Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
3412
Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 SC)UTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11cj71 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 ACTION OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEkLS Appeal No. 34]2 Application Dated May ]9, ]987 TO: William D. Moore, Esq. Clause Commons, Suite 3 P.O. Box 23 Mattituck, NY ]]952 as Amended [Appellant (s)] At a Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals held on June 30, ]987, the above appeal was considered, and the action indicated below was taken on your [ ] Request for Variance Due to Lack of Access to Property New York Town Law, Section 280-a [ ] Request for Special Exception under the Zoning Ordinance Article , Section [X] Request for VarianceSto the Zoning Ordinance Article III , Section ]00-3] and Article XI , Section 100-119.2 [ ] Request for WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on June 18, 1987 in the Matter of the Application of WILLIAM MOORE AND BENJAMIN HERZWEIG under Appeal No. 3412; and WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, the Board has carefully considered all testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application; and WHEREAS, the Board Members have personally viewed and familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and the surrounding areas; and are WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact: 1. By this application, appellants request Variances from the Provisions of the Zoning Code, Articles: (a) XI, Section 100-119.2(B) for permission to locate a proposed single-family dwelling structure with an insufficient setback at 38 feet and at 43 feet, from the nearest wetland grasses, from the northeasterly corner and the southeasterly corner, respectively, (b) III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule for permission to locate new dwelling with an insufficient frontyard setback at its closest points at 25 feet, all as shown by survey prepared by Young & Young, dated June 5, 1987. 2. The premises in question is known and referred to as Lot #42, Map of "Mattituck Estates, Inc." filed in the Office of the Suffolk County Clerk on September 8, 1965 as File No. 4453. 3. The subject premises is located along the east side of Meadow Lane in the Hamlet of Mattituck, Town of Southold, with a frontage of 115 feet, is vacant land, contains an acreage of .51±, and has a frontage of 95.94 feet along pond meadow and wetland areas. 4. Article XI, Section 100-119.2, requires all build- ings and structures to be set back not less than seventy- (CONTINUED ON PAGE TWO) DATED: June 30, 1987. Fozn~ ZB4 (rev. 12/81) CHAIP~N, SOUTHOLD TO,TN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Pag~ 2 - Appeal No. 3412 'M~tter of WILLIAM MOORE & ANb. Decision Rendered June 30, 1987 five (75) feet from a tidal water body, tidal wetland edge, or freshwater wetland. 5. Article III, Section lO0-31, Bulk Schedule of the Zoning Code requires a minimum setback from the front property line for principal buildings at not less than 35 feet, or the average established setbacks within 300 feet. The average established setbacks are not less than 35 feet from the front property lines. 6. The Courts have held that the area setback variances must meet the "practical difficulties'' standard, considering at least the following: (a) that the relief requested is not substantial in relation to the requirement; (b) that the project as proposed is not out of character with the neigh- borhood; (c) the circumstances of the property are unique and are not personal in nature; (d) that the variance will not in turn be adverse to the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience or order of the town; (e) that the variance requested is the minimal necessary; (f) that there is no other method feasible for appellants to pursue other than a variance. 7. It is the position of the Board as follows: (a) that the relief requested is substantial in relation to the requirements, being variances of l0 feet (or 30%) as to the reduction in the front yard, and of 37 feet (or 50%) as to the reduction in wetlands setback; (b) the project as proposed is not within the character of the neighborhood since the improvements on parcels in the immediate area are in compliance with the zoning requlations; (c) particularly which limits the circumstances of the property are unique, due to the topography and nature of the site, the areas of construction; (d) the alternative relief granted herein will not in turn be adverse to the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience, or order of the town; (e) the alternative relief (in the frontyard area) is the minimal necessary; (f) there is no other method feasible for appellants to pursue other than a variance. 8. In making this determination, it shall be understood that the alternative relief granted hereunder would permit construction within the limited building envelope area, to wit, 30 feet from the front (west) property line, 38 and 43 feet from the wetland boundary (to the east), minimum 10 ft. and 15 ft. sideyards (as regulated by the Bulk Schedule of the Zoning Code, Column "A"), without the necessity of re-application for reconsideration by this Board concerning possible amend- ments in the design, style, length, character, etc. of the proposed dwelling structure. Any reduction of the setbacks to less than that permitted by this variance and the zoning regulations ("building envelope") will require future application and consideration. Pa~e 3 - Appeal No. 3412 Ma~ter of WILLIAM MOORE & A~O. Decision Rendered June 30, 1987 9. It is noted for the record: (a) that conditional approval was rendered by the Southold Town Board of Trustees for Wetland Permit No. for the construction of a single-family dwelling~ 312 (b) that a Final Environmental Impact Statement has been prepared and submitted to the Southold Town Trustees as Lead Agency pursuant to Part 617, NYCRR, Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, and Chapter 44, Code of the Town of Southold; (c) that both well and sanitary systems were condi- tionally approved by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services on September 13, 1985 under Ref. No. 85-S0-164; (d) that lot point(s), with catch basins, are to be incorporated into the westerly (driveway) area to collect storm-water runoff; gutters and leaders to be connected to dry-wells; no construction of sewage-disposal systems or water-supply facilities will be constructed below the 10-foot contour; "natural buffers" are to be designed within the entire area below the lO-foot contour line; there will be a natural buffer during and after construction adjacent to the wetlands; (e) a September 4, 1985 waiver has been issued by the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation waiving a permit for the construction of a single-family dwelling landward of the existing 10-foot contour elevation above mean sea level (on a gradual, natural slope). Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Douglass it was RESOLVED, to GRANT the following relief in the Matter of the Application of WILLIAM MOORE AND BENJAMIN HERZWEIG under Appeal No. 3412, for the location of a single-family dwelling: (a) with an insufficient setback at the most north- easterly corner of the proposed dwelling structure at 43 feet from the nearest wetlands grass, and at 38 feet from the most southeasterly corner of the proposed dwelling structure from the nearest wetlands grass, as shown by the June 5, 1987 survey prepared by Young & Young, as applied; and (b) with an insufficient setback at not less than 30 feet from the front property line at its closest point(s), as an alternative to the requested 25 feet. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. (Member Doyen of Fishers Island was absent.) This resolution was duly adopted. GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CH'/~IRMAN July 8, 1987 I C IV D AND FILED BY 1'I-IE SOUTHOLD OWN Tm, m Clerk, Town of ~outhold TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BV-',DING DEPARTMENT 'lb ,~q CLERK'S OFFICE SOUTHOLD, N.Y. NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL · ~.T...J~r.--~ .~..~..~.. ~.F~... PLEASE T~E NOTICE ~at your application dated ..... ~...~ ........ 19 .~. forpe~itto -~O~~.'~,,~~.~ ...... ~/~ f .......... at ~¢atio~ of Property ~?~...~d ~.,. County Tax Map No. I000 Section .../~ ..... Block ...~. ...... ~t . .~ ~ ...... s~ai~io~,.~T ..... Fi~ Uap So..~%~.7. ...... lot So .... W~. ......... is returned herewith and disapproved on the following grotmds ................................ . . . Z~o .~.~ . . Z'o.~ ~. l .,(v. ~ e ./~.~ . . ,, ~; . .l. (~ ~. . . 2't/~. .,t?. . ..... . . .. ~,~? ,,/,'~.~. . .... 7. ~-. : . : .cp. . ". .... .~.,~tx, .... ~. ~ F. . .c~. . .~. ~ . . ,~. ~ ....... Building Inspector 1/80 Location of land on which proposed work will be done, .. ....... . ~ ~ ~..~. ~..xr_~.,..r.~....~,~ ................... · - · ~ ..... Hamlet ...... .~.7..~ ................. ~.c~..-.~4. · - Stree~ House Number Map No.. 1000 Section . ..ll.~ ..... . .... ~ock <5' . ......... Lot... 7... .......... Couuty Tax /~/A,~..r~. ,/~. ~,..~..~.~.~,.r3,. _(f.,~. ,,~' Filed M'i~ ~i ' 144.~..~ ..... Lot , .4.~' ....... Subdivision ............. (iq'an~ ')' ........ State existing use and occupancy of premises and intended use and occupancy, of proposed construction: ~e. ~.o:s:~...-. · · · ............... · a Existing nsc and occupancy ............ ,. .- · . "- · .~,n, ,.~ :F~---,:,,---':t .'~,~..-.'~',P.~~ ............ ~ '---~ .m,.~.~,,L--p-~...~: .... I' ' ' ' , · ~,~[~[ b Intended use and occupancy ..... ~ / 'FORM NO. 1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN HALL $OUTHOLD. N.Y. 11971 TEL.: 76~1803 BLDG. DEPT. TOWN OF SOUTHDLD Examined ................ ,19... Approved ................. 19... Permit No ............ DisapProved a/c ..................................... Received ........... , 19... (Building In]pector) APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT INSTRUCTIONS a. This application must be completely filled in by typewriter or in ink and submitted to the Building Inspector, with 3 sets of plans, accurate plot plan to scale. Fee according to schedule. b. Plot plan showing location of lot and of buildings on premises, relationship to adjoining premises or public streets or areas, and giving a detailed description of layout of property must be drawn on the diagram which is part of this appli- cation. c. The work covered by this application may not be commenced before issuance of Building Permit. d. ' Upon approval of this application, the Building Inspector will issued a Building Permit to the applicant. Such permit shall be kept on the premises available for inspection throughout the work. e. No building shall be occupied or used in whole or in part for any purpose whatever until a Certificate of Occupancy shall have been granted by the Building Inspector. APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE to the Building Department for the issuance of a Building Permit pursuant to the Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, and other applicable Laws, Ordinances or Regulations, for the construction of buildings, additions or alterations, or for removal or ~emo~fio~t, as herein described. The applicant agrees to comply with ali applicable laws, ordinances, building code~hcl~'~6;'and regulations, and to admit authorized inspectors on premises and in building for necessary inspec~ti¢~~ ~~?'5 ........ '.: ........ :' '. .... ../.~a~ure of applicant, or x[ame, ~I a corporahon) ........................ r .... . ..... ~;~ ...... (Mailing address of apphcant) State· whether applicant is own~er,:, lessee, agent, architect, engineer, general contractor, electrician, plumber or builder. Name ofownerofpremises . :'..- ..... ~. ~MP ............ , ................ ~ .................. (as on the tax roll or latest deed) If applicant is a co~omtion, signature of duly authorized officer. (Name and title of corporate officer) Builder's License No .......................... Plumber's License No ......................... Electrician's License No ....................... Other Trade's License No..g'A....O?..~.~P.~..-.{ .... Location of land on which proposed work will be done...'~..~..2..* ?..~....A/~?...~.~..t~..~?..~..~.~.~ ...... .4.7.:. ................. .............. House Number Street County Tax Map No. 1000 Section ~] ...... ., ....Block . ~5' .... /~J{~'~...r~..~....~..~ .~'~...-~..,~.-,~ .... Filed Map No. Subdivision Hamlet State existing use and occupancy of premises and intended use and occupancy of proposed construction: a. Existing use and occupancy .............. ~,0_~ x -- . . . ~' ..................................... ' .'.'.I . .~. ~..a,~ .m_...v....~,.. .......... b, Intended use and occupancy ........ x?,~,( , ,-~,,~-,~,/~.tS~~. . , ...... .............. . w~' ~, apphcable): New Building '- ~ddition .......... Alteration 3. Nature of work (check z, . ,~ Repair ..~[ i" { '~' ' _,emoval .............. Demolition .............. Other Work ............... (Descript~o.n) 4. Estnnated Cost ................. ' ..... Fee ..................................... ~' (to be paid on filing this application) 5. If dwelling, number of dwelling units... :.~...t~:?..e.~..~. Number of awemng u.its on each noor i J..~..z_. ........ If garage, number of cars ......... [. ~ ........................................................ 6. If business, commercial or mixed occupancy, specify nature and extent of each type of use 7. Dimensions of existing structures, if any: Front ............... Rear .............. Depth Height ............... Number of Stories ....................................................... Dimensions of same structure with alterations or additions: Front ................. Rear ................. Depth ...................... Height ...................... Number o? Stories .............. ? ...... 8. Dimensions of eh/tire new construction: Front ....4[.6r../. ~ .... Rear o..D~..~,. ......... Depth .. Height .,~.~..'. .......... Number of Stories ....... .~-..~. ....... __ 9. Size of lot: Front ....... [.[.~.:.~'.f. ....... Rear .... ~.~.4.~i~i~ i. J i i ill DePth. i~.c~.' "'~ ' ''"-'" t0. Date of Purchase ............................. Name of Former Owner .~A3..L~3.~.~I .~ .E,. +~.B.~.~. .*,. 1 1~ Zone or use district in which premises are situated .................................................... 12, Does proposed construction violat~ any zoning law, ordinance or regulation: ............................... 13. Will lot be regraded .. Jr{tNLl ~ ~ .............. Will excess fill be removed from premises:~ ~---~'_, Nr' 14. Name of Owner of premises ._e~...~..~,.~..tke. r.i .~ .c~..,~%.. Address ................... Phone No..~.7- Name of Architect ........................... Address ................... Phone No ............... Name of Contractor .......................... Address ................... Phone No ............... PLOT DIAGRAM Locate clearly and distinctly all buildings, whether existing or proposed, and. indicate all set-back dimensions fron property lines. Give street and block number or description according to deed, and show street names and indicate whethe interior or coruer lot. STATE OF NEW~ YORK, S.S COUNTY OF...'~...~...?F-x~...t-..t~... ......~. ~...~l~)q~..~..~k~,. '.~.".I~ . .~:fi,~..~.~.~ ........... being duly (Name of individual signing contract) above named. sworn, deposes and says that he is the applican He is the ........................................................................................ (Contractor, agent, corporate officer, etc.) of said owner or owners, and is duly authorized to perform or have performed the said work and to make and file thi: application; that all statements contained in this application are true to the best of his knowledge and belief; and that th~ work will be performed in the manner set forth in the application filed therewith. Sworn to before me this ..... ~ ............... day of .... , · ............................. t~ounty .... GLORIA O. O' ~Attt~ ~~~...~ ueJc, s,,... N.,. ' ......................... ...... No. 4e03137, ~lk Caun~t .,~,.. e"/~//~/'/'~- -' (Signature of applicant) TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK FROM DECISION OF BUILDING INSPECTOR DATE...9.Z~.~/.E5 .......... TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, N. Y. 1, (We) ..~h.oz0~.~..,.~.,...,~.r..~.e.~ .......................... of ..6,.3.....q,.Z..J,..?..t.p.~,.~..%.a..g..e.,, ................................... Name of Appellon,t Street and Number Port Jefferson Station .N...e.,w.....Y.,o...r..k. ......... HEREBY APPEAL TO Municipality State THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR ON APPLICATION FOR PERMIT NO ..................................... DATED ...................................................... WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENIED TO ( ) ( ) (x) Name of Applicant for permit of ...6, .3... ~.~ iC~.o..~_ .~ ~..a.g.e..,....~ 9.~,.~.e..C ~.,e.~.~, .°.~. _ .s.~.~.t...L.9.~ ,....~. _....Z.,Z. Z.~ .6. ..... Street and Number Municipality State PERMIT TO USE PERMIT FOR OCCUPANCY Permit to build 1. LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY Meadow Lane, Mattituck, NY (Mattituck Estates) Street Use District on Zoning Mop ~.~.5...3. ............................................ .4..2. ....................... Map No. Lot No. 2. PROVISION (S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE APPEALED (Indicate the Article Section, Sub- section and Paragraph of the Zoning Ordinance by number. Do not quote the Ordinance.) To build within 75' of Wetlands Art. XI Sec. 100-t192B 3, TYPE OF APPEAL Appeal is made herewith for (x) A VARIANCE to the Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Map ( ) A VARIANCE due to lock of access (State of New York Town Law Chop. 62 Cons. Laws Art. 16 Sec. 2BOA Subsection 3 4. PREVIOUS APPEAL A previous appeal (has) ~.~¢~) been made with ~xt~z~Czi~tz~-~*:~z~cgzr×with respect to this property. Such appeal was ( ) request for o special permit (×) request for o variance and was made in Appeal No...5..2. ~ .~ ~ Dated .......... REASON FOR APPEAL ) A Variance to Section 280A Sabsection 3 ×) A Variance to the Zoning Ordinance ) ~s requested for the reason that the proposed residence cannot be located on the property without being within 75' of the wetlands. Forn% ZB1 (Continue on other side) REASON FOR APPEAL Continued 1. STRICT APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE would produce practical d[ff[cult]es or gmneces~ sory HARDSHIP because Can use the property in a manner consistent with and for a use permitted under the recent zoning ordinance. . ' ,h~ immedia~-e 2. The hardship creeted is UNIQUE and is not shared by a ] aroperties alike in +' ~ vicinity of this property and in this use district because There is wetland in the rear of the property. 3. The Variance wouJd observe the spirit of the Ordinance and WOULD NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE DiSTRiCT because We conform to the other homes and lan±rig requirements in area. Minimal grading will take place. House is to be "stepped" into slope. Furthermore~ the architectural designs of proposed house conforms to the architectural setting of the surrounding area. STATE OF NEW YORK ) ~/,~~~~,~-~ - COUNTY OF ~,?.~f~ ) Sworn to this ........................................... ~,. day of .............. N~, 47~5984, ~k Lot NEW SUFFOLK AVENUE SURVEY FOR T~OMAS W. CRAMER & BENJAMIN L. HERZWEtG LOT,42. MATTtTUCK ESTATES. NC" A~' MATTITUCK OATE: AUG. [5,1985 {NO CO. YOUNG & YOUNG, -,ooo~.~..,,~E RIVERH~AO~ NEW YORK i. 