal Wetlands). See attached Schedule "A". Furthermore, the property in question is entirely bulkheaded as shown on survey dated January 15, 1982 prepared by Young & Young, a Professional Engineer and licensed land surveyor. See attached Schedule "B". Thanking you in advane for your consideration. Very truly yours, PCM/lk cc: Mr. and Mrs. Peter Herz poINT cEOAR vo / /. N..$7Ol9'15' ~ ~ PONO 88,8Z" 0.0 TEST HOLES 0.0 LO / / NOTE: · = LATH SET FIRM ZONE A-4 BASE FLOOD EL= 8.~ Area= 27,450 sq ft_+ :~UFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICE~ FOR APPROVAL OF CONSTRUCTION ONLY TITLE NO. T 1281- 2~7'70 HS REF. NO. OATE APPROVED HEALTH DEPARTMENT-DATA FOR APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT ADDRES~ SURVEY FOR PETER HERZ & BARBARA HERZ LOT I10 AND PARTOFLOTS 109 8~ 152, "CEDAR BEACH PARK" AT BAYVJ E~ 'DATE: TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY~ NEW YORK NO. ~ UNAUTHORIZED ALTERATION O~ ~D T ON TO I~lS GUARANT~ED TO: ~C~IES ~ ~IS ~RVEY NOT ~6 THE L~Ng PETER ~VE~R'S I~D S~L OR~BO~ED S~L ~OT ~ CO~SI~E~ TO ~ 4 V~LI~ TR~B COPY ,YOUNG YOUNG A '~ LDEN ~Y~OUNG, PRQFESSIOI~AL ~NGINE£E LAND SURVEYOR t~Y.S. LICENSE NO. i~2845 JAN. 12, 1987 JAN, 15, 1982 I": 40' BI-798 RIVERHEJtD, NEW ~t~tRK