'i APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS SCOTT L.HARRIS _ Supervisor Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman _, MY Serge Doyen,Jr. Town Hall, 53095 Main Road James Dinizio,Jr. P.O. Box 1179 Robert A.Villa s �_' ' Southold, New York 11971 Richard C.Wilton =�-` `_ Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS Telephone (516) 765-1800 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD February 22, 1993 John A. Occhiogrosso, Esq. 1600 Hillside Avenue New Hyde Park, NY 11040 Re: Appeal No. 3654 and Appl. No. 3412 Property at Meadow Lane, Mattituck Dear Mr. Occhiogrosso: In reply to your inquiry concerning the above property, please note that the actions taken by the Board of Appeals under the above file numbers are still effective. You may wish to check further with the Town Trustees since there was litigation involved and our office is not familiar with the most recent updates ooncerning past activities at the site since these ZBA determinations in 1987. Very truly yours, GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN lk I cJOHN A. OCCHI00- Y/ SO ATTORNEY AT LAW 1600 HILLSIDE AVENUE - NEW HYDE PARK, NEW YORK 1 1040 616 488-5770 February 18, 1993 Southold Town Board of Appeals Main Road - State Road Southold , NY 11971 - Re : Baumgratz from Fisher Property at Meadow Lane Mattituck, Town of Southold Gentlemen : On July 7 , 1987 (appeal #3412) and October 15 , 1987 (appeal #3654) you transmitted official findings and determination rendered by the Board of Appeals re- garding the above listed property . Copies of your letters of said dates are enclosed . I represent Mr . & Mrs . Frederick Baumgratz who are under contract to purchase the above listed property. It would be appreciated if you would confirm whether said variances are still effective as initially granted . Thank you. Very truly .3jours , t - JAO:ao 46hn A. Occhiogrosso Enc . L/ Copy to : Mr . & Mrs . Baumgratz TRUSTEES John M. Bredemeyer, III, President SUPERVISOR Albert J. Krupski, Jr., Vice President ,; 1 SCOTT L. HARRIS Henry P. Smithy John B. Tuthill ��y Town Hall William G. Albertson ''n; �'r Y 53095 Main Road - ., � d P.O. Box 1179 Telephone (516) 765-1892 _ Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD March 11,, 1993 John A. Occhiogrosso Attorney At Law 1000 Hillside Avenue New Hyde Park, N.Y. 11040 wll� RE: BaLungratz from Fisher, Wetland Permit #452 SCTM #1000-115-5-7 Dear Mr. Occhiogrosso: With respect to your letters of February 12, 993 and March 3, 1993 and Your questions concerning my letter to William Moore of January 29, 1991, please note our sincere apology for not getting back to you sooner and consider the following information as you represent your clients: 1) The Southold Town Trustees suspended the permit for the above 'referenced property on March 12, 1993 as a result of an unauthorized intrusion into a wetland buffer zone protected by a restrictive covenant. 2) The Southold Town Trustees held a hearing pursuant to the Town Wetland Ordinance on April 30, 1992. 3) The Trustees did not issue findings at that time as we decided to monitor the site for natural revegetation with some contemplation of re-instating the permit on or after a year of growth. At least two inspections of the site have been made by the entire Board of Trustees since April 30, 1992. 4) Once the Trustees conclude another inspection which I will schedule for March 18, 1993, we would be in a position to formally consider reinstatin the permit is reinstated m g permit for the site. If the operant. Y letter of January 29, 1991 shall be 5) Because there was a violation of a filed restrictive covenant which runs with the land and this Board' s wetland jurisdiction, we may not reinstate this permit without aOdit.ionai conditions or restrictions and could ask the Town Attorneys to proceed with prosecuting the violation. By copy of this letter we are informing all Town departments that we shall continue our review of this matter and may schedule a findings statement and or permit reinstatement/change should our pending field inspection show the site has revegetated satisfactorily. very truly yours, 69 John M. Bredemeyer,III President, Board of Trustees JMB: jmd cc: Town Attorneys office Bay Constable Building Dept. Zoning Dept. William Moore James Fisher TRUSTEES O��$OFFO(,�C49 SUPERVISOR John M. Bredemeyer, III, President h�` Gym SCOTT L. HARRIS Albert J. Krupski, Jr., Vice President o '� Henry P. Smith .Ze Town Hall John B. Tuthill �y `� 53095 Main Road William G. Albertson P.O. Box 1179 Telephone (516) 765-1892 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD March 26, 1993 James E. Fisher 64 Fox Hollow Lane Southampton, NY 11968 RE: SCTM #1000-115-5-7 Dear Mr. Fisher: The following action was taken by the Southold Town Board of Trustees on Thursday, March 25, 1993 : RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board of Trustees hereby reinstates Permit #452 to construct a one family dwelling on property located at Meadow Lane, Mattituck, NY. Please note that all Covenants and Restrictions and conditions imposed by the Southold Town Trustees and the Zoning Board of Appeals still apply to this permit. The owner of this property shall discuss these conditions with the Board of Trustees prior to obtaining a building permit. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Very truly yours, 64John M. Bredemeyer, III President, Board of Trustees JMB:jmd cc: Bldg. Dept. ZBA John A.Occhiogrosso Gillbert Flanagan Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD - STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I.. N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 ACTION OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Appeal No. 3412 Application Dated May 19 , 1987 as Amended TO: William D . Moore , Esq . [Appellant (s) ] Clause Commons , Suite 3 P .O . Box 23 Mattituck , NY 11952 At a Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals held on June 30 , 1987 , the above appeal was considered , and the action indicated below was taken on your [ ] Request for Variance Due to Lack of Access to Property New York Town Law, Section 280-a [ ] Request for Special Exception under the Zoning Ordinance Article , Section [ XI Request for Variancesto the Zoning Ordinance Article III Section 100-31 and Article XI Section 100- 119 . 2 [ ] Request for WHEREAS , a public hearing was held and concluded on June 18 , 1987 in the Matter of the Application of WILLIAM MOORE AND BENJAMIN HERZWEIG under Appeal No . 3412 ; and WHEREAS , at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded ; and WHEREAS , the Board has carefully considered all testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application ; and WHEREAS , the Board Members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question , its present zoning ,, and the surrounding areas ; and WHEREAS , the Board made the following findings of fact : 1 . By this application , appellants request Variances from the Provisions of the Zoning Code , Articles : (a ) XI , Section 100-119 . 2 ( B ) for permission to locate a proposed single-family dwelling structure with an insufficient setback at 38 feet and at 43 feet , from the nearest wetland grasses , from the northeasterly corner and the southeasterly corner , respectively, ( b ) III , Section 100-31 , Bulk Schedule for permission to locate new dwelling with an insufficient frontyard setback at its closest points at 25 feet , all as shown by survey prepared by Young & Young , dated June 5 , 1987 . 2 . The premises in question is known and referred to as Lot #42 , Map of "Mattituck Estates , Inc . " filed in the Office of the Suffolk County Clerk on September 8 , 1965 as File No . 4453 . 3. The subject premises is located along the east side of Meadow Lane in the Hamlet of Mattituck , Town of Southold , with a frontage of 115 feet , is vacant land , contains an acreage of . 51 ± , and has a frontage of 95 . 94 feet along pond meadow and wetland areas . 4 . Article XI , Section 100- 119. 2 , requires all build- ings and structures to be set back not less than seventy- (CONTINUED ON PAGE TWO ) DATED: June '30 , 1987 . CHAIRMAN, SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Form ZB4 (rev. 12/81) Page 2 - Appeal No . 3412 Matter of WILLIAM MOORE & AND . Decision Rendered June 30 , 1987 five (75 ) feet from a tidal water body , tidal wetland edge , or freshwater wetland . 5 . Article III , Section 100-31 , Bulk Schedule of the Zoning Code requires a minimum setback from the front property line for principal buildings at not less than 35 feet , or the average established setbacks within 300 feet . The average established setbacks are not less than 35 feet from the front property lines . 6 . The Courts have held that the area setback variances must meet the "practical difficulties " standard , considering at least the following : (a ) that the relief requested is not substantial in relation to the requirement; (b) that the project as proposed is not out of character with the neigh- borhood ; (c ) the circumstances of the property are unique and are not personal in nature ; (d ) that the variance will not in turn be adverse to the safety , health , welfare , comfort , convenience or order of the town ; (e ) that the variance requested is the minimal necessary ; (f) that there is no other method feasible for appellants to pursue other than a variance . 7 . It is the position of the Board as follows : (a ) that the relief requested is substantial in relation to the requirements , being variances of 10 feet (or 30%) as to the reduction in the front yard , and of 37 feet (or 50% ) as to the reduction in wetlands setback; (b) the project as proposed is not within the character of the neighborhood since the improvements on parcels in the immediate area are in compliance with the zoning requlations ; (c ) the circumstances of the property are unique , particularly due to the topography and nature of the site , which limits the areas of construction ; (d ) the alternative relief granted herein will not in turn be adverse to the safety , health , welfare , comfort , convenience , or order of the town ; (e ) the alternative relief ( in the frontyard area ) is the minimal necessary ; ( f) there is no other method feasible for appellants to pursue other than a variance . 8 . In making this determination , it shall be understood that the alternative relief granted hereunder would permit construction within the limited building envelope area , to wit , 30 feet from the front (west ) property line , 38 and 43 feet from the wetland boundary (to the east ) , minimum 10 ft . and 15 ft. sideyards ( as regulated by the Bulk Schedule of the Zoning Code , Column "A" ) , without the necessity of re- application for reconsideration by this Board concerning possible amend- ments in the design , style , length , character , etc . of the proposed dwelling structure . Any reduction of the setbacks to less than that permitted by this variance and the zoning regulations ( " building envelope " ) will require future application and consideration . Page 3 - Appeal No . 3412 Matter of WILLIAM MOORE & AND . Decision Rendered June 30 , 1987 9 . It is noted for the record : (a ) that conditional approval was rendered by the Southold Town Board of Trustees for Wetland Permit No . 312 for the construction of a single- family dwelling ; (b) that a Final Environmental Impact Statement has been prepared and submitted to the Southold Town Trustees as Lead Agency pursuant to Part 617 , NYCRR , Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law , and Chapter 44 , Code of the Town of Southold ; (c ) that both well and sanitary systems were condi - tionally approved by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services on September 13 , 1985 under Ref. No . 85-SO-164; (d ) that lot point (s ) , with catch basins , are to be incorporated into the westerly (driveway ) area to collect storm-water runoff; gutters and leaders to be connected to dry-wells ; no construction of sewage-disposal systems or water-supply facilities will be constructed below the 10-foot contour; "natural buffers" are to be designed within the entire area below the 10-foot contour line ; there will be a natural buffer during and after construction adjacent to the wetlands ; (e ) a September 4 , 1985 waiver has been issued by the N . Y . S . Department of Environmental Conservation waiving a permit for the construction of a single-family dwelling landward of the existing 10- foot contour elevation above mean sea level (on a gradual , natural slope ) . Accordingly , on motion by Mr. Sawicki , seconded by Mr . Douglass it was RESOLVED , to GRANT the following relief in the Matter of the Application of WILLIAM M_OORE AND BENJAMIN HERZWEIG under Appeal No . 3412 , for the location of a single- family dwelling : (a ) with an insufficient setback at the most north- easterly corner of the proposed dwelling structure at 43 feet from the nearest wetlands grass , and at 38 feet from the most southeasterly corner of the proposed dwelling structure from the nearest wetlands grass , as shown by the June 5 , 1987 survey prepared by Young & Young , as applied ; and (b ) with an insufficient setback at not less than 30 feet from the front property line at its closest point ( s ) , as an alternative to the requested 25 feet . Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs . Goehringer , Grigonis , Douglass and Sawicki . (Member Doyen of Fishers Island was absent . ) This resolution was duly adopted . I GERARD P .. G0EHRINGER , C IRMAN July 8 , 1987 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORKC Cc 1 APPEAL FROM DECISION OF BUILDING INSPECTOR APPEAL NO. DATE .............................. TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, N. Y. 1, (We) ...... !¢T< <<.C-t...4...a eO? ..........of .....:� ...1 frr. ...14.z.�............................... Name of Appellant Street and Number ......... Qu .Q.l ........................................................... .......V-41.............HEREBY APPEAL TO Municipality State THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR ON APPLICATION FOR PERMIT NO. .................................... DATED ...................................................... WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENIED TO ................................................................................. Name of Applicant for permit of ................................................................................................................................. Street and Number Municipality State ( ) PERMIT TO USE ( ) PERMIT FOR OCCUPANCY 1. LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY ..../LL ea ... ../:...MaZ4. L/...::y....................... Street /Ha(nlet / Use District on Zoning Map District 1000 Section Block Lot ................Current Owner 1f/r111am AIC)O -e Map No. t{S3 Lot No. V,;2 Prior Owner U 2. PROVISION (S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE APPEALED (Indicate the Article Section, Sub- section and Paragraph of the Zoning Ordinance by number. Do not quote the Ordinance.) Article Xi ;]jT Section ioo-ilei•o.� ioo-3i 3. TYPE OF APPEAL Appeal is made herewith for (please check appropriate box) ( ) A VARIANCE to the Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Map ( ) A VARIANCE due to lack of access (State of New York Town Law Chap. 62 Cons. Laws Art. 16 Sec. 280A Subsection 3 (� y4eipfJCr 51%'1b4C1G '1 Jz>YK W A--1V1' C= -X Y-.APD .SCi C3ACK 4. PREVIOUS APPEAL A previous appeal (has) (has not) been made with respect to this decision of the Building Inspector or with respect to this property. Such Gppeol was ( ) request for a special permit ( ) request for a variance (V,}hcl rA4AM and was made in Appeal No. ....�. I.................Dated ...................................................................... REASON FOR APPEAL ( ) A Variance to Section 280A Subsection 3 (to A Variance to the Zoning Ordinance ( ) is requested for the reason that TKL PrcposeC� P- 6i&NX<- Can riot b12— (0(-a id s-r� 4+.k Prop" W -+iVvr h_eLv, u 4u ,.. 75 f A-+ +1k4 \lllthlei 1 s C.l'CL 11AC Wetici.„cl Qu �cl } (Lt (i&La'to )C I um Tr"-" VIQS rQc(v,rrd A VCLN MYLC� (va x -1-k.t -Wong `lard 6c"(k norm zst (Continue on other side) r � , REASON FOR APPEAL Continued 1. STRICT APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE would produce practical difficulties or unneces- scry HARDSHIP because Vfk-UQ jI , tnAend be,u� d a �aVIL.}ruc�con a� Qro�cSPs� Sr�R �m"�. lncnr" Cure not b-e- d0,u W%-+tTcu,-t Oil va✓ vYcx Evorv. \Nei lcLncls �rcitmaMe e �h_e U1QJ IckYtJ ,rt ,S Ccv�cl�Etcnsd en �ensirvcicvtc� 4ha �P�tcle_ri CL �ncn 4- tl a r4 svElxcc)L tMaNt e. , I 11x 1 ry c -o �0 P{cam , c_c�R 1 sVAL Wa# heuaY hnu�t toe aS feet a �verv` f0�cl - 2. The hardship created is UNIQUE and is not shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in this use district because i t r. el Vn S�.cY� l5 Covered iou) W e_"cuvtd s up �c fact Cc rl tw r P h�s s4a, j �ruafzR � h e ere ve^^1cd cans, ,r v,,A on br-yQ,,?c( t s,oa word 4) lUe jo val be vnck � (as 3u(" c6j,,l ca.5. Ls, 34S 3. The Variance would observe the spirit of the Ordinance and WOULD NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT because N1cttv�k � tQXkn !� Q-n 0)C6-t 2A�CA ��cA� ec� �UrLUGOIC?n o.11u"� has C�n��vvc. r cc� 4 G^e�l� i o remaener�c� V in O PG c �rp� 1M, Giv��-ccm STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) ss .�-:.....9.... ..`. ` .-................. COUNTY OF *eG� ) Si n ture Sworn to this ........�.�cl�.......................... day of....... 19 JI/7 ................ .......................... . ............................. Notary Public MARY ANN CYBULSK, NOTARY PUBLIC State of New tur. Residing in Suttolk Counb No 52-5895900 wttlMIM10h t FtNaS APM 30 . • r. QUESTIONNAIRE TO BE COMPLETED AND SUBMITTED WITH YOUR APPLICATION FORMS TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS Please complete , sign and return to the Office of the Board of Appeals with your completed application forms . If "Yes" is answered to any questions below , please be sure to depict these areas on your survey (or certified sketch ) , to scale , and submit other supporting documenta- tion. ��� 1 . Are there any proposals to change or alter land contours ? Yes (9/ 2 . a ) Are there any areas which contain wetland grasses ? (Attached is a list of the wetland grasses defined b Yes No * Town Code , Ch . 97 for your reference . ) b b ) Are there any areas open to a waterway ttio u khead . Yes ' No 3. Are there existing structures at or below ground level , Yes No such as patios , foundations , etc? 4 . Are there any existing or proposed fences , concrete barriers , decks , etc? Yes No 5 . If project is proposed for an accessory building or structure , is total height at more than 18 feet above Yes l� average ground level ? State total : _ ft . 6. If project is proposed for principal building or structure , is total height at more than 35 feet above Yes No average ground level ? State total : ft . 7 . Are there other premises under your ownership abutting Yes this parcel ? If .yes , please submit copy of deed. 8. Are there any building permits pending on this parcel (or abutting land under your ownership , - if any ) ? Yes No State Permit # and Nature : 9. Do state whether or not applications are pending concerning these premises before any other department or agency (State , Town , County , Village , etc . ) : Planning Board Yes Town Board C..�e�' Town Trustees ��r> _ County Health Department Yes Village of Greenport Yes <ffE? N . Y . S . D . E . C . Yes (1W Other Yesd 10 . Is premises pending a sale or conveyance? If yes , please submit copy of names or purchasers and conditions of sale (from contract ) . Yes No 11 . Is new construction proposed in the area of contours at 5 feet or less as exists? Yes 12 : If new construction is proposed in an area within 75 feet of wetland grasses , or land area at an eleva- tion of five feet or less above mean sea level , have you made application to the Town Trustees for an inspection for possible waiver or permit under Yes the requirements of Ch . 97 of the Town Code ? 13 . Please list present use or operations conducted upon the subject property at this time and proposed *Please submit photographs for the record . I certify that the above statements are true and are being submitted for reliance--4 the Board of Appeals in considering my application . c" C snt Signa ure Prope ty Owner Authorized Agent ) 5] /p���� ' 3/87 lk t � sty i3 off E iEf § 97-13 WETLANDS § 97-13 ` TOWN — The Town of Southold. TRUSTEES — The Board of Trustees of the Town of " Southold. [Added 6.5.84 by L.L. No. 6.19841 WETLANDS [Amended 8.26.76 by L.L. No. 2.1976; 3-26- 85 by L.L.No.6.1985): -- ( A. TIDAL WETLANDS: (1) All lands generally covered or intermittently cov- ered with,or which border on, tidal waters,or lands lying beneath tidal waters, which at mean low tide are covered by tidal waters to a maximum depth of five (5) feet, including but not limited to banks, bogs, salt marsh, swamps, meadows, flats or other low lying lands subject to tidal action; (2) All banks, bogs, meadows, flats and tidal marsh subject to such tides and upon which Brows or may grow some or any of the following: salt hay, black ( grass, saltworts, sea lavender, tall cordgrass, high bush, cattails, groundsel, marshmallow and low march cordgrass; and/or (3) All land immediately adjacent to a tidal wetland as defined in Subsection AM and lying within seven- ty-five (75) feet landward of the most landward edge of such n tidal %vetland. R. FRESHWATER WETLANDS: (1) "Freshwater wetlands" as defined in Article 24, Ti. tle 1, § 24-0107, Subdivisions 1(a) to 1(d) inclusive, of the Environmental Conservation Law of the State of New York;and (2) All land immediately adjacent to a"freshwater wet- land,"as defined in Subsection Ii(l)and lying with- in seventy-five (75) feet landward of the most land- a ward edge of a"freshwater wetland." 9705 2-25-ss QUESTIONNAIRE TO BE COMPLETED AND SUBMITTED WITH YOUR APPLICATION FORMS TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS Please complete , sign and return to the Office of the Board of Appeals with your completed application forms . If "Yes " is answered to any questions below , please be sure to depict these areas on your survey (or certified sketch ) , to scale , and submit other supporting documenta- tion. 1 . Are there any proposals to change or alter land contours Yes No seaward of area under construction? 2 . Are there any areas which contain wetland grasses ? -7 (Attached is a list of the wetland grasses defined by / Yes No Town Code , Ch . 97 for reference„) Nacn����,�,s� 3 . Are there existing stru tures at or below ground level , Yes No' such as patios , foundations , etc? 4 . Are there any existing or proposed fences , concrete barriers , decks , etc? es No 5 . If project is proposed for an accessory building or structure , is total height at more than 18 feet above Yes No average ground level ? State total : _ ft . 6 . If project is proposed for principal building or structure , is total height at more than 35 feet above Yes average ground level ? State total : ft . 7 . Are there other premises under your ownership abutting Yes No this parcel ? If yes , please submit copy of deed . 8 . Are there any building permits pending on this parcel (or abutting land under your ownership , if any ) ? Yes State Permit # and Nature : 'C 9. Do state whether or not applications are pending concerning these premises before any other department or agency (State , Town , County , Village , etc . ) : Planning Board Yes Town Board Yes Town Trustees Ye No County Health Department Yes Village of Greenport Yes N . Y . S . D . E . C . Yes Other Yes N 10 . Is premises pending a sale or conveyance? If yes , please submit copy of names or purchasers and conditions of sale ( from contract ) . Yes 11 . Is new construction proposed in the area of contours at 5 feet or less as exists? Yes 12 . If new construction is proposed in an area within 75 feet of wetland grasses , or land area at an eleva- tion of five feet or less above mean sea level , have you made application to the Town Trustees for an inspection for possible waiver or permit under Ye No the requirements of Ch . 97 of the Town Code? 13 . Please list present use or opera ions conducted upon the subject propert at thi timpten�- _ and proposed I certify that the above sta ements are true and are being submitted for reliant he d o A eals in considering m application . �j���PP 9 Y Pp9 Y Pp Sign aProperty 0wnerOwner � ILL � �M �. wroo�Zt 3/87 1k r § 97-13 WETLANDS § 97-13 ` TOWN — The Town of Southold. TRUSTEES — The Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold. [Added 6.5.84 by L.L. No. 6.19841 j WETLANDS [Amended 8-26.76 by L.L. No. 2-1976; 3-26- 85 by L.L.No.6-1985]: A. TIDAL,WETLANDS: (1) All lands generally covered or intermittently cov- ered with,or which border on, tidal waters,or-lands lying beneath tidal waters, which at mean low tide are covered by tidal watery to a maximum depth of five (5) feet, including but not limited to banks, bogs, salt marsh, swamps, meadows, flats or other low lying lands subject to tidal action; (2) All banks, bogs, meadows, flats and tidal marsh subject to such tides and upon which grows or may grow some or any of the following: salt hay, black grass, saltworts, sea lavender, tall cordgrass, high bush, cattails, groundsel, marshmallow and low march cordgrass;and/or (3) All land immediately adjacent to a tidal wetland as defined in Subsection A(2) and lying within seven- ty-five (75) feet landward of the most landward edge of such a tidal wetland. R. FRESHWATER WETLANDS: (1) "Freshwater wetlands" as defined in Article 24, Ti- tle 1, § 24-0107, Subdivisions 1(a) to 1(d) inclusive, ( of the Environmental Conservation Law of the State of New York; and (2) All land immediately adjacent to it"freshwater wet- land,"as defined in Subsection NO and lying with- in seventy-five (75) feet landward of the most land- ward edge of a"freshwater wetland." 9705 2-25.85 COUNTY OF SUFFOLK (a Michael A. LoGrande TtESUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVEDEPARTMENT OF PLANNING , - 4 ', E. KOPPELMAN 1V �I ECTOROFPLANNING 360-5206 lSf'y2 W .e. I :iJit July 17, 1987 Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Pursuant to the requirements of Sections A 14-14 to 23 of the Suffolk County Administrative Code, the following application(s) which have been referred to the Suffolk County Planning Commission are considered to be a matter for local determination. A decision of local determination should not be construed as either an approval or a disapproval. Applicant(s) Municipal File Number(s) William Moore & Benjamin Herzweig 3412 Richard F. Mullen, Jr. 3634 Very truly yours, Lee E. Koppelman Director of Planning S/s Gerald G. Newman Chief Planner GGN:mb �s Z614 r�,q VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY HAUPPAUGE.Lt..NEW YORK 11788 (316)360-5192 o Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD - STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN August 7 , 1987 CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWICKI Attached hereto is a copy of the entire Notice of Petition and Petition received by me today at 11 : 13 a . m. concerning the pending Appeals of William D . Moore and Benjamin L . Herzweig . Ref. Appeal #3412 rendered June 30 , 1982 granting alternative relief. Pending Appeal is #3634 scheduled for public hearing August 20 , 1987 for 30 ' frontyard and 38 ' wetlands setback building envelope area . Copies to : Town Clerk , Supervisor , Francis J . Yakaboski ; Esq . , i' and Z . B . A. Members SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK -----------------------------------------X WILLIAM D. MOORE and BENJAMIN L. HERZWEIG, Petitioners, against NOTICE OF PETITION Index No. Assigned Judge: THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, Respondent, for Judgement pursuant to Article 78 of the CPLR. ----------------------------------------X SIRS: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that upon the Petition of William D. Moore and Benjamin L. Herzweig, verified on the 5th day of August, 1987 , and upon the Exhibits annexed thereto, an application will be made to this Court at the Courthouse located on Griffing Avenue, Riverhead, New York, on the 30th day of September, 1987, at 9 : 30 A.M. , or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard, for a judgement granting the relief demanded in the Petition. A Verified Answer and Supporting Affidavits, if any, must be served at least five ( 5) days before such time. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE, that pursuant to section 7804 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, you are directed to file with the Clerk of the Court, your Answer, Answering Affidavits, etc. , together with a certified transcript of the proceeding, together with the entire official file containing the records of the respondent Zoning Board of Appeals. Suffolk County is designated as the place of trial since respondent made its determination in Suffolk County. Dated: August 5, 1987 Mattituck, New York Yours, etc. William D. Moore and Benjamin L. Herzweig, Esqs. Appearing Pro Se Suite 3 Clause Commons Main Road - Box 23 Mattituck, New York 11952 ( 516) 298-5674 TO: CLERK Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Southold Main Road Southold, New York 11971 .t 2 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK -----------------------------------------X WILLIAM D. MOORE and BENJAMIN L. HERZWEIG, Petitioners, against PETITION Index No. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN Assigned Judge: OF SOUTHOLD, Respondent, for Judgement pursuant to Article 78 of the CPLR. ----------------------------------------X William D. Moore and Benjamin L. Herzweig allege as follows: 1) We are the petitioners in the above referenced matter. 2 ) We are the owners of Lot #42 of Mattituck Estates situated in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New York designated on the Suffolk County Tax map as district 1000, section 115, block 5, lot 7. 3 ) The subject parcel is one of the last four vacant lots in a subdivision created in 1965 consisting of 59 lots. Annexed hereto as exhibit A is a photo copy of the subdivision map, which depicts the subject property. 4) The applicants have proposed a dwelling which has been the subject of lengthy scrutiny by the Southold Town Trustees as the lead agency under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) . This review began in December of 1985. 5 ) As part of the review process a draft environmental impact statement and final environmental impact statement were prepared at great expense. Ultimately the final environmental impact statement was accepted by the Southold Town Trustees in their role as lead agent under SEQRA. 6) On April 29, 1987, the Southold Town Trustees conditionally approved our application for the construction of a single family dwelling on the subject lot. A copy of the Trustee ' s decision is attached hereto as exhibit B. Final approval has not yet been received pending approval of permit conditions and required covenants and restrictions. 7) In their decision, the trustees mandated a rear yard setback of 38 feet from the wetland boundary. We are unable to comply with the requirements of the decision of the Town Trustees without violating the 35 foot frontyard setback required by the Southold Town Zoning Ordinance. We were, therefore, compelled to seek a frontyard setback variance from the Respondent Zoning Board of Appeals. 8) The decision of the Southold Town Trustees actually created the "practical difficulty" necessary to justify legally our request for the frontyard setback variance from the Respondent. 9) On June 18 , 1987, a public hearing was held before the Southold Town Zoning Board at which time we presented our case for the necessary area variance for the proposed single family dwelling. During the hearing, petitioners submitted evidence which included a letter from a licensed real estate broker, and a member of the New York State Society of Real Estate Appraisers, in which this broker provided his opinion that the proposed 25 foot front yard setback as applied for would not adversely impact 2 values in the surrounding area. This evidence was uncontradicted at the hearing. 10) A survey of the property was submitted into evidence showing the present building setbacks in the Southold Town Code. This survey indicates that the frontyard and rearyard setback lines required overlap on this property. Thus we are entitled as of right to a variance from the setback requirements. 11 ) To establish that the variance as requested was reasonable, we submitted into evidence a prior decision of the respondent in Appeal # 3286. In this earlier decision the Board granted a front yard setback of 20 feet for a house 38 feet in depth with a rear yard setback of 30 feet from a pond. In our application a 25 foot front yard was requested. The proposed house was to be 28 feet in depth with a 38 foot setback from the wetland boundary. In addition the Grasso application was for a home with road frontage of 210 feet. Our road frontage is 110 feet. The Grasso case was one of a custom designed home being submitted by a registered architect. We seek permission for construction of a single family dwelling using stock building plans for a typical residence in the area. The variance we requested, then, was a lesser variance, and for a much smaller home than the variance requested and granted in Respondent' s earlier decision. 12) In spite of the overwhelming evidence provided, in the Zoning Board decision dated June 30,1987, filed with the Southold Town Clerk July 8, 1987, the Zoning Board denied the requested 3 variance for a 25 foot frontyard setback. Instead, Respondent arbitrarily authorized a frontyard setback of 30 feet. In so doing, the respondent reduced the depth of the proposed house by 5 feet from a maximum depth of 28 feet to a maximum depth of 23 feet and an average depth of 20 feet. At the same time respondent Zoning Board retained the 38 foot and 43 foot rear yard setbacks that accompanied our request for the 25 foot frontyard setback. Apparently no thought was given by respondent Zoning Board to the resulting building footprint by their decision to scale the house town by some 5 feet in depth. No evidence was presented at the hearing that reducing house depth by 5 feet to at its greatest point 23 feet with an average of 20 feet was in any way practical or that such an alternative was in any way conceivable. In fact, the decision of the Southold Town Zoning Board renders the property impractical for its use. 13 ) In addition, the reduction of the front yard setback has absolutely no bearing to the environmental concerns which were the basis of the decision of the Southold Town Trustees to have a 38 foot rearyard setback for the proposed dwelling. The Respondent adopted and incorporated the findings of the Trustees in its decision, findings which express concern for potential environmental impacts of the proposed residence. Yet the Trustees did issue a permit for the house as it was presented to the Respondent Zoning Board of Appeals with their insistence that the house be located 38 feet from the wetland area. This requirement was reasonable and made necessary the frontyard 4 setback of 25 feet. Instead, Respondent has exercised an overly mechanistic enforcement of front yard setbacks without considering that the application made and the variance requested was both reasonable and the product of practical difficulties created by the actions of other agencies within the Town. 14) At the close of the hearing on June 18th the petitioner had no idea that respondent would arbitrarily reduce the depth of the house by 5 feet. 15) It is the experience of petitioner Moore, who is a practicing attorney before the Southold Town Zoning Board that if the Zoning Board wishes the applicant to reconsider the dimensions of a proposed dwelling it will ask such applicants to redraw and submit additional surveys and other additional information. No such request was made by the respondent in this case. Therefore petitioners were left with the impression that they had adequately and properly presented their request for the variance. 16 ) In fact, the respondent' s decision has further compounded the hardships experienced by the petitioner necessitating this petition and additional appearances with the Zoning Board to resolve the matter. By deviating from the practice of having applicants for appeals go back and have surveys redrawn and houses relocated at the request of the respondent, we were denied the opportunity to prove to the Respondent that the variance requested was reasonable and that the proposed increase from a 25 foot to a 30 foot frontyard 5 imposed by the Respondent rendered use of the property impractical. 17) The determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals is arbitrary and capricious and was made without substantial evidence and as such is illegal, arbitrary and abusive discretion. 18 ) No adequate remedy at law or otherwise exists unless the relief is granted we, as the property owners, will be aggrieved and wrongfully denied full use of our property. 19) Thirty days have not elapsed since the filing of the determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals. 20) Wherefore petitioners demand judgment as follow: (A) For an order annulling the determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold and granting the relief requested by this petition for a 25 foot frontyard setback variance. (B) And for such further and other relief as this court may seem just and proper. Dated: August 5, 1987 William D. Moore Benjamin L. Herzweig 6 STATE OF NEW YORK: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: ss. : WILLIAM D. MOORE and BENJAMIN L. HERZWEIG, being duly sworn, depose and say: Deponents are the Petitioners in the within action; deponents have read the foregoing Verified Petition and know the contents thereof; the same is true to deponent' s own knowledge, except as to those matters therein stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters deponents believe them to be true. C J William D. Moore 7 Benjamin L. Herzweig Sworn to before me August 1987 E °x opo";6�% G, Go aPtp``\P S`jO`l e�b Nota lic t, 7 Index No. Year 19 NOTICE OF ENTRY Sir:-Please take notice that the within is a (certified) SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK true copy of a COUNTY OF SUFFOLK duly entered in the office of the clerk of the within named court on 19 WILLIAM D. MOORE AND Dated, BENJAMIN L. HERZWEIG, Yours, etc., Pe£££ioners, Attorney for against Office and Pose Office Address THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, Respondent. for Judgement pursuant to Article 78 of the CPLR To Attorney(s)for NOTICE OF PETITION AND NOTICE of sETTLEMeNT PETITION Sir:—Please take notice that an order - of which the within is a true copy will be presented William D. Moore and Benjamin for settlement to the Rom L. Herzweig, Esgs . r. Attorney for Pro Se one of the judges of the within mined Court, at Office and Part Office Address, Telephone on 19 Suite 3 Clause Commons Main Road, PO Box 23 *at hL Mattituck, NY 11962 Dated, (516) 298-5674 '. Yours, etc, To Attorney far Office and Port Office Address Attorneys)for Service of a copy of the within _ S is hereby admitted Dated, To ._._..... Attorney(s)for Attorney(s) for ,[OY.IYYYa aW Ya[M.MO..Mal YLAM[N[LI[N[[[.N.Y.C.\p01• t ' AR . . a 6._. .• I .. _ : 1 fit. i i . . b'�" r ,i . i . v_° _• sea:._.. . • � ' y. • _ :/.B Y+I,.µVCa•'31•Il3,.K. I , SCa,(, •tC FIGURE 2 FILED SUBDIVISION MAP OF ! °MATTITUCK ESTATES, Inc. , #4453 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Not to scale MEADOW LANE RESIDENCE, ALattituck , New York November 1985 VnnR -IIr A9SOCIATES__ _ Environmental and Planning Consultants S.E.Q.R.A. FINDINGS IN THE MATTER OF CRAMER/MOORE MEADOW LANE, MATTITUCK The following subjects represent the major impacts and their mitigation developed through the initial D.E.I.S. , Trustee scoping list leading to Response Comments, Public Hearings (2) , Work Sessions (2) review by experts, additional field studies and the F.E.I.S. Incorporating the relevant areas above. Each area will be briefly described with reference to three general categories as it might affect permitting; those areas being: 1. SITING: Includes physical protection of the Wgtland, the Soil and Water Conservation and Wildlife values. 2. COMMUNITY VALUES 3. NUTRIENT ENRICHMENT OF POND All these will be described with reference to the scope and the relief requested of an impact. The degree of mitigation offered through the process. The degree of mitigation preferred by the Board, and the reasons supporting the determination. 6 -1- SITING: Siting which includes the physical protection of the marsh, soil and water conservation and wildlife values. A. Relief is sought to place a house within 75' of the Wetland Boundary. Three alternatives offered are: 13' , 28' and 38' from this boundary. Extensive pre, during and post construction mitigative measures are described by the Applicant, Town Planner and Soil Conservation Service. Also included are the Applicants offer to protect the fringe with restrictive covenants ( C & R's) . Extensive Wildlife inventory on site by Applicant and experts revealed no animals receiving special legal protection, but many which are hardly "door yard" varieties and should be protected by maximum mitigation to any impacts to the fringe and protecting it. B. The mitigation offered is for three distances: 13' , 28' and/or 38' from the marsh and house size alternatives. C. Mitigation perferred: The Trustees interpret their 75' jurisdiction distance under Chapter 97 as a zone within which upland land use is to mitigate as many impacts as practical impinging on Wetlands. While the Board has a policy of minimum 50' buffer zones where practical, it has provided buffers of much less with properly mitigated upland land use. Construction controls offered by the Applicant and Town Planner including protective C & R's for most all land seaward of the rear of the house is preferred for maximum protection of the pond and to mitigate land use on site. Also preferred with t respect to nutrient values is the no fertilizer option and containment of run off during and post construction. Protective plantings out side the C & R's Zone as described by the Soil Conservation Service, and no deck or patio at the rear of the house as described by the New York State D.E.C. Permit for Renate Reidel for the same lot are all indicated. Additionally, the Board prefers window area on the rear of the house be limited to no more than 1/3 greater than the minimum required by the New York State Building Code. There shall be no pets housed out side of the house for obvious reasons. The Boards preferred location is the 38' set back with essentially all land to the rear protected by C & R (except a buffer around the house for protective planting and/or fire control) as -2- the most responsible alternative in light of the wildlife values associated with the pond. Similar pond set backs exist for other houses in the area and this would permit a uniform buffer around the pond should the owners follow suit. D. Reasons supporting the siting are: 1. Options offered by the applicant are practical and mitigative. 2. Past history of permits on the site. 3. Extensive value community places on wildlife. 4. Mitigation of impacts will be total; possibly positive beneficial impacts if road noise can be reduced by plantings. COMMUNITY VALUES: The aforementioned siting contravenes the private subdivision front yard set back C & Res by 50% resulting in a set back of 25' from the road which will require additional consideration by the Zoning Board of Appeals under Town Code. Additional mitigation to minimize the visual impact of house size should be addressed by the Z.B.A. who has more experience in this type of action. The Trustees feel the health of the pond ecosystem should take precedence in any set back decision particularly as this is a head water of a creek which is poorly flushed but has a diverse and abundent wildlife population as found in >t the F.E.I.S. . The Trustees also want minimized, the managed turf areas consistant with this approach to minimize the apparent size of the house. It should be noted that the relief sought from both Public Law (Chapter 97 Wetlands) and Private C & R's with the 25' front yard set back is 50%. The intensity and number of persons raising concerns at the public hearings clearly weighed in favor of wildlife values. Any decision by the Z.B.A. or Court of Competent jurisdiction to set back the house further would require additional review by the Board as to potential impact. NUTRIENT ENRICHMENT: A. While applicant employed State of Art Methodology to compute -3- Nitrogen impact to groundwater; simple recalculation using methodology they provided, using an average of four locally available fertilizers at recommended rates for that front yard area of approximately 2500 sq. ft. and using a four person residency which is not unexpected (they used 2.54) would result in nitrogen loading of approximately 15 parts per million when put on the annual rain fall basis. While the major component of the sanitary system nutrients is expected to miss the pond as per the applicants F.E.I.S. and the Suffolk County Dept. of Health, this can not be said for the turf areas North West of the pond which may combine with a vector of unknown magnitude to the East from the sanitary system as described by Barbara Royce, in the expert review. This concern is substantive enough to limit all fertilizer nutrients on the site as offered in the D.E.I.S. to insure a maximal attenuation of any Vector that has not been described. No further permits should be granted for neighboring lots until a total nitrogen assessment is made. This applicants refusal to perform such cumulative nitrogen calculations, based on incorrect speculation that the New York State D.E.C. routinely denies applications below the 10' contour and that the Town Planner could legally prevent building on neighboring lots are not substantive The other reasons given above do indicate that it is not expected there would be a significant impact from the construction with mitigated upland land use. This applicants failure to perform such cumulative nitrogen calculations should result in a C 6 R burden for this site to upgrade sanitary system nutrient removal capabilities should applications for neighboring lots determine more removal is necessary. VOTE OF BOARD ON FINDINGS Moved by Trustee Bredemeyer seconded by Trustee Goubeaud it was RESOLVED to approve the Boards findings and reasons supporting the Findings regarding the Cramer/Moore Wetland Application for construction of a single family dwelling on Meadow Lane, Mattituck. Vote of Board: Ayes: Trustee Smith, Trustee Krupski, Trustee Larsen, Trustee Bredemeyer, Trustee Goubeaud THIS RESOLUTION WAS DECLARE DULY ADOPTED. VOTE OF BOARD ON PERMIT Moved by Trustee Bredemeyer seconded by Trustee Goubeaud it was RESOLVED to Approve the Wetland Permit in the matter of the application of Cramer/Moore for the construction of a single family dwelling on Meadow Lane, Mattituck subject to the preferred site set backs and C & R's as described in the findings and subject to the proper language of the C & R's by the Town Attorney. Vote of Board: Ayes: Trustee Smith, Trustee Bredemeyer, Trustee Goubeaud Nay: Trustee Krupski, Trustee Larsen THIS RESOLUTION WAS DECLARED DULY ADOPTED. +E INTENT OF PERMIT (Subject to proper language of C & R's by Town Attorney) House to be sited a minimum of 25' from the road. C & R's to protect in perpetuity 30' of the marsh fringe, excluding 4' wide path to wetland for water access/and or catwalk assembly. No use of inorganic fertilizers anywhere, no "Turf" area, no deck or patio areas to re4r and rear window area no more than 1.33 times State Building Construction Code. Conditions of Permit: As described in siting, the various methods that were offered as far as crane excavation, removal of material from the site, the use of hay bales and geo-textile as depicted in the Soil Conservation Service report. No sprinkler system on the site, (ingrcr 3) . C & R's FOR NUTRIENTS: At the option of the Applicant(s) they may either: C & R future upgrading of Sanitary System or upgrade current planned system to State of Art if approved by the County Health Department. Final wording of C & R's to be between Attorneys for the Town and Applicant with approval of Trustees. Details of Permit Fees, Building Construction time frame and inspections required are to be set after the C & R's are addressed. All permits are presently one (1) year duration. Q����EF01,f��oG L Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD - STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971 Ol '� TELEPHONE 15161 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWICKI Pursuant to Article XIII of the Suffolk County Charter , the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold , New York , hereby refers the following to the Suffolk County Planning Commission : XX Variance from the Zoning Code , Article III, Section 100-31 and Article XI, Section 100-119 . 2 Variance from Determination of Southold Town Building Inspector Special Exception , Article Section Special Permit Appeal No . : 3412 Applicant : William Moore and Benjamin Herzweig Location of Affected Land : Meadow Lane, Mattituck, NY 11952 County Tax Map Item No . : 1000- 115-5-7 Within 500 feet of : Town or Village Boundary Line XX Body of Water (Bay , Sound or Estuary ) (Deep Hole Creek) State or County Road , Parkway , Highway , Thruway Boundary of Existing or Proposed County , State or Federally Owned Lan Boundary of Existing or Proposed County , State or Federal Park or Other Recreation Area Existing or Proposed Right-of Way of Any Stream or Drainage Channel Owned by the County or for Which The County Has Established Channel Lines , or Within One Mile of a Nuclear Power Plant Within One Mile of An Airport . COMMENTS: Applicant is requesting permission N* for frontyard and wetlands setback Copies of Town file and related documents enclosed for your review . Dated : July 10, .1937 `��'. _ ,,x,,�xXr�'^'x�ffcxlkpyxcx,ycicsc �oS�EFOLY�oo � • Ln y Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD - STATE ROAD 25 60UTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS,JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. July 9 , 1987 ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWICKI William D. Moore , Esq . Clause Commons , Suite 3 P . O . Box 23 Mattituck , NY 11952 Re : Appeal No . 3412 - Moore & Herzweig ( Variances ) Dear Mr . Moore : Transmitted herewith for your file and perusal is a copy of the official findings and determination recently rendered by the Board of Appeals , the original of which has this date been filed with the Office of the Town Clerk . Please be sure to return to the Building Department for issuance of any permits or other approvals in writing as may be applicable . Please do not hesitate to call either our office (765-1809) or that of the Building Inspector (765- 1802 ) if you have any questions . Yours very truly , GERARD P . GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN Enclosure Copy of Decision to : Building Department By Linda Kowalski Town Trustees Suffolk County Planning Commission SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS IN THE MATTER OF WILLIAM MOORE AND BENJAMIN HERZWEIG THURSDAY, JUNE 18 , 1987 , PUBLIC HEARING 8 : 12 p.m. Appeal No. 3414 - Public Hearing commenced in the Matter of WILLIAM MOORE and BENJAMIN HERZWEIG. Variances to locate new dwelling structure: (a) with an insufficient setback from wetlands and (b) with an insufficient frontyard setback. 675 Meadow Lane, Mattituck Estates, Mattituck. The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a plan produced by Young & Young. A survey I should say. The most recent date is June 4 , 1987 , I apolo- gize, June 5, 1987 indicating a single-family residence of approxi- mately 28 by 56 variable. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Who would like to be heard? Mr. Moore. MR. MOORE: Good evening. William Moore on behalf of Ben Herzweig and myself . My office is at Cross Commons in Mattituck. Let me give you three exhib4ts that I put together and marked A, B, and C. "A" is a letter from 'John Nichols, a realtor with his qualifications. "B" is a survey of the property which I 've drawn to make the indica- tion of these boundaries, frontyard and 35 foot line. And "C" is a copy of an earlier decision of this Board , Appeal No. 3286. 1Just to have the information before you. We 're here, as the Chairman pointed out, for the two variances. The frontyard and the 75 foot, within 75 feet of the wetland . If you look at the survey which I believe I marked as exhibit "B" , the practical difficulty jumps right out. To comply with the 35 foot frontyard line, I 've indicated that set- back line with a straight line across the property. We then drew a variable 75 foot line which followed that wetland boundary. The area that has been highlighted is the negative overlap of the two lines crisscross. If you comply with both, you can 't build a house. That establishes practical difficulty right there. Our particular concern though, is the environment and we had long sessions with the Trustees working this plan through, over and over again. I think concluding in an environmental impact statement. So there we are with the practical difficulty. We 're asking to put the house ten feet closer. In terms of frontyard setback, we 're reducing from 35 to 25 and a lot of the environmental concerns for that rearyard and the geographic topography of the property, that variance to the frontyard really becomes relative and significant in light of the rearyard problem. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Excuse me. Can I just ask you what the width of the house is on the south side? MR. MOORE: I would have to get a ruler and scale out. I 'm sorry. The width on the south side, it ' s not quite 28 feet in depth. What they do is they square it off . The entire width of the house is 28 . It narrows there. Page 2 - June 18 , 87 Public Hearing liam Moore and Benjamin Iozweig Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It was actually notched I assume, at that point to make it 28 feet. Is that correct? MR. MOORE: Right. In fact, there had been a proposed deck. I had a survey. This one is dated June 4th on which they showed a proposed porch type of a deck. And the total width having it been there, would have been 28 . But we scaled those off . Let me see if there are any more of those. I don 't mean to confuse. I 'll get myself all confused. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We' ll take one of those. I 'm sorry to break into your presentation. MR. MOORE: No, that ' s ok. We ' ll take the questions as they come. I think, as I said , the practical difficulty is immediately apparent when you cross over the two lines. A house physically can't be built if those setbacks get complied with. As opposed to giving in on one or the other, I think pressing toward the front makes more sense in light of the rearyard. The Board has granted variances and that was the reason for the Grasso decision I 've given you there. It ' s a very similar type of application in some respect. I ' ll explain some dif- ferences in a moment. The Grasso appeal , you granted a 2.0 foot front- yard setback. The house as it was proposed and -approved, was to be 35 feet from the edge of the pond . I don ' t believe the Trustees had input on that one. It was an earlier decision. So we 're in the same kind of situation here. Here we propose to be 38 feet from the back of the wetlands and 25 feet. So we 're not quite as burdensome as being as close as 20 feet. That house as proposed on the survey there, was 38 feet in width. We 're talking about a house 28 feet in width. That house as proposed , was designed by an architect. It ' s a custom home. This is a much more stock type of a home with plans which we have been playing with and far less elaborate in their scope and design. I think in terms of any neighborhood impact, any detri- mental effect there, there 's been a lot of concern raised there with the Trustees about prior covenants that existed throughout this sub- division requiring a particular setback. As this Board is well aware, those are prior covenants that the owners have to deal with on their own. We 're addressing a 35 foot setback and -asking for a variance from that. However , the purpose of the letter from Mr. Nichols in which his qualifications are appended, is to indicate in his professional opinion as an experienced realtor and appraiser, that granting a 25 foot variance would not effect the adjacent proper- ty' s value in any event. Back when those particular covenants were set forth, the original plans with the Planning Board on these par- ticular pieces, were to have the property built in with that. So there was no consideration given at that time to easing that 50 foot requirement. I think that if they were to be redrawn today, they may be considered differently. Certain lots would be given different treatment. Corner lots, for example, are given treatment. These would be as well. I don 't really think that difficulty we 've got here would be obviated by any means other than a variance. For the very fact that at some point, there ' s one portion of the ordi- nance another has to give in order for them to have a variance and be permitted to construct. It ' s one thing that the house isn 't substantial in size and we talk about the Grasso house. We had originally proposed decks, a deck and possibly a patio for the rear Page 3 - June 18 , 87 Public Hearing Liam Moore and Benjamin zweig Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. MOORE (continued) yard. The Trustees have asked us to remove that and the survey before you, we have taken that away. When you take a deck away from home, it ' s 15 hundred square feet approximately in size which includes the garage. I believe my figure is accurate but I can check that, if you need it. You are restricting the outside use of the property and the size of the house becomes all that more impor- tant. If you 're going to say; in the summer time you can 't go out on ;-.the deck and spread that living area out onto a deck, the house (in our opinion) we can 't really scale it down at this point. The Trustees considered a smaller house alternative on the lot and af- ter longldebate and consideration, it was agreed that the environ- mental impact created by this house to whatever extent, either sig- nificant or not significant or some effect, wasn 't going to be les- sened by a somewhat smaller house. The impact is the fact that human beings were living on a piece of property and we went through that entire process with them and they ultimately decided the per- mit could be granted if the difficulties were mitigated to all ex- tent practical and would not be a significant impact on the environ- ment. The final thing I think you 've got to consider is in light of all of the above and all that ' s gone on before with the Trustees and all the elements we considered in this practical difficulty ap- plication, whether or not justice is served by granting the appli- cation. And in this-ease, I submit that it is simply because con- struction can not occur if a variance isn 't granted . And that cer- tainly is a prime standard for practical difficulty. Lastly, I would ask that the Board incorporate as part of its file, the draft impact statement and the final impact statement which I believe you already submitted to it, as part of the SEQRA process. The bulk of which and for all intents and purposes, seems to be the total sum of which we did with the Trustees. That ' s my presentation . If there are ary questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Could you tell us what the width is and scale it for us and let us know exactly what the width of the south part of the house is. MR. MOORE: Certainly. I ' ll point out that thr.t is the living por- tion of the house. The garage is to be to the north end . I will scale it for you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. I thank you. Let ' s see what develops. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this ap- plication? Anybody like to speak against the application? Sir would you kindly yse the mike and state your name? MR_ PFAFF: I 'm a homeowner in Mattituck Estates. I live on Car- dinale Drive and I just felt compelled to come tonight to listen to the variance. I haven 't been able to make any of the other meetings but I just feel that our Trustees in this case, have sort of passed the buck on this and I feel that if we continue to cram houses in these narrow spaces, that environment won ' t be able to endure it much longer . That ' s my feeling. Page 4 - June 18 , 87 • Public Hearing lliam Moore and Benjamin Herzweig Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you sir. Is there anybody else who would like to speak against the application? MS. OLIVER: It ' s just a shame that properties like this that really should not be built upon. That will definitely have an effect on that pond beneath it. Being it ' s headwaters are De- port. It just seem3 a shame that we don 't have funds available to buy these pieces of property. You could buy the two percent tax by budgeting something or for the D.E.C. finally taking the bull by the horns and spending some of their own tidal wetlands money which is still available. That ' s all . Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to speak? The only other thing I wanted to address Mr. Moore, is the issue of the width of the house. I realize that you may have, from your expectations or plan, cut down the house in width, and again, some people call it depth, to 29 feet. I think that possi- bly, an alternate type of house might service itself and possibly something that could be a little narrower in width and we 'll take a look at that situation. MR. MOORE: Can I make a comment? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure. MR. MOORE: I do appreciate the concern. I don 't believe that 28 feet is that particularly large a home. And that really was the purpose for the photocopying and providing you that Grasso deci- sion in which you gave a 38 foot wide house. And :the property in that question was 200 feet frontage on the road . We 've got 115 here. So that there you had the opportunity to really expand a house and that became quite a large house. When you take away the decks that the Trustees requested be removed , you have reduced the liveable portion of the property. And I would just ask the Board to consider that for the quality of lifestyle that would go on that piece in light of some of the other decisions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. Hearing no further comment, I make a motion closing hearing, reserving decision until later . All in favor - AYE. INI EWISCKLESrnx AL ESTATE East Main Road,Southold,New York 11971 • (516)765-3416 June 16, 1987 Patricia C. Moore, Esq. Edson and Bruer Main Road, P.O. Box 1466 Southold, New York 11971 Re: Lot #42 , Mattituck Estates Mattituck, New York Dear Mrs. Moore: Pursuant to your request, I made an inspection of the above- captioned property for the purpose of determining whether or not a twenty-five foot ( 25 ' ) front yard building set back line would affect the value of the adjacent properties. It is my opinion that a twenty-five foot front yard building set back line would not adversely affect the value of adjacent real property. The foregoing opinion is based on the observation that due to the screening of the trees and other natural growth, and that the natural slope of the land would cause the proposed structure to be below the grade of the street (Meadow Lane ) . Due to these conditions, the proposed structure would be unobtrusive on it ' s intended site especially if you consider that the lot to the North would most likely have to conform to the same regulations. Sincerely, J n J. Nic es, REALTOR MEMBER: New York State Society of Real Estate Appraisers National Association of REALTORS National Institute of Farm&Land Brokers International Real Estate Federation A Commercial and investment Division of NYSAR 1/LI'F National Marketing Institute • QUALIFICATIONS OF JOHN J. NICKLES Licensed Real Estate Broker and Principal at the Offices of Lewis & Nickles Ltd. in Southold, New York since 1965. Attended seminars and classes sponsored by the Society of Real Estate Appraisers, including the Narrative Report Seminar, Introduction to Residential Real Estate Appraising 101, Appraising of Income Property 201. Fee Appraiser - Veterans Administration 1977 - 1980 Certified as Instructor by The New York State Department of State, Division of Licensing Services to teach The License Law for Brokers and Salesmen Member New York State Society of Real Estate Appraisers Member New York Chapter of the Farm & Land Institute President of the Eastern Suffolk Board of Realtors, Inc. - 1980 First Vice President of the Eastern Suffolk Board of Realtors, Inc. - 1979 Treasurer of the Eastern Suffolk Board of Realtors, Inc. - 1977-78 Director of the Eastern Suffolk Board of Realtors, Inc. 19772 through 1978 Chairman of the Eastern Suffolk Board of Realtors, Inc. E lucation Committee 1973 through 1977 Chairman of the Eastern Suffolk Board of Realtors, Inc. Arbitration Committee 1974 through 1977 Fee Appraiser - North Fork Bank & Trust Co. for Commercial Properties Director of the New York State Association of Realtors 1980 - 82 Who's Who in Real Estate - 1980 Lot 41 nOW or formerly (VACANT) County of Suffolk 1 I IT S I tT.6 • / S.6l�°09'II E. 1 aA 229.13' rm• D WELL e3.411 Y.1'Ig 43'N 1 t Q / „1= P O N D Lot 42 a) Area=22357s.f. m Ea' r I I O_ off! I I I RESIDENCE � too' - 33 p /. (0 / 0 3 / RID /p/ CD t ' / r c\j O A,_WETLANDS BOUNDARY LINE Z RESIDENCE O CA PIPE/ / / O 100 / _ t/ / 6.1 �� l 16e.80' 200.94 S.oil�6 0600rW. I *NitLA/ now Or fTl evrbOrp Cps/a�2o} 322.95' Lot 43 (VACANT) ;D 01 O 0'- Cc a3 6q, NEW SUFFOLK AVENUE SURVEY FOR WILLIAM MOORE a BENJAMIN L. HERZWEIG NOTES: 1. _MONOMENT LOT 42, "MATTITUCK ESTATES,INC." JUNE 5, 1987 2. 3=STAKE AT MATTITUCK DATE JUNE 4, 1987 3. SUBDIVISION MAP FILED IN THE OFFICE OF TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCALE: 1"= 40' THE CLERK OF SUFFOLK CO. ON SEPT 8,1965 AS FILE NO.4453 SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YOM 140. 87 - 939 4. SUFFOLK CO. TAX MAP DIST 1000 SECT.I15 BLOCK 05 LOT O7 *UNAUTHORIZED ALTEMTION OR ADDITION TO THIS SURVEY 8 A VIOLATION of fa CTION 720E OF THE 5. ---14--- = EXISTING CONTOURS NEW«YORKST EDIES OF UCATION NOT LAW KARNa THE LANDS`► E OF NffM,` 6. ELEVATIONS ARE REFERENCED TO SURVEVOR'S IMKEO SEAL OR EMBOSSED SEAL SHALL PD 1y O N.G.V.D. 1929 (MSL) NOT K CONSIDERED TO K A VALID TRUE COPY �► ` �f • K WARANT9E8 INDICATED HEREON SHALL RUN ONLY TO THE PERSON FOR WHOM THE SURVEY IS PREPARED j0 G AND 01 HIS BEHALFTo THE TITLE GOVERN- =LMENTAL AGENCY AN LENDING INSTITUTION LISTED HEREON,AND TO THE AfSISMKS OF THE LENDING =O INSTITUTION. WARANTEn ARE NOT TRANSFERABLE / TO ADDITIONAL INSTITUTIONS OR SUBSEQUENT OWNERS *DISTANCES SHOWN HEREON FROM PROPERTY LINE! 0 ^ — iUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES TOEKISTINa STRUCTURES 111E FOR A SPECIFIC U,(� PURPOSE AND ARE NOT TO K USED TO ESTABLISH D(AND ayOa PROPERTY LINES OR FOR THE ERECTION OF FENCES FOR APPROVAL OF CONSTRUCTION ONLY YOUNG & YOUNG 4000STRANDER AVENUE DATE HS REF. NO. RIVERHEAD, NEW YORK ALDEN W.YOUNG,PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER APPROVED AND LAND SURVEYOR N.Y-S.LICENSE NO.12845 HOWARD W.YOUNG, LAND SURVEYOR NZ N.Y.S.LICENSE NO.45893 SRANDIS A SONS INC. 10" �/ �g�trucK�o LSout old Town Boar' of Appeals o PP MAIN ROAD - STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765 1809 ACTION OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Appeal No. 3286 Application Dated September 5 , 1984 TO: Mr. Donald A. Denis , A . I .A . [Appellant (s) ] as Agent for JOSEPH GRASSO Route 25 Aquebogue , NY 11931 At a Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals held on December 20 , 1984 , the above appeal was considered, and the action indicated below was taken on your [ ] Request for Variance Due to Lack of Access to Property New York Town Law, Section 280-a [ ] Request for Special Exception under the Zoning Ordinance Article , Section [XX] Request for Variance to the Zoning Ordinance Article III Section 100-31 ( ] Request for : Application for JOSEPH GRASSO , c/o D . Denis , Route 25 , Aquebogue , NY for a Variance to the onln9 r lnance , Article III , Section 100-31 , Bulk Schedule , for permission to construct new one-family dwelling with j an insufficient frontyard setback at premises identified as County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-59-06-003 , located on the North Side of Sound View Avenue , Southold , NY ; (current owner : A . Milne ) . The board made the following findings and determination : [ This is an appeal from Article III , Section 100-31 , Bulk Schedule of the Zoning Code which requires a minimum setback from the front (roadl side ) property line of 35 feet for a new one-family dwelling . Applicant ;'f originally requested a setback of 12 feet , which was later amended to a �f setback of 18 feet with a slight change in the positioning of the house . The house proposed has an overall depth with the attached garage of 38 feet with variations to 16 feet at the easterly section of the house , as shown on the December 13 , 1984 plan prepared by Donald A. Denis , A. I . A. The premises in question has a depth along the westerly side of 104 . 40 feet; and at the center a depth of approximately 83 feet . This parcel fronts along Sound View Avenue along an arc 210 . 99 feet and along Great Pond at a tie line 112 . 42 feet . The house as proposed is positioned at the highest elevations of this parcel which at ground level vary between seven and 12 feet above mean sea level . For the record , it is noted that a variance to the Flood Damage Prevention Law has simultaneous- ly been filed under File #FL-15 , requesting a basement with utilities below the lowest floor minimum elevations in this A-10 ( El . 11 ) Flood Zone which has been denied as applied . It is the opinion of the board members that in view of the depth. of this parcel and its limited buildable area due to the "wet- lands" areas , practical difficulties in meeting the 35 ' front and 35 ' rearyard requirements do exist . However , it is also the opinion of the board that a 20-foot minimum frontyard setback is sufficient since. the dwelling could be modified an additional two feet without great hardship . By allowing a 20-foot setback from the required 35 , a variance of 43% would be sought which is substantial in light of the (CONTINUED ON PAGE TWO) C DATED: December 28 , 1984 . CHAIRMAN, SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Form ZB4 (rev. 12/81) Page 2 - Appeal No . 3286 Matter of JOSEPH GRASSO Decision Rendered December 20 , 1984 existing "established" setbacks in the area . In considering this appeal , the board has also determined : (1 ) that the circumstances are unique due to the topography , size and character of this parcel ; (2 ) that the variance for a 20-foot frontyard setback would not adversely affect neighboring properties ; (3 ) there being no objection concerning this matter , that the variance will be within the best interests of justice , as indicated below. Accordingly , on motion by Mr. Douglass , seconded by Mr . Goehringer , it was RESOLVED , that under Appeal No. 3286 , in the Matter of JOSEPH GRASSO, a new one-family dwelling BE PERMITTED TO BE CON- STRUCTED WITH A '20-FOOT FRONTYARD SETBACK, SUBJECT fa—f E 6 L WING CONDITIONS: 1 . There be no curb cuts directly south of the garage , and a hedge or other screening four-feet in height be placed along the ' area south of the garage (to prevent backing out) , and that same be maintained at all times ; 2 . Curb cuts may be permitted to the east and west front (road-side ) areas ; 3. The setback from the front property line not be less than 20 feet . Location of Property : North Side of Soundview Avenue , ' Southold , NY ; County Tax Map Parcel No . 1000-59-06-003. Vote of the Board : Ayes : Messrs . Goehringer , Grigonis , Douglass and Sawicki . Member Doyen of Fishers Island was absent . This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of the members present. 1 ER RD P �ViE ER , AI MAN December 28 , 1984 lk SMITH, FINKELSTEIN, LUNDBERG, ISLER AND YAKABOSKI - ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 456 GRIFFING AVENUE,CORNER OF LINCOLN STREET P.O. BOX 389 HOWARD M.FINKELSTEIN RIVERHEAD, N.Y. 11901 PIERRE G.LUNDBERG FRANCIS J.YAKAROSKI FRANK A.ISLER (516) 72]-4300 REGINALD C.SMITH SUSAN POST ROGERS 1926-1983 June 3 , 1987 Henry Smith, Chairman Board of Trustees Town of Southold Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Moore/Herzweig permit Dear Mr. Smith, I enclose herewith a photostat of letter forwarded by myself on this date to Mr. Moore and photostat of proposed covenants submitted by Mr. Moore for review by your Board. I will be speaking with you in the very near future on this matter. Ver truly yours, FRA C J. Y KK�IBOSKI FJY;dkw SMITH, FINKELSTEIN, LUNDBERO, ISLER AND YAKABOSKI LL-L ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW ---- -- • - - - 456 GRIFFING AVENUE,CORNER OF LINCOLN STREET P.O. BOX 389 HOWARD M.FINKELSTEIN PIERRE G.LUNDBERG RIVERHEAD, N.Y. 11901 FRANCIS J.YA BOSKI FRANK A.ISLER (516) 727-4100 H EGINALD C.SMITH SUSAN POST ROGERS ]926 1980 June 3 , 1987 William D. Moore, Esq. Suite 3, Clause Commons Main Road Mattituck, New York 11952 Re: Covenants and Restrictions for Southold Town Trustees re: Cramer/Moore permit Dear Mr. Moore, I acknowledge receipt of yours of May 27 , 1987 . I have forwarded your documents on to the Board of Trustees for their independent review; and will be back to you shortly with any comments we might have. My suggestion to you at this point is, however, that no covenants be filed until such time as the hearings before the Board of Appeals are concluded. Very truly yours, FRANCIS J. YAKABOSKI FJY: dkw cc: Board of Trustees Town of Southold r DECLARATION OF COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS This Declaration, made the day of 1987, by BENJAMIN L. HERZWEIG, residing at Maple Shade Lane, Stony Brook, New York and WILLIAM D. MOORE, residing at Terry Lane, Southold, New York. WITNESSETH WHEREAS, BENJAMIN L. HERZWEIG and WILLIAM D. MOORE, are the owners in fee simple of certain premises situate at Mattituck and known as "Lot 42" on a subdivision map entitled "Mattituck Estates, Inc. " which map was filed with the Clerk of the County of Suffolk on September 8, 1965 as file number 44553, described on the Suffolk County Tax Map as District 1000, Section 115, Block 05, Lot 07 and WHEREAS, the Southold Town Trustees, by resolution made on April 29, 1987 approved the application for a wetland permit for the construction of a single family dwelling on the above described premises and WHEREAS, the Southold Town Trustees approved said application subject to certain Covenants and Restrictions to be filed in the Office of the Clerk of the County of Suffolk, NOW, THEREFORE, in compliance with the resolution of said Southold Town Trustees, Declarants herein declare that the aforesaid land is held and shall be conveyed subject to the following covenants and restrictions which shall run with the land: 1 . The house is to be set back from the front property line no ( „ more than 25 feet. 2 . There shall be no disturbance within 30 feet of the marsh fringe as shown on the survey made a part of the application for the wetland permit on file in the office of the Southold Town Trustees except a 4 foot wide path shall be permitted to the wetlands for water access and/or catwalk assembly. 3 . There shall be no use of inorganic fertilizers on the property. Nor shall there be any managed turf areas. 4 . There shall be no decks or patios constructed at the rear of the property. 5. No inground sprinkler systems are permitted on the property. 6. If it is determined that the cumulative impacts of residential development on other lots in Mattituck Estates which border the headwaters of Deep Hole Creek, which at this date are undeveloped, has caused the pond area north of New Suffolk Avenue which borders this property to become anaerobic, then the sanitary disposal system presently approved by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services will be upgraded to the method of sewerage disposal then being approved by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services provided that the development of said unimproved lots, if permitted, is accompanied by a covenant and restriction to upgrade sanitary disposal systems as agreed to herein. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the foregoing Declaration has been 2 Covenants and Restrictions cont'd. executed by BENJAMIN L. HERZWEIG and WILLIAM D. MOORE, on the day and year first above written. Benjamin L. Herzweig William D. Moore STATE OF NEW YORK: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: ss. : On this day of 1987, before me personally came BENJAMIN L. HERZWEIG, to me known and known to me to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions, and he duly acknowledged to me that he executed the same. Notary Public STATE OF NEW YORK: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: ss. : On this day of 1987, before me personally came WILLIAM D. MOORE, to me known and known to me to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions, and he duly acknowledged to me that he executed the same. Notary Public DocId 052187 . 2 3 S.E.Q.R.A. FINDINGS IN THE MATTER OFCOL�e "/ n CRAMER/MOORE MEADOW LANE, MATTITUCK The following subjects represent the major impacts and their mitigation developed through the initial D.E.I.S. , Trustee scoping list leading to Response Comments, Public Hearings (2) , Work Sessions (2) review by experts, additional field studies and the F.E.I.S. Incorporating the relevant areas above. Each area will be briefly described with reference to three general categories as it might affect permitting; those areas being: 1. SITING: Includes physical protection of the Wetland, the Soil and Water Conservation and Wildlife values. 2. COMMUNITY VALUES 3. NUTRIENT ENRICHMENT OF POND All these will be described with reference to the scope and the relief requested of an impact. The degree of mitigation offered through the process. The degree of mitigation preferred by the Board, and the reasons supporting the determination. -1- SITING: Siting which includes the physical protection of the marsh, soil and water conservation and wildlife values. A. Relief is sought to place a house within 75' of the Wetland Boundary. Three alternatives offered are: 13' , 28' and 38' from this boundary. Extensive pre, during and post construction mitigative measures are described by the Applicant, Town Planner and Soil Conservation Service. Also included are the Applicants offer to protect the fringe with restrictive covenants ( C & R's) . Extensive Wildlife inventory on site by Applicant and experts revealed no animals receiving special legal protection, but many which are hardly "door yard" varieties and should be protected by maximum mitigation to any impacts to the fringe and protecting it. B. The mitigation offered is for three distances: 13' , 28' and/or 38' from the marsh and house size alternatives. C. Mitigation perferred: The Trustees interpret their 75' jurisdiction distance under Chapter 97 as a zone within which upland land use is to mitigate as many impacts as practical impinging on Wetlands. While the Board has a policy of minimum 50' buffer zones where practical, it has provided buffers of much less with properly mitigated upland land use. Construction controls offered by the Applicant and Town Planner including protective C & R's for most all land seaward of the rear of the house is preferred for maximum protection of the pond and to mitigate land use on site. Also preferred with respect to nutrient values is the no fertilizer option and containment of run off during and post construction. Protective plantings out side the C & R's Zone as described by the Soil Conservation Service, and no deck or patio at the rear of the house as described by the New York State D.E.C. Permit for Renate Reidel for the same lot are all indicated. Additionally, the Board prefers window area on the rear of the house be limited to no more than 1/3 greater than the minimum required by the New York State Building Code. There shall be no pets housed out side of the house for obvious reasons. The Boards preferred location is the 38' set back with essentially all land to the rear protected by C & R (except a buffer around the house for protective planting and/or fire control) as -2- the most responsible alternative in light of the wildlife values associated with the pond. Similar pond set backs exist for other houses in the area and this would permit a uniform buffer around the pond should the owners follow suit. D. Reasons supporting the siting are: 1. Options offered by the applicant are practical and mitigative. 2. Past history of permits on the site. 3. Extensive value community places on wildlife. 4. Mitigation of impacts will be total; possibly positive beneficial impacts if road noise can be reduced by plantings. COMMUNITY VALUES: The aforementioned siting contravenes the private subdivision front yard set back C & R's by 50% resulting in a set back of 25' from the road which will require additional consideration by the Zoning Board of Appeals under Town Code. Additional mitigation to minimize the visual impact of house size should be addressed by the Z.B.A. who has more experience in this type of action. The Trustees feel the health of the pond ecosystem should take precedence in any set back decision particularly as this is a head water of a creek which is poorly flushed but has a diverse and abundent wildlife population as found in the F.E.I.S. . The Trustees also want minimized, the managed turf areas consistant with this approach to minimize the apparent size of the house. It should be noted that the relief sought from both Public Law (Chapter 97 Wetlands) and Private C & R's with the 25' front yard set back is 50%. The intensity and number of persons raising concerns at the public hearings clearly weighed in favor of wildlife values. Any decision by the Z.B.A. or Court of Competent jurisdiction to set back the house further would require additional review by the Board as to potential impact. NUTRIENT ENRICHMENT: A. While applicant employed State of Art Methodology to compute -3- Nitrogen impact to groundwater; simple recalculation using methodology they provided, using an average of four locally available fertilizers at recommended rates for that front yard area of approximately 2500 sq. ft. and using a four person residency which is not unexpected(they used 2.54) would result in nitrogen loading of approximately 15 parts per million when put on the annual rain fall basis. While the major component of the sanitary system nutrients is expected to miss the pond as per the applicants F.E.I.S. and the Suffolk County Dept. of Health, this can not be said for the turf areas North West of the pond which may combine with a vector of unknown magnitude to the East from the sanitary system as described by Barbara Royce, in the expert review. This concern is substantive enough to limit all fertilizer nutrients on the site as offered in the D.E.I.S. to insure a maximal attenuation of any Vector that has not been described. No further permits should be granted for neighboring lots until a total nitrogen assessment is made. This applicants refusal to perform such cumulative nitrogen calculations, based on incorrect speculation that the New York State D.E.C. routinely denies applications below the 10' contour and that the Town Planner could legally prevent building on neighboring lots are not substantive The other reasons given above do indicate that it is not expected there would be a significant impact from the construction with mitigated upland land use. This applicants failure to perform such cumulative nitrogen calculations should result in a C & R burden for this site to upgrade sanitary system nutrient removal capabilities should applications for neighboring lots determine more removal is necessary. INTENT OF PERMIT (Subject to proper language of C & R's by Town Attorney) House to be sited a minimum of 25' from the road. C & R's to protect in perpetuity 30' of the marsh fringe, excluding 4' wide path to wetland for water access/and or catwalk assembly. No use of inorganic fertilizers anywhere, no "Turf" area, no deck or patio areas to rear and rear window area no more than 1.33 times State Building Construction Code. Conditions of Permit: As described in siting, the various methods that were offered as far as crane excavation, removal of material from the site, the use of hay bales and geo-textile as depicted in the Soil Conservation Service report. No sprinkler system on the site. (ingrc. _ d) . C & R's FOR NUTRIENTS: At the option of the Applicant(s) they may either: C & R future upgrading of Sanitary System or upgrade current planned system to State of Art if approved by the County Health Department. Final wording of C & R's to be between Attorneys for the Town and Applicant with approval of Trustees. Details of Permit Fees, Building Construction time frame and inspections required are to be set after the C & R's are addressed. All permits are presently one (1) year duration. VOTE OF BOARD ON FINDINGS Moved by Trustee Bredemeyer seconded by Trustee Goubeaud it was RESOLVED to approve the Boards findings and reasons supporting the Findings regarding the Cramer/Moore Wetland Application for construction of a single family dwelling on Meadow Lane, Mattituck. Vote of Board: Ayes: Trustee Smith, Trustee Krupski, Trustee Larsen, Trustee Bredemeyer, Trustee Goubeaud THIS RESOLUTION WAS DECLARE DULY ADOPTED. VOTE OF BOARD ON PERMIT Moved by Trustee Bredemeyer seconded by Trustee Goubeaud it was RESOLVED to Approve the Wetland Permit in the matter of the application of Cramer/Moore for the construction of a single family dwelling on Meadow Lane, Mattituck subject to the preferred site set backs and C & R's as described in the findings and subject to the proper language of the C & R's by the Town Attorney. Vote of Board: Ayes: Trustee Smith, Trustee Bredemeyer, Trustee Goubeaud Nay: Trustee Krupski, Trustee Larsen THIS RESOLUTION WAS DECLARED DULY ADOPTED. / . 9 Lruss xoao wldge, m. v. *przl zo, i*u/ Mr. Henry P. Smith. Presioenr board of Town Trustees | own of G"otnolo jown Hal !, 53095 Main Hc,ao P. U. box 728 Southold, N. Y. ! 1971 He: Review or uramer/Moore Project uear nr^ amznx : inclosed please rind my critique of the urart Envzron~ mentas impact Statement anu the Hesoonse to comments on tne Cramer/Moore project. The findings can generally be cate— g"rizeo as Copics which had neen mzsinterpreteo and reovireo rlarzrzcavzon anp tonics ror wnzcn tnere aopears co be inaoequate information. ` he majority of finc3ngs are wimn regard to items navzng relatively minor zmoacts^ however, the toozc of contaminant transport may require aoWtiona/ consineration. Please be aovzsed that tne enclosed critique required a total or eight ,*) hours ior preparation. As per our agree— Ae*t, tne rnarge rcr Cnzs service ks $30 per no,r. inzs resu^ts in a consultant fee rf 0140 wn/cx can ue svomitteo to me at the address anove. Very truly yours, Haroara H. Royce Gzvzi ano =r.vzrnnmental tngineer Critique of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Meadow Lane Residence, Mattituck and the Response to Comments on the Meadow Lane Residence, MattitucK Prepared for Board of Town trustees Town of Southold April 198/ warbara H. Royce Civil and Environmental angineer ine rollowin❑ comments are nasea on a rav:eaw or :ne Draft Crlvironmentai imoacs Statement whin) anc une !il°nLJot'i'=((:1 to uomments. ;me actual r otor unces C_':vud in tn& x of.in were not reviewed. H memorandum dated marcm a. i98i won nLso Provided in wnion comments are aresenGed Uv a %lydropeologi5'c at ttne WUl`foiK Lounty Uepartment of Heal.tn 7ervlcas r_t7...c Far reviewing 'Ghe hyorogeoi qic a u ects of l;ne same materiai. It is recognized tna'C Were may 1_le atsdi Lionai sources or in'normation„ or u _. rosp_nuenco and C" nver'7 zi ns Jeeaaer! 'L h'E' 5outnolo aow'n f; USCees and trio _property ownerslaoulicanc_�. wnicn miun'c urovioe .itaoitil:nai inSiUML to 309e :+I „ne SUDIUll c 1sr_u•ssou below. " ors 't.,_1eat ' to Lie some UlTl'er nq V.lawn or.. Jrovwr"- y on 0 iew 'ct ,raca_ it cno HUSDQnse to t_ mmuntz an Vaw s A%, W t'iacn Unou o be rosoived. ihis 'review Oas al3r; .t") nsirie,T' SOME tom!.cs wnicM may recuire ciiar;. (`_cat .i.on :r anoitl,onit inrormation. I10 rindInUS 4f hl% C L''IQUU are )r ''v':C.'w(:: Below. 1. no cr_n 'onzr"'acion r._ I ,r 4;1`iemicd.L in wooer, represents a measure or the wasp_ or roe constl'vuent in .a liven Voi Uile 01 We w:' Ger. 1' Cr": NLCd.'. constituents in tM"Our d u 1'iot oQulriva In too "On se '„Mau 'Ln.:-a nt.Iner'icalr 'aluos can ue oumwea otjet;"ur, r HAami .0, Al .a waste stream wit" <.i n " , rrt'._p we" I •ta' a 'u= (}o a recu'.lvinu water :Ni'Ln a c"'IC'enso axiorl r no .r Q/ ' 'rr „' same constituent, the resulting concentration would not necessarily be 24 mg/ l. H mass balance on the parameter of interest must be performer to determine the resultant concentration. 1heretore, it several ditferent errluenc streams discharged into the same body of water, the resultant Concentration would depend on the concentration of the constituent in each effluent stream, the quantity or each effluent stream, the concentration of the same constituent in the receiving water, and the quantity or the° receiving water as well as the amount of mixing that is expected to occur. 2. 9rol.ind water moves In accoroance wi nn the hydrau.i ir- gradient, from areas of high head to areas or low nead. Wontour lir:es on Water taole reaps connec'G point, of equal head and the ground water movement is perpendicular to them. 3. H ground water contour map of the general site area is provided in the Response to Comments (Figure r'-e) . this mai) is based On water :P_v[:l monitoring d.A'Ca shown in lab.Le I---i. Figure 1--r Goes not include a north arrow however, it is tnoluded on similar site maps in 'the Solt. inese Were used to identify the approximate location of the north arrow on "LgUre r-:_. H review or rigure aater• aopAying cni s method indicates that the cirection :r gerund water flow In We :area appears eo ue souvn-soutneast ,as repoorted in toe jL i b. � A oyorogenlngist at the hutfolk LounUy Deuartment or Health Services (SCDxG) also reviewed the MIS. bne of the findings was tnat "tne ozreptzon of regional ground water flow in the project area is cue south, and not south- southeast as indicated in one DEIh''. While it is recognized that the &CDHS hy0rogeolopist may have access to aooitinna/ information upon which this statement is oaseo° it is nvzeo that no audztzona^ information supporting tnis statement was provided. 4^ "ePatowsvi Hssoczates, Inc" kb^1 / and %ne hcutno/u : own Conservation Advisory Council (CHC/ raised some very valid questions in tnezr reviews of tne uni6, zne majority or wnicn have been amequately aooresseo in one xesponse yo Comments. nowever, an the response to VAI ^ s seventn zzem (with regard to oistxrbance below the ten root contour) , the last sentence states that ^Copies of corresnondence and reviseo permit is found in the appencix"^ Wnpzes of tne rorresoonnence were round in tne apuenozx altxouon it appears tnat a copy or xhe revised permit may nave Oeen inadvertently omztted. Were is still one area wnicn remains unresoiveu or unclear: the ozrection of around water flow and tMe extent oi tne potential nitrate plume rrom the sanitary rie(o nave noz been adequately adUresseo, Me Flow ono transport of chemical constituents In ground water can be influenced by mecnanisms such as advect "Ont, dispersion, bii'ruslont, absorption, entrapment, decay, and transformation. H brief discussion of these mechanism, is provided to, aid in the t_lnderstand:inq or the transport of constituents in ground water. Indvec^tion :is that portion of transport which is attributable to the flowing ground water. Hydrodynamic dispersion, is respons:ibte for tine spreading of the constituent away from the flow path that it would normally Vol low by advecct ion. Hydrodynamic dispersion nas been cescrioec as thy_ r ixl.-,.i and spreading of particles partially due to microscopic variations within individual pores (Anber'son, 19/0) . Hydrodynamic dispersion can be expresseo in terms of two components, molecular dirrt. ston anti alsoersivity. ulrFus;lor, is generally not considered in most ground water anaivse�-i because it is very small an comparison with dismernivSTv r,Yrt:r is 'significant only at tow velocities, Jisoersivity is a property Whtdh is characteristic of W& dorous media.. 'Nne'r, there are variations of hydrologic the hydros . _, properties within aquifer, di Perwi n Odcur•s as me soiute -0 vus s(' i_'ct: :v, ;.y around less permeable units of the tormatlon. HdsorptiO'n :is We pnysicoonemical Wrce oy which a contaminant is retained in a mass of soil , ar� '. t 13 taf?S"Cri bBC1 as the partitioning ioninr drd � ,.:�{" l '. �...;,� ,p::,gt!tll Y,arl l'; :ietW?ert .: t llil solid phases in the J44`Ous media (freeze and Cnwrry, !.019J. hP3 NMOUnt of GOn Oa;rlManL 6VAL AS OdSorMd On tht soil ' is function Of its cOncentratiOn OnO a; no deaenos an, uoto ne cnemistry of one water and of tie geologic weoia. -Ke transfer of contaminant mass fron the pore water to the solid part of tne porous media Ay apsorpui:n remains in tn,:� migration of the conramznant front at a rate slower txan WE., ground water itself. Entrapment is xoe process whereny contaminants become trapped in small pores within the geologic formation and zan contrzvvte to a reouctinn in the total concentration o� constituent flpw4ng tnrnogM the porous media. A constAtuen: in 3rv"nn water can also ue acted upon oy the mecnanzsms o� oecay or transformation. Some constituents can secay an, se reu^red in mass; ntners can decay anu ae tra»sformeu znoo different products. 6°:et1wes trese uy-;rnoucts are o " :ore concern tnan tne ori ,znai cc:suiouenv . ! Me geology oT one aquifer Pluys a very s,goz 'ceno .o. :, in the transport of constituents. lie ~ate uf* ausonqcion yr contaminants varLes according to the media torcu2n Sr^cn iG is flowing. Ane geologic conuitzons of a given aquarer wxi .� also affect the direction and rate of flow of flulu in that aquifer" VariatLons in geo.oqic orowervzes ,:cn as t:e porosity, uermeauinl :y anr hyora, . ic conouctxv: Gy caf � affect the oirecticn and rate of tlew^ .ce orzsence of clay ienses can aiso influence the flow° imer fuccars chat can influence tne rate aro ozrection of wuunu sacur io^ ar� uvmpinu or injection we/ is and areaw of recnar.ce or o�scnarge" The shape of a contaminant nlvme is unique rcr eac" source because of variable Mydrngeologip conditions anc� mennanzsms of contamination. NOW contaminant 3!u4cs tend to elliptical in shape. " he plume spreaOs lateray as It zs transported away trom cne source oua to tMe o:sperslve Properties Of the given formation. matnematipa\ models are frequently vseo to preuict t^e extent of contamination in ground waters. H ground water mnoel is an eouatzrn or set or equations a^zcx cescripe tne pnysical processes ocurrin; in she aouzfcr. !mesa equations, naseo on tne laws of conservation or wass, momentum, and energy, taxe one form of partial differential. equations and can 3e soiveo ay various vatoematzuui ,/et''aon , . Mere are a variety of groeny water Wcce.s av0. 1ao.0 . `. tne open iitera:ure^ 00*e arm //ur: wove .coozsGIcW./o -ar others" Simple grpuno water mocels can be useo to perfor'o a noynoing or worst case ana1ys13 ^owever tney must je apolzcaole to Ume contaminant release scenario no to :ne quo^ogy at the urte or interest. * orouno water "ace . cuuno oe used Co preczcv the extent of contamination ror 17e sanitary +ie10 at toe yeaoow Lane resioance, owever : snould ue noteo tnat one i/alb ures not orcvive o/+f : c, ens information on tMe gecloqy or one aquifer t/, cc no, 1-1 should aise be recogn: zeo Lnal sucn a: anaLysiy L�ay not oe necessary if t"e oirecoion nr rounu wauer riow and cle excent ol one potentza / njurate p/ une can oe ctner oev"oos. References Anoen5on, M. P. , Using MadeAs to Simulate the Movemenu ol- Contaminants tMrougn 6rouna Water Flow Systems, CRC Criticaj. AeVLeWS zn Environmental Uonwrol, q:&:q7-jb6, Nov. IjiV. Freeze, H. P. and J. H. Cherry, Groundwater, Prentice-Hall, inglew000 LlittS, NJ 19/0. L m Southold Town Board of Appeals 04 MAIN ROAD - STATE ROAD 25 SOLJTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. April 6 , 1987 ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWICKI William D . Moore , Esq . Clause Commons , Suite 3 Main Road , Box 23 Mattituck , NY 11952 Re : Appeal No . 3412 - Moore and Herzweig (Variance ) Dear Bill : Please be advised that the Board has considered your request of March 27 , 1987 , and at our Regular Meeting held April 2 , 1987 , has reaffirmed that this file is incomplete pending receipt of : (a ) finalization of the SEQRA process , including submission of the Final EIS and Final SEQRA reviews and determination ; (b ) copy of the wetlands-permit-action of the Town Trustees as required by Chapter 97 of the Town of Southold . You have advised that all actions by the Town Trustees are expected April 30th , and it is our understanding that you have been advised to submit the Final Environmental Impact Statement no later than April loth . In the interim , please arrange to have all corners of proposed new construction flagged ( including steps , decks etc . ) at the outside perimeter for on- site inspections . Also , to help to expedite this matter , please furnish us with six copies of the Final EIS for our joint review under SEQRA , and copies of any and all communications and actions / J 4i A Page 2 - William D. Moore , Esq . April 6 , 1987 Re : Appeal No . 3412 - Moore and Herzweig by other agencies which may be pending at this time concerning this project . Thank you for your cooperation . Yours very truly , GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN lk cc : Southold Town Trustees P . S . At your convenience would you please furnish photographs of the "flagged" area between the proposed new construction and the wetland areas , and confirm the date and time taken , for the record . Thanks for your assistance . Pic 9/ -7W) _ J4,- < < WILLIAM D. MOORE ATTORNEY AT LAW SUITE 3, CLAUSE COMMONS MAIN ROAD MATTITUCK, NEW YORK 11952 (516)298-5674 April 2, 1987 Ms. Barbara Royce Division of SEP Bldg. 535-A Brookhaven Lab Upton, NY 11973 Dear Ms. Royce: We understand that the Southold Town Trustees have asked you to review a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and the Comments and Reponses generated by a review of this DEIS. We are the property owners/applicants involved. As the result of a Trustee' s work session, a request was made to the Suffolk County Department of Health Services to review the hydrological data contained in the DEIS and to__p�ss upon the validity and conclusions drawn therein. Enclosed , for your information and review are the memorandum and letters received from Health Services indicating that groundwater flow will not adversely affect the adjacent wetlands. If you have any questions, or if we can provide any additional information please do not hesitate to contact us. Very t�r} iy, y o rs, Id Liam D. Mo. e enjt n r ig cc: Southold Tow Trustees/ Southold Town Attorney DocId 040287.003 µ J Es HENRY P. SMITH, President TELEPHONE JOHN M. BREDEMEYER, Vice-Pres. u gas PHILLIP J. GOUBEAUD %"° ra " rn (516) 765-1892 tY� I�e: �M. ALBERT KRUPSKI, JR. ELLEN M. LARSEN BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES /n/ TOWN OFSOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 Date: April 15, 1987 To: Involved Agencies From: Southold Town Trustees As Lead Agency Re: Project Wetlands Permit Application No. 312 of Thomas W. Cramer/William Moore/Benjamin Herzweig The following documents constitute the final Environmental Impact Statement for this project. Due to a clerical error, the following items were inadvertently omitted from the package sent to you on April 13, 1987. New Table of Contents for Impact Statement Comments from Martin Garrell, Phd Comments from Suffolk County Soil Conservation Service Resume' of Barbara Royce, Civil and Environmental Engineer Question and February 19, 1987 Response of Item Number Ten Communication with N.Y. S .D.E.C. Comments of Mrs. Dove (Minutes of the March 3 , 1987 Special Meeting) Results of Additional Field Studies In total, you should possess the aforementioned documents, the critique of the DEIS prepared by Barbara Royce, the FEIS of Cramer and Voorhis Associates, and the DEIS and response comments already sent you under separate cover. y I& �7 -z- Additional copies of these items are available at the Trustees ' Office. Very truly yours, HPS:JW Henry P. Smith, President cc - Robert A. Greene, D.E.C. , Stony Brook Commissioner Henry G. Williams, D.E.C. , Albany Stephen Mars, Amry Corps of Engineers Thomas Hart, Coastal Management Conservation Advisory Countil Bldg. Dept. / Board of Appeals Town Clerk' s Office William D. Moore, Esq. Benjamin Herzweig, Esq. Trustees File r J HENRY P. SMITH, President 'Y TELEPHONE JOHN M. BREDEMEYER, Vice-Pres. PHILLIP J. GOUBEAUD (516) 765-1892 Wj , iA ALBERT KRUPSKI, JR. ' `Z- ELLEN M. LARSEN BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OFSOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 ADDITIONAL FIELD STUDIES An additional 10 hours of Field Studies by Robert Gerdts and John Bredemeyer during daylight hours in late March and April revealed no additions or alterations to the wildlife list. a / /'Q John Bredemeyer, Vice President Southold Town Trustees tJ 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Annexed hereto are the following documents to be considered the preface to this Impact Statement per the Southold Town Board of Trustees. COMMENTS FROM MARTIN GARRELL, PHD COMMENTS FROM SUFFOLK COUNTY SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE RESUME ' OF BARBARA ROYCE, CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER QUESTION AND FEBRUARY 19, 1987 RESPONSE OF ITEM NUMBER TEN COMMUNICATION WITH N.Y. S.D.E.C. COMMENTS OF MRS. DOVE (MINUTES OF THE MARCH 3 , 1987 SPECIAL MEETING) RESULTS OF ADDITIONAL FIELD STUDIES INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 TRUSTEE ' S COMMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 SAIREVIEW. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 CACREVIEW. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 RESPONSE TO SAI REVIEW. . . . . . . . . . RESPONSE TO CAC REVIEW. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 NITRATE IMPACT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 WILDLIFE SPECIES LIST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 SMALLER HOUSE ALTERNATIVE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 FLOWPLUME. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 NITRATES & VIRUSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 GROUNDWATER & SOIL CHARACTERISTICS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 REFERENCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 APPENDIX. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 SCDHS CORRESPONDENCE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 DECLARATION OF COVENANTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 014 TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D) WILDLIFE SURVEY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 ENGINEER' S CORRESPONDENCE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 CORRESPONDENCE AS RESULT OF WORK SESSION SCDHS CORRESPONDENCE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 ORNITHOLOGIST CORRESPONDENCE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 NOTICE OF RECEIPT OF DEIS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF DEIS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 ENVIRONMENTAL NEWS BULLETIN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 UNIVERSITY GARDEN CITY LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK 11530 DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICS - AND ENERGY STUDIES (516)294-8700,x7373 TO: Southold Town Trustees FROM: Dr. Martin H. Carrell, Chair, Dept. of Physics and Energy Studies Research Collaborator, Brookhaven Laboratory, Dept. Applied Sciencc Member, National Association of Environmental Professionals It is my opinion that the collection of documents accumulated thus far in the matter of T. Cramer (application of same or Moore) for a wetlands permit is insufficient for preparation of a final impact statement (FEIS) In addition to the draft statement (DEIS) , comments and responses to com- ments, at least two additional matters should be addressed before proceed_ These are the following: 1 - Modeling groundwater flow using analytic methods or finite element methods . Through computer techniques it should be possible to clearly map the cesspool plume as the nutrient- loaded effluent moves outward . 2 - Determination of the trophic status of the pond adjacent to the property in question. There are serious questions as to whether or not this pond is threatened by nitrogen or phosphorous inputs, and it is not clear whether the pond and creek system is nitrogen - or phosphorous-limited . In order to resolve these two points, further study and further documentation by competent environmental analysts will be required . Sincerely, Martin H. Carrell Associate Professor Adelphi University MHG:am 3/3/87 MARTIN H . GARRELL - Curriculum Vitae UNIVERSITY EDUCATION: B .A . Princeton University , 1960 M.S. University of Illinois at Urbana , 1962 Ph .D . University of Illinois at Urbana , 1966 . Period PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE 1960-1966 Nuclear Physics and solid state physics , including University of Mossbauer Techniques . Cryogenic techniques . Under- Illinois at graduate teaching in elementary physics for engineers Urbana and students in the physical sciences . 1966-1968 Experimental High energy physics , including data D. E. S. Y. analysis and small computer systems . Hamburg 1968-1970 Undergraduate teaching in elementary physics for University of engineers and students in the physical sciences . Illinois at Experimental high energy physics including complex Chicago Circle counting and coincidence techniques . 1970-present Undergraduate teaching in the following areas : Adelphi University electronics , machine shop, environmental problems , medical physics and biophysics , elementary physics for pre-medical and biology students , theoretical physics (mathematical methods) . Graduate teaching in the following areas : reactor physics , physical oceanography , electronics , thermodynamics , solar heating and cooling systems , mathematical methods. Research: Physics applied to environmental problems . [later quality problems - lake and stream rehabilitation . Energy studies . Haste management . ' -2- " PUBLICATIONS Books : Chapter on "Interesting Mossbauer Isotopes , " pp 213-222 , in _ Applications of the Mossbauer Effect in Chemistry and Solid State Physics , published by Vienna IAEA , 1965 . Authors : M . Ata, H. Frauenfelder and M. Carrell . Journals and Reports 1 . "Thick Target Elastic Scattering. " W. Daehnick , M. Carrell R. Sherr and R .M . Wood, APS Bull . 6 , 25 (1961) . 2 . "Lifetime of the 26 . 8 keV State of 1-129 . " H. DeWaard , M. Carrell and D . Hafemeister, Phys . Letters 3, 59 (1962) . 3. "Collimation Tests on a Coherent Photon Beam from a Silicon Target. " M. Carrell , L . Criegee , H. Sadrozinski , U. Timm, W. Zimmermann . Phys . Letters 28B, 140 (1968) . 4. "Rho Production with Polarized Photons . " L . Criegee , M. Carrell , C. Gottfried , A . Kroltzig, G . Loeffler, A . Saulys , K. P. Schuler, U . Timm, W. Zimmermann , H. Werner, G . B. Collins , P. W. Dougan , E. von Goeler and R .A . Carrigan, Phys . Letters 28B, 282 (1968) . 5 . "Beta-Gamma-Gamma Correlation in Mn-56 : A Test of Time Reversal Invariance . " M. Carrell , H. Frauenfelder, D. Ganek and D. C . Sutton . Phys . Rev. 187 , No . 4 , 1410-1413 (1969) . 6 . "A Determination of the wa Spin-Density , � P y , Matrix Elements in the Reaction n-p " wo n . " L . Holloway , B. Huld, M. Jordan , D . Mortara , E. Rosenberg, A . Russell , S. Bernstein , M. Garrell , S. Margulies and D. McLeod. Phys . Rev. Letters Vol . 27 , No . 24 , 1671-1673 (1971 ) . 7 . "Investigation of the Reaction 7- p - Won at 3 .65 , 4 . 50 and 5 . 50 GeV/C . " L. E. Holloway , B. Huld, M. Jordan , D . Mortara , E. Rosenberg, A . Russell , S. Bernstein , M. Carrell , S. Margulies and D . McLeod. Phys . Rev. D, 8 , No _ 9 , 2814-2826 (1973) , 8 . "The Physicist as Environmental Scientist . " M. Carrell , APS Bull . 18 , 24 (1973) . 9 . "Effects of Hypolimnetic Aeration on Nitrogen and Phosphorus in a Eutrophic Lake . " M. Carrell , J . Confer , D. Kirschner and A . Fast . Water Resources Research , Vol . 13 , No. 2 , 343-347 (1977) . 10 . "Maintenance of a Trout Fishery by Aeration in a Eutrophic Lake . " M. Carrell , A . Gibbs and R . Miller . N. Y. Fish and Game Journal Vol . 25 , No . 1 , January 1978 . 11 . "Seeforellen in New York State . " M. Carrell and L. Strait , Now York Fish and Game Journal , January 1982 , Vol . 29 , No . 1 , pp 97- 100 . -3- 12 . "Environmental Risks Associated with the Commercialization of Enhanced Oil Recovery . " E. Riedel , M . Carrell , E. Kaplc J . Sathaye, and G . Berman; SPE/DOE 9819 , p. 613 . Proceedii of the Second Joint SPE/DOE Symposium on Enhanced Oil Recovery , 1981 . Published in the Oil and Gas Journal Oct . 5 , 1981 , pp. 157-164 . 13 . "Proceedings of Department of Energy/Office of the Environment Workshop on Enhanced Oil Recovery: Problems , Scenarios and Risks . " E. Kaplan, M . Carrell , E. Riedel and J. Sathaye . BNL Report-51406 , August 1981 . 14 . "Assessment of Environmental Problems Associated with Increased Enhanced Oil Recovery in the United States•: 1980-2000 ;' E. Kaplan , M . Carrell , B. Royce, E.F . Riedel and J . Sathaye . BNL Report-51528 , Nov. 1981 and January 1983 . 15 . "Identification of Water Requirements for Selected Enhanced oil Recovery ,+tethods . " B. Royce , E. Kaplan , M . Ga2'fell , and T. N . Geffen, BNL Report 51595 , Sept . 1982 . 16 . "Assessment of Water Issues Associated with Enhanced - Oil Recovery : A Users Guide" Part II; FOR Process Water Requirements and Usage, F. Kaplan , B. Royce, M . Carrell , and T. Geffen . USDOE Report pp . 16-60 BC 10412-40, April 1983 . 17 . "A Methodology for Modeling the Migration of FOR Chemicals in Freshwater Aquifers" . B . Royce, M . Carrell , A . Kahn , E. Kaplan . Bartlesville Energy Technical Center, USDOE DF.-AP19-82BC-99996 . Also BNL Report 34711 . 18 . "Enhanced oil Recovery Water Requirements" . B. Royce , E. Kaplan , M . Carrell , T. Geffen . Minerals and the Environment , 1984 , v . 6 , pp . 44-53 . 19 . "An Environmental Assessment of Enhanced Oil Recovery . " E. Kaplan, 11 . Carrell , B. Royce, E. F . Riedel , J . Sathaye, and C . Rotariu . Minerals and the Environment , 1984 , v . 6 , pp . 54-65 . 20 . "An Analysis of Potential Impacts of Underground Injection Control Regulations on Enhanced Oil Recovery in the United States . " B. Royce , M . Carrell , E. Kaplan . BNL Report for USDOE 11A-01-01-02 , .March 1985 . n -4- COMMUNITY ACTIVEfli-S Vice-President , North Fork Environmental Council . OTHER NSF Chautauqua on Man, Technology and Environment, 1973-74 , at Hampshire College . Attended and presented paper on "Impact of Land Development in Lewisboro, N. Y. " NSF Chautauqua on Energy Problems, 1974-75, at Hampshire College . Attended and presented paper on " prospects for Power in the Long Island Region . " NSF Chautauqua on Qualitative Physics at Polytechnic Institute, White Plains , 1983 . AWARDS AND FELLOWSHIPS NSF Cooperative Fellowship, 1960-61 . Volkswagen fellow at D . E. S. Y. 1966-68 . Receipt of grant from Union Carbide, Inc . , 1973-75 . PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS American Physical Society (Forum on Physics and Society) Sigma Xi American Association of University Professors National Association of Environmontal Professionals PEP.SONAL DATA Born : January 4 , 1939 'tarried : Wife, ,7anot , rocoivod A . B . at Univ. of Illinois , Urbana , Currently reporter-editor of the Suffolk Times , Greenport , N. Y. Spoken and written lanyuages besides English: German , French and Russian . ACTIVITIES 017TSIDE THE UNIVFRSITY (CURRENT) 1 . Researcher and consultant, Department of Applied Sciences , Brookhaven National Laboratory , Upton , N . Y. 2. Chairperson , Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council . 3 . CO-Chair, Citizens Advisory Committee for U . S . Environ- mental Protection Agency Study (3 years) of Long Island Sound . 4 . Vice-President, North Fork Environmental Council . UNIVERSITY ACTIVITIES (NON-DEPARTMENTAL) 1 . Member, Undergraduate Academic Affairs Committee . (Standard Subcommittee) 1977-79 . 2 . Member , Graduate Academic Affairs Committee, 1975 . 3 . Member , Freshman Orientation Committee, 1972-74 . 4 . - Department Representative on Faculty Senate, 1979-83 . Service split betwoen Lonq Range Planning Committee and Admissions Committee . 5 . Department Representative to AAIiP, 19,45 . 6 . Department Representative , Undergraduate Academic Affairs Committee, 1985-present . DEPARTm ENTAL TEACIIING Courses taught during previous ilea r : Ph,lsir-s 682 -- Thermodynamics - Graduate , Physics 620 , 630 -- Mathematical Methods of Physics - Gradua Physics 100 "Physics Zero" -- Undergraduate. DEPART.�IPf]TAL NON-TF.ACl1IVG RF.SPONSIRILITIFS Director, Applied Phys ; cs , 1970- 73 . Coordinator, lligh School Phve; ics Program, 1933-present , Designer ol- eight new courses , 1970-79 . Chair, Departmental Search Committee for New Appointments , 1983 . Chai r:rran ui Ocpartmcnt, 7086 . Functions includ', gra<7uate an,l acao7o111ic advisement , I or Seed Production ; -�. p Developed as a conservation plant. 'Lathco' • select coarse textured, shallow sails flatpea is valuable for suppressing the in- ' o I atpaN+ Sa " f� ,Si.� r vaston of woody plants. This characteristic • prepare clean seedbed k'Jr .}t _� j' Fj fzriy `L makes it a valuable plant to use on road- Gf�?' s `Y� 3=' Y i banks, logging roads,and utility rights-of-way c drill seed A .tt fbnkP � ' where it is desirable to retain open areas for 11 c11. t5, ,,•fit f a w wildlife, aesthetic purposes, or access to utilities. Flatpea generally produces a good seed clop, but pods ripen unevenly, making -� �I . ` . > t�@ c�tT+ki, ^'CS rx}s ywc[ 4', �.I C eft �fWr. f•Sl ?�C r �✓ �, ) i f t-' �.q 'rt I'd o� l ie. � �it l '£ti' y> 3'�t 4 :�'1 �: �.✓' .�harvest (hit cult. A certain portion of the seed a ` y ,. f , . i T ney�'' r�. � !l�; i t �"�alJ►i i�3 E.'Ut'i�:ridl i33t w�crop Brill be lost due to shattering of early � �� r i I, . �mete �F7�'"" ring pods and im m maturity of late atur- j �S � _t �+ j T k s si l r tt v, �( 4 Ttpical stand off7atpea on mine spoil #1 r �. y�l,,j w•,'af Ing pods. The average seed production at Big b l J� in Pennsylvania. �'t % t xSjtrF"i' •. ,>, A Ilats, New York for the period 1900through �itr�.?.<•ti yc�v Griki �� P" J. 1970 was about 300 pounds of clean seed leer act-e. i - Uses i+ Tom' ' Lathco flatpea is excellent for stabilizing pIviv disturbed and bare areas, controlling erosion, t and reducing water runoff. It provides effec- y �, • �•' ° ,;1 Lit the Northeast, flatpea usually produces F five cover on roadbanks, dams, borrow areas, t � f � gravel pits, and mine spoil. It is good ski �' !2ts:$hrtter seed yields on coarse restored or L ' �.t- .i, s'^ ,yxp �_',' j)Ra��t • r , �r i Cl-.; shallow soils that are c cesstccly well drainede slope cover, winter hardy, and holds the ¢� . f 3 ` ;Ind tend to be drouehty. When groscn on �!`� +1, �, :c � � snow cover. It forms a dense mulch that �,,ti•.,�'���'-'. �,.� +•>;,= t x� ��iv���,+jr' <. r r ^� �I Jri keeps soils friable. a q�.I'`�*• deeper soils with good fertility, Vigorous ` F ✓ -�S �✓ rat ,�� . e t %rgetalive growth often shades the flowers, _r�' .m Iedoces seed set, and makes harest more d i flicu lt. Deer use f latpea for bedding down in New • CONTROLS EROSION }+ 'lt; Hampshire Tfi • • • • • • • ' • • SUPPRESSES INVASION OF WOODY PLAN I S Additional information is available on the use and production of'Lathco' flatpea from • 3 Flatpea is used for food and cover by some P P PROVIDES FOOD AND COVER FOR �� 1, species of wildlife. Plantings in New Ilamp- Invconserationdistrict or SoilCousef- BIRDS AND SMALL ANIMALS ai � loon Service office serving your area. shire have been used by deer for bedding Assistance is available without regard to of r <fl,�,q f } f "rr `� ,� T = purposes. Grouse have been flushed from race, creed, color, sex or national origin. t"' J''>�' � f /.t �,' . 17'uu` ' +': plantings of flatpea on woods roads. Mourn- t tlr„i l i,yr; ing b doves feed on flatpea seed and pheasants have been observed to rise uncut stands for • 2'^ ✓ ; ;<i is ; ,.>"' roosting cover in Pennsylvania. Nligrating OSOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE -� ='• .2x. .w eve were observed grazing llal c to LJ us DEPARTMENT or AGRicucTURE Flatpea providing excellent cover and restrict- southern New Jersey. pt ing troody plant invasion along a ivoods March 1978 „S I r border in Connecticut. Establishment April 15 to May 15. Fall plantings, made Description Adapted to between August 15 and September 15, have • herbaceous • droughty soils • lime to pH 6.5 also proven successful. • long lived e partial shade • fertilize according to soil test • drill, broadcast, or h dromulch • deep rooted • low fertility Y • vet cold climate • on difficult sites,seed with grass ',� a nFr,r, • produces large seed y 3>; '.r rA."'•v' • seed in early spring or August 15— • produces nitrogen September 15 Is mulch all broadcast seedings Flatpea is adapted to a wide variety of �z. soil conditions. It has good drought toler- ance and does well on low fertility sites such as sands, gravels, and shales. It is not adapted �r FFe' to wet sites, but will grow on sites that are not well drained. It is slightly more acid tolerant Flatpea can be broadcast or hydroseeded than crownvetch or birdsfoot trefoil, toler- on steep slopes or rough sites where drilling Enlargement offaipea seed. ating a pH of 5.0. It is adapted throughout the is not possible. A relatively high seeding rate Northeastern States from Maine to Kentucky is needed to obtain satisfactory stands on and West Virginia. In the southern part of the steep slopes. Seed must be inoculated with � region, it is probably better adapted to areas specific bacterium. The use of soil amendments is beneficial N. of high elevation than scricea lespedeza. in stand establishment and development of cover. Lime is essential if the pfl is below 5.0 and is recommended on all sites with a pH below 6.0. As a general recommendation ..! � in the absence of soil tests, apply 2 tons o On these sites, mulch should be applied agricultural lime and 300-400 pounds of and anchored to provide suitable conditions 10-20-20 fertilizer or equivalent per acre Flatpea is a persistent perennial legume for seedling establishment. If the site is prior to seeding. Where site conditions allow, 7 Z accessible to farm equipment, the seed can be the lime and fertilizer should be worked into which was introduced into the U.S. from ��/ ij i drilled or band seeded at a depth of I the soil surface. Central Europe. It spreads by underground inch to I'/z inches. rhizomes and produces viny above-ground growth which forms a dense mat 2 to 3 feet high. the herbaceous stems die back to the ground each year. Its leaves are about 3 inches = -- long. Small, rose-colored flowers appear during June and July. Seeds are round or There- slightly flattened, almost ; s be included to /s inch in diameter. ��—_�� Flatpea stands are slow to develop. There- No particular disease or insect problems have — - fore, some grass will alway 1-cen noted in Flatpea in the Northeastern provide initial cover. For disturbed sites,a �tcs. — N_ rate of 30-40 pounds of flatpea with 5-10 ^V r pounds of ryegrass, or 15-20 pounds of tall fescue per acre is recommended. [lest results Area of adaptation of Lathro flatpea. will be obtained from early spring plantings, COUNTY OF SUFFOLK llict ael A. I.c�.rande SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT STANLEY A. PAUZER 015TRICT MANAGER :larch 6, 1987 Board of Town Trustees Town of Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, Mew York 11971 Attention: Ilene Pfif£erling, Secretary, Board of Tom Trustees Re: Thomas ']. Cramer - Wetland Application "o. 312 Dear :s. Pfifferling: I an forwarding to you a report on the Draft l;-ivircmmntl Impact State:rent (DRI ) for the *'ead(ye Lme residence in Iattituck, ?;ew York w'Tich you requested Februar7 27, 1987. This report was prepared by the L'Sl)A, Soil Ccnservation Service and I art sure you will find it very useful in arriving at your decisions. If you need any further information please contact me. Very truly yours, Stanley A. Pauzer District *tanager enc 127 EA5T WAIN STREET RIVERHEAD.NEA YORK 11901 15161727-2315 PLANTS FOR CONSERVATION IN THE NORTHEAST USDA - SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE CONSERVATION PLANT SHEET NE-9 REDTOP (Agrostis alba L. ) Uses : Redtop is used for erosion control , pastures , temporary grass in turf seedings , and occasionally for hay. It is often used for stabilizing critical areas , such as ditch �l and channel banks , strip mine spoils , and grassed waterways. Description: Redtop is a r iz o on: perennial grass ..� that makes a coarse but fairly r dense turf. Leaves are nar- row and sharp and about 3/8 , inch wide. The stems are slender, growing to 30 or 40 inches tall . Heads are py ramidal and reddish in color-- hence the common name of red- top. Varieties : No improved se - , ec ti ons or varieties of this f grass have been developed. \ � , Onlycommon redto is used. �Il p Sources : Redtop seed is reads yl available in the com mercial market. Adaptation: Redtop is wide - spread in the Plortheast. It �� ' �� 6 �q) �. '� f does better in the humid North than in the warmer climates of the southern portions. It will grow under a wide variety of soil and moisture conditions . It seems no other grass will tolerate so great a variety of conditions as this grass . It grows on very arid soils and poor clayey soils of low fertility. It is drought-resistnnL and is also a wetland grass. Cstablish;nent: Because of its small ;eed, redtop should have, a compa( L, we -preparecT seedbed. It may he sa:%n in early pring or late summ r. Seeding depth is 1/4 inch. Redtop is seldom ever seeded alone excel:i , -2- on occasion , for temporary or soil-conserving turf. Rates of seeding will vary depending upon purpose, and whether seeded alone or in mix- tures . When used for erosion control on critical areas , fertilizing is essential to give raoid cover. In mixtures , rates of 3 to 5 pounds per acre are generally used. For pure stands , seeding rates are frorn 10 to 30 pounds per acre. The high rates are used for critical area stabilization. Manaqement: Redtop is generally ZONE OF PRINCIPAL regarded as a poor land grass , ADAPTATION IN THE but it will respond to fertilizer and lime. It does not withstand NORTHEAST continuous close grazing. It ` •' : '''t•� will also disappear under fre quent close mowing. It will per- �,p^ sist longer on critical areasY 1 since the grass is not often har- r.;.;;;:r_:;.;�.._.:;:<• :. ' ,'� Redtop PLANTS FOR CONSERVATION IN THE NORTHEAST USDA - SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE CONSERVATION PLANT SHEET NE-4 REED CANARYGRASS (Phalaris arundinacea L. ) Uses : This grass is used for pasture, silage, hay, and erosion control . It is an l excellent grass for stabliz- iy ing waterways , healing and ,/�/ 49 controlling gullies , and pro- a �/ tecting shorelines of ponds 1 �1 and reservoirs from wave ' �i '�t� t m`Zi action. It also provides good cover for shooting /4' Y Description: Reed canary- grass is a long-lived clumpyI perennial with coarse rhi- zomes. It grows 4 to 7 feet tall . Under proper hay and �A pasture management, it makes � � ,��i �X� � a dense , close sod. Flower j ���• heads are 3 to 8 inches long. Branches of the head are open and spreading at flowering time. After pollen is shed, heads contract into semi- dense spike - like panicles. i LILL� Seeds mature unevenly from alp top of head downward and shat- ter soon after ripening, making the harvesting of seed difficult. Seeds are oblong, smooth, oily to the touch ; and are black , brown , or gray. Varieties : The most widely used variety is Ioreed. Others less known in the northeast are Frontier (Canada) , Superior (Oregon) , and R. P. 200 ( Iowa) . Kent's Dwarf is a low growing clone which shows promise for use in waterway and shoreline protection. Sources : Common types of Reed canarygrass are readily available from com- mercial sources. There are limited commercial sources of Ioreed and other named varieties . Kent' s D,aarf is only available at present from SCS Plant Materials Centers. -2- Adaptation: Does best under cool and moist climate. It makes best growth on fertile, moist, medium to fine textured soils , but is adapted to a wide range of soil moisture conditions . It grows well on swampy or overflow lands consisting of muck, peat, or sandy soils. It will withstand rela- tively long periods of inundation. ZONE OF PRINCIPAL Mature stands are quite drought ADAPTATION IN THE tolerant. It thrives in a pH range NORTHEAST ' of 5.0 to 7.5. YI :':: `•` Establishment: - The most satisfac- tory stands are usually obtained on well prepared seedbeds that are fine, firm, and free from weeds . Newly slashed or burned over brushland or timberland may make a satisfactory seedbed if reasonably firm and free of weeds. Broadcasting seed on weedy swamp areas does not result in satis- factory stands. Seed in spring or late summer. Late summer is the best time for seeding on poorly drained soils . Drill at a rate of 12-14 pounds Per acre when seeded alone and 6 - 8 pounds per acre when seeded with a legume. Seed should be planted to a depth of 1/4 to 1/2 inch. Since seed germination drops rapidly in storage , purchase seed showing at least 70 percent germination tested within 6 months. Pressing sod or jointed stems (nodes) into non - seedable wet sites often results in successful stands. Normally, pure seedings should be made because it is not very compatible with other plants. Coarse vigorous growth can impede flow in channels , especially those de- signed for low velocity. Can be used in deep gullies and drainage ditches where streamflow is rapid. Avoid planting in or near shallow drainage ditches , small ditches , or shallow ponds. Management: To obtain best quality forage, keep grass from getting too coarse or reaching maturity. This can best be done by selecting a site that permits proper and timely management. First grazing should be made before jointing occurs and between early and full head. Make first cutting for hay between early and full head stage. Make second and subsequent grazings and cuttings of hay when new basal sprouts appear at the soil surface. Graze or cut no closer than 2 to 3 inches , but 4 to 5 inch heights is preferable. Avoid overuse in wet areas since trampling will damage stands. Proper grazing management includes clipping a year. at least once When used for stabilizing watereiays or other critical areas , frequent wow- ing will result in reduced stands. Under these conditions ,mowings should not occur more than twice a year. Regional Technical Service Center Upper Darby, Pennsylvania October 1969 CNOO!�PSRATIVE Cornell University Cooperative Extension Association ENE+NTt�NSION State University of New York of Suffolk County TENSION�a `q U S Department of Agriculture 246 Grilling Ave., Riverhead, NY 11901 Telephone 516-727-7850 Home Horticulture Facts are provided free of charge as a �C���„—�+�q��-7,r,����,,��� public service to Suffolk County residents. _ y ®R) � LAWN MAINTENANCE GUIDELINES Determine the type of lawn grass that you want. Base your decision primarily on how much time, energy and money you intend to devote to your lawn. Select your lawn type from the following three types of suggested programs: 1. Minimum Turf Program: Satisfactory lawn in the spring and fall, but may be brown in a dry or hot summer. 2. Regular Lawn Program: A good lawn for the entire growing season. 3. Top-Quality Lawn Program: An excellent lawn for the entire growing season. G FOR A MINIMUM TURF PROGRAM: Use the fine fescue turf grasses. The hard and chewings-type fescues are good turf grasses for dry soils in either sun or shade. These usually go dormant and look dead during hot, dry spells, but green up with the natural rainfall and cool weather of autumn. The hard fescues may hold their color longer during prolonged periods of high summer temperatures. a. Mowing: Cut high - no lower than 2". Fine fescue may be cut with a rotary mower under minimum maintenance. b. Fertilize: Once each year, preferably in late September, with one pound of actual nitrogen per 1,000 sq. ft. Contact our office for information on Lawn fertilizing. C. Limestone: Keep the pH of the soil above 6.0. Have the soil tested to be sure you need limestone. Contact our office for information on soil testing, d. Insect Control: Chinch bugs can be especially damaging to chewings and hard fescues since they have limited spreading abilities. Treat at the first signs of injury. Grubs are another pest which could be a problem. Contact our office for up-to-date recommendations for control of these insects. e. A fungus disease called red thread can be a problem on fescue lawns . Contact our office for up- to-date recommendations for control of this disease. f. Water: Irrigation is not used for minimum maintenance lawns except when starting newly seeded lawns. -more- 110 �7 ir�®1�n[GeY�6ti�Q�IG Cornell University Cooperative Extension Association ,�lf�TtC'vs�® State University of New York of Suffolk County ri Il FG,vv� U S Department of Agriculture 246 Gaffing Ave.. Riverhead, NY 11901 Telephone 516-727-7650 N), Will 4r ® ! _i 2 1I7[t�WJ(7;J WIrl'li;ifr f 1 Home Horticulture Facts are provided free of charge as a public service to Suffolk County residents i�,,: � „�:--, � lc Turtgrass Varieties Tur}grass Varieties and Species Grass species Varieties F;ne rescue Comments Agram, Banner. 13111 Cl, Checker. tnsywa. Fine fescuT cerform well under low High6dnt. Jamestown Koket. R.'r'aF. mo's'ure and low mranienance conditions. Scatdis. Tournament.Waldina a''-C':Ja'nor! t.ldst oerd,m well in shade. Use in mixtures wllh olner lurfgrasses. Bipdrt and Scaldis P can be used aAne erennrar ryeg(ass Ali star. Biazer, C•ta:gn II_ Dasher_ D:oiomat. i-ese .d,,e!,es are more comdauble with Eva_Galor, Mal I1.Omega II. Palmer, cluecrass arq fescue than is common Pennant. Pennline, Prelude. Prenner. deren-ra 'yegrass Perennial ryegrass is Ranger, Regal. Repell and York:over II. Getter adaoted ;o southeastern New York Conatior5 It is more susceptible to diseases and winterkiu in upstate New York Requires medium lever of maintenance. Cfaeping dentgras5 Emerald. Pernc,oss. Penneagi e Pron For - roan:. g°! =curse use only and Seaside. . Tall/2SCL2 Adventure. 9r pdkSl::I Ciemiirl2. FaiCOn, Coa,?e to election CWlS2-12x1ur20 turf. Fir lawn. Houndog. Jaguar. Marathon. Requires 7 season of growth before it can Maverick. Mus:ar.g. eilymdin and Rede.. be used on recreational areas. Can be used or) lawns and athletic fields in southeastern New York. KEHPUCKY BLUEGRASSES (Poo pratensis L.) Kentucky bluegrasses, alone or in combination with other lawn grasses, are the most important lawn grasses for sunny conditions. when healthy, they have an attractive green color, medium-textured leaf blade, and an extensive root and rhizome system. The most favorable conditions for growth are cool growing temperatures, adequate soil moisture, and well-limed fertile soils with good drainage. Under conditions of moderate to dense shade, poor drainage, infertile and acid soils, and close mowing, Kentucky bluegrasses deteriorate into a .parse, unattractive turf- During hot dry, summer months, their rate If growth is reduced and the turf turns brownish. They recover quickly in the late summer-fall period with the return of cooler and more moist conditions. A large number of named varieties of Kentucky bluegrasses are presently available, and the list is rapidly increasing every year. Since there is no one variety of blue- grass which is resistant to all knon, disease., use a blend of several Kentucky bluegrass varieties. GJpJdrl'.uP •!V Or n Id. dP --^G+h' .o r•. en ddr Grrydm d�J Fmp-J ... nr nn ' ' . .,L4J arc P s b .Sid re Co�xge/oni",man 4eo . ., i111 esa ] ",V 5Vin' Zvp 'mr' m 4•C •ve 1-1-a STANDARD AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR SILT FENCE Definition A temporary barrier of geotextile fabric ( filter cloth) used to intercept sediment laden runoff from small drainage areas of disturbed soil. Purpose The purpose of a silt fence is to reduce runoff velocity .and effect deposition of transported sediment load. Limits imposed by untraviolet stability of the fabric will dictate the maximum period the silt fence may be used. Conditions Where Practice Applies A silt fence may be used subject to the following conditions: 1. Maximum allowable slope lengths contributing runoff to a silt fence are listed in the table below: Slope Maximum Slope Steepness Length (Ft) 2:1 50 3: 1 75 4:1 125 5: 1 175 Flatter than 5:1 200 2. Maximum drainage area for overland flow to a silt fence shall not exceed 1/2 acre per 100 feet of fence; and 3. Erosion would occur in the form os sheet eoriosn; and 4. There is no concentration of water flowing to the barrier. Design Criteria Design computations are not required. All silt fences shall be placed as close to the contour as possible, and the area below the fence must be undisturbed or stabilized. A detail of the silt fence shall be shown on the plan , and contain the following minimum requirements: 1. The type, size, and spacing of fence posts. 4.9 /% /L 2. The size of woven wire support fences. 3. The type of filter cloth used. 4. The method of anchoring the filter cloth. 5. The method of fastening the filter cloth to the fencing support. Where ends of filter cloth come together, they shall be overlapped , folded and stapled to prevent sediment bypass. See Standard Drawing SF—I for details. Criteria for Silt Fence Materials I. Silt Fence Fabric: The fabric shall meet the following specifications unless otherwise approved by the appropriate erosion and sediment control plan approval authority. Such approval shall not constitute statewide acceptance. Statewide acceptability shall depend on in—field and/or laboratory observations and evaluations. Minimum Acceptable Fabric Properties Value Test Method Grab Tensile Strength (lbs) 90 ASTM D1682 Elongation at Failure (%) 50 ASTM D1682 Mullen Burst Strength (PSI) 190 ASTM D3786 Puncture Strength (lbs) 40 AS1'M D751 (modified) Slurry Flow Rate (gal/min/sf) 0.3 Equivalent Opening Size 40-80 US Std Sieve CW-02215 Ultraviolet Radiation Stability % 90 ASTM G-26 2. Fence Posts (for fabricated units): The length shall be a minimum of 36 inches long. Wood posts will be of sound quality hardwood with a minimum cross sectional area of 3.0 square inches. Steel posts will be standard T and U section weighing not less than 1. 00 pound per linear foot. 3. Wire Fence (for fabricated units): Wire fencing shall be a minimum 14-1/2 gage with a maximum 6" mesh opening, or as approved. 4. Prefabricated Units: Envirofence or approved equal may be used in lieu of the above method providing the unit is installed per manufacturer's instructions. 14. 10 •N SILT FENCE Y WOVEN WIRE FENCE (MIN. III/2 GAUGE,MAX.6"MESH IO MAX,C. TO C. SPACING) 36"MIN.FENCE POSTS,DRIVEN MIN. la INTO GROUND 11 t y _ ��,. ab" ,,•.wl' i,. <@6S F �4 r"�� I ,�'yty LL z � 8"MIN. �y PERSPECTIVE VIEW f16' fi' MIN. FENCE POST WOVEN WIRE FENCE WITH FI GA. MIN.,O MAX. 6"MESH SPACING) WITH FILTER CLOTH OVER 0" MIN. FLOW UNDISTURBED GROUND � EMBED FILTER CLOTH MIN. B"INTO GROUND MIN. STANDARD SYMBOL _L 1 S S -� SECTION �SL�:JGllIY.t;'O1FS F{?R FRI�tICATFtI I T " I•'rF I. I'bVEN WIRE FENCE TO BE FASTEVED SECVh ELY POSTS; DEL EEIpp T OR U TO FENCE FASTS WITH WIRE TIES OR STAPLES, WRMM Z. FILTER CLOTH TO BE FASTENED SECLRELY TO fU'CE: WI , 1�{�s GA, Y7OVFN I?.iE FENCE WITH TIES SPACED GENII(, EVERY AT TOP AND MID SECTION. 3. Iir T'A SECTICVS OF FILTER CLOTH FILTER Ct�T}I: F TER X, ADJOIN By S OTI�R THEY itFOL BE OVER- I7IrzA IT STABI- LP3TF'D BY SIX It3CIE5 FAID FOLL`D. IflllA � CI A� 4. ft IiraEt+rcE swL. BE PERFc-,m As PfTIBRIgU� MIT: Cans, t)'EEL� !y'� IATFRIAI RPl"A cD VAiEN "?/IROFENCE, OR APPRUVED i1lOiS' UENELOP IN -RE SILT FetE. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AWCULTURE STANDARD DRAWIM SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE SILT FENCE SF- I � II RV S,�lp � 15 Yi"i�i}a. SySJ f p4C blf` d� JS"i%XwM ! `4)�Y�Jr.1P K' 'h' � ,—I I �k +. hh_.-z IAT•AMil'ft5'+C A ^5 'a"YF i SL d. Ci4 ✓`31 )•� f� yiyR�v YS'.+t �. y •Tx 2 11 �/. •. .s � � ,tn «�r .�... Ai�a a^y..3�.�'4y n.x aE r� 3--• t-:_n_ ��� s,w"+�'.s�J. 'h'R'r K, � r�s +',"1r •.,�"'� x• .: . F r ' '+.� � v "' ro ,�s rre U'• a �'� ye�^Fr',ti rt my sF� ^aiReeh� ^S(+s�i9�{Y(Ahl2br 9.y,{ gyy#f ) � S.Ri+c Y" •� i 0 ' y '3,(,w;f2' ,'x`14` r r t �,y •k J .$t� "? # a'" t31"#�. 3F' 1N�y¢•2"�,k y{ � t.3 Y'^""`4LC T Ir C 1 •`a4, a* "� � Y.,r,y+,i C�Yii.h-\S,(f�.s ir- "c.+ 5' ?S� /lh�- l�•'�'a r'L'#.-.t _ t < f N^..�C�.J� r.K 1.�. (1�ci�` n'*�` .s`.' ,Yj,.y Y y�� e� y .�j"�'!�'a,(;s d^r'.,�.l' ���i Y P '`•:�y'� ��� .R.Y r't'w .. ty .or S.ap�'++k t /"e-�„ a J' ..-. ,ai 'J .rp, .• a r,�+�sc- � a,nSJ ti.. 3a a s y F, �' �t;.x d ! �+s �-t i.� �v�r• I' 4� ar-s-r� .,� 3 a Y t�.�,y���.v y -+f�. .n^z.�y�'fG�"����n'r�St^4.,x,;,i$E w `t.neJ�"'`r+."fx `it"+,..ro s z ��+?.K aS'4"i'.�} 'e s'.-`,a ¢'�3�4 ,.�"Z-'aq.�a,l..•�:rnst�'�.2,�� a " '''`r?r�e��"'''+�t ''���� ,ar`'.x�* .� a•"�r'r '3�'�,. C,N.1e�,N,x`�� ��^'�`�� 4rP�:�wKi�,r,.I^�.:.,'��. .^ !'"�..�.'��.�r+`'`-`� .y`.rK61*'} �4 y 7v# .c bh'��"i^s it `".. ... ..siy„• � .r;' $'`+',, r :tyy ..1'.:� ., .,R. : +,av r., •:� .mKK �'# ���"' A..�+s � tiF=-:- cu.�+,.6',. :a+'e^,Ct.....rr.�.`:t'.•-t 'sn<',°i+:-7�a'1'.v��r"1°'atY-�.,�?? t,.i.';�3'✓_.Y��.e-- 4`�.�"c rs,..� i 4• 3pm a�r� •.;P 'F�-r��f-,.,'tea +> `,�. �g IM L~ E;�.ykk:i @.ram--k I t lat' p•,. M � :.�:� � Ssa •.:n .�•17f 1®P C1tG _ . ._ _ �_ � asW` !{m,}!�w ® ®, A �w+^gC� A M • � O f9 � ,. Ali D • � 1 � � ®f HIM fill lll/ll�� I/li'�iE lll�l/l 11 f� I i���r ��Ilff% I' lll' lit ll�'I lllillli, �' I II VU I lll/l; ,, . , . ;e i 2 _.. )'Y•{ A f '..;/:<a[1 �- . '' 1 ,�'� •..r•�''.°-►f'O'• O Q ' '� ^ • 0 t'Q 2 'f . •..0 13�`�j e ^�AIWY3. i.='` a La �'f - .r : ,��"�-�; p V� Uf' c 'jFj M• r rf 15'V.h^ ,u wn - �a4Y'..�`•'Jr' Rik� ....'xYr.,,'G*•� . ! �Mn�� d� { � Li�k `^�,C' s��� t'r �., ✓.` ,t gt3.i'.", .y����.T!' w� G20Y.Afd'"Silt Fence will catch silt and — sediment particles while allowing for the continual flow of water through y" the uniquely designed filter fabric. F w Geofab Silt Fence will support ex- � tremely high loads of sediment with- out causing the ponding of water. '< Geofab Silt Fence consists of I00% spun-bonded nylon reinforced with a Polyester netting. The spun-bonded nylon provides the ultra-fine filtration necessary to It out silt and sedimentparticles The The ultra-thin filter fabric is -lasting reinforced with a strong,long and durable polyester netting which .._,. will allow for accumulations of sedi- GEOFA13the toe e Silterosion Fence staple protec Fence.. men[ the very[op of the Geofab Silt tlon of stream. a, y NI 1,^•.c .n S ! � ���` fir"'�"Y1'£..*n...ri�S'�$. yf:` }. l - �� •� FI Accumulated sediment after three months. IN-STREAM INSTALCgTIpN— FAB Slit Fence in as shown creates a meander In stream flow and a reduction of stream flow ve- locity.Sediments drop out due to change In tlow direction,detention 4 time and filtering attlon of silt fence. 1.. iS. • 4 Ii �. � � ? Self Supportarng Geofab is installed with the use of a ��. Ya N-Sd n- 'F7f built-in cord running throughout the [op edge of the silt fence. Geofab Silt r ass <s • Fence requires no supports other than p posts. 1 ti v Low Irnstallataorn arnd Material Geofab's built-in netting eliminates the need to purchase, transport, install and remove woven wire supports. Low f'v°dai ntennarnce High strength,high water flow and Geofab Silt Fence will stop sediment low stretch which results In effec- while allowing for the flow of water. tive erosion control. In preventing the ponding of water, Geofab eliminates the costly problems r I 4', x of undermining, over-flow and A J: blow-outs. } A5W a > Loma Life Geofab Silt Fence is non-rotting and � n PJ : *, ultra-violet light(sunlight) protected for a stable, long-lasting silt fencing ,j ±mot -`"`'u--r J> product. l %1fi High cubic load capacity reduces the frequency of clean out of streams,catch basins,sedimenta- tion ponds,etc. 7 7 i ry L }:3l 1 •uY'A tsIEWAO-Silt Fence is used at the toe E3 in combination with Geofab of the slope to catch silt and sediment DownDrain as a means of guiding particles before they enter a stream, water to a specific location and Private property,waterway, etc. draining off a slope without in streams to remove silt and sedi- erosion. ment particles during in-stream ex- cavation, etc. r� t�� yo „�w�""•r 0 around catch basins to eliminate the costly clean-out of sediment- e laden basins. 0 around storage piles to eliminate 6ti � •�° �*ti,y� ,Z ,.; loss of raw materials and contami- nation of the environment. x�;tZ W. 13 in ditches and channels to slow the velocity of water and catch sedi- ment particles, thereby eliminating the erosion of these channels. . t sus f 0 as a means of reducing the sedi- mentation of ponds by strategically 11�. installing in areas where sediment is running into a pond. 0 as a silt curtain in sedimentationv ponds to prevent short-circuiting. '.A sa. .' ` 1 j TM'Y1 4 t�\ '`1 Note the nonclooging feature of GEOFAB" Silt Fence. 6 a•�,t ,�,��..i*r_ 4�Ly ar>��-. sacSti.�d F n„�'x�'� 9.x ,-..n",v.�* � �1�°Y 'w'. w s-cry "sra"" �iwk'• a ♦ '� ro .l�r %yF'M v5. ! �y. . �r�i". � .�. rt Em . Installation Procedure:* G. The slitting of the hem at each post is 1. is Fence posts consisting of either reached,repeated which time e me t until the finalost Geofab steel or wood are installed b' to Silt Fence is wrapped around the 10' apart on a slight angle toward last post and tied securely with the the anticipated run-off source. enclosed cord. 2. A trench 4"to b"deep is dug along 7. At this time, the lower 4"to 6"of the uphill side of the fence line. Geofab Silt Fence is laid in the �. Geofab Silt Fence is unrolled and trench and curled toward the ero- laid out along the fence line. sion source. 4. Geofab built-in attachment cord (S• The trench is then filled with any runs throughout the full length of available soil. each 150 linear foot roll. One end *Selection of the type of posts of the roll has approximately 5' of used to install Geofab Silt Fence as cord, the other end has approxi- well as the distance between mately 20' of cord. The end with each post, is to be determined by the S of cord is wrapped around the specifications of the local State the first post and tied securely. Department of Transportation, the 5. Geofab is pulled to the next post design architect, or the amount of and a 1 ''12"slit is made in the hem sediment load anticipated to be directly above the cord. The cord is accumulated on the silt fence, as pulled out of the hem and pulled well as the amount of time the silt taut from the preceding post and fence will be in use. wrapped twice around the post. r Construction Sj00%SpunbonBedNylonRe6 ortedl fFrP.otyestertVetnn ` Weight JOLYI ASTL7D 1910 42 eiilMIL51 '` r' ViD 197trength IL9S,MD/CDI ASTM D-1682 190 longation�% MD7C01 :;';t -aASTM D 1 Burst Strength lPSIIASTMD-774-4G 210 lWate�FloviIGAUMIWF?1'. -�* a E.O.S.Equivalent Opening Size U.S.Corps of Engineer CW02215 70-100 Nov.'77 Ultra�VloletlSunllghtReslstance ° - D°.r;T,' s �"" r r`;s ,�� -Mm,�X${atlle`-Co 'Last(ng; Standard Roil Width IF71 ( Standard Roll Length(FTI �-` ` '' -` `• .,�. ;15 �1 PAERVANTILC DZVELCPPAGPJT, CNC. 274 Riverside Avenue • Westport, CT 06880 (203) 226-7803 There is no express warranty on this material.There is no implied warranty of merchantability or fitness for any particular use.The mamdacturer and dealer cannot assume resoonsibility beyond suoplying a product conforming to the advertised sceciticauons.Suggestions by the manufacturer or dealer for possible end uses and for installation techniques are made soieiv for the convenience of the customer and for his choice,and are not intended to and shall not imply any representa- .lons or warranties. I • - - STRAW Br1LE SEDIMENT BARRIERS STANDARD Definition A temporary barrier of fixed straw or other bales with a life expectancy of G months or less, installed across or at the 'bottom of a slope. Purpose To intercept and detain small amounts of sediment from unprotected slopes of limited size. To disperse or spread overland flows. To protect new seedings. To filter stony runoff". Applications The straw bale barrier is used: 1. At -stormdrain inlets, across minor swales, as training dikes, along property lines. 2. Where there is little or no concentration of water in a channel or other drainageway above the barrier. 3. Where contributing drainage area is less than 1/2 acre and the length of slope above the barrier is less than 100 feet. The practice may also be used for a lone single-family lot if the slope is less than 150 The contributing drainage area in this instance shall be less than 1 acre and the length of slope above the barrier shall be less than 200 feet. Area and interval criteria may be doubled on A hvdrologic group soils, and on sandy subsoils. Design Criteria A design is not required, but location and extent shall be shown. All bale. shall be placed on the contour and Shall be either wire bound er nylon Stri: tied. Loosely tied or uddly shaped bales may not be used. Inspect for van dalism. Alignment -hall be exactly on the contour. At each end, two or more bales shall be laid up the slope to contain the runoff. Straw bale barriers that are over 100 fcot long require subdivision into a series of shorter impound ment_". NY-Nassau/Suffolk 6/77 r` Straw Bale Sediment Barriers • P'l'PAW BALE SEDIMENT BARRIERS t FIow r �ni fir' 7�.��-�,r• -' �'ti � .:-; «.� vertical face DIBEDDING DETAIL . wr,F�nec^.vvs5,, . Angle first stake toward previously laid bale-----., "- 1 . .•j wire or nylon Flow �— •,,f ,t; r + __ _ bound bales placed on the contour �i,� iJ 1' ✓1 r i_ 2 re-bars, steel pickets, or 2" X 2" stakes 1 112' to 2' ___ in ground _ J - — — ANCHORING DETAIL Construction SDeci.ficitions 1. Bales shall be placed in a row with ends tightly abutting the adjacent bales. 2. Each bale shall be embedded in the soil a minimum of 4". 3. Bales shall be securely anchored in place by stakes or re-bars driven through the bales. The first stake in each bale shall be angled toward previously laid bale to force bales together. 4. Inspection shall be frequent and repair or replacement shall be made promptly as needed. 5. Bales shall be removed when they have served their usetulness so as not to block or impede storm flow or .drainage. SIISB Standard Symbol c-- =2n * Drai.nar•e area less than I /2 acre. U. S. DEPART'-1ENT OF AGRICULTUREI Standard SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE Straw Balc Drawinn Rivcr?:cad• %Y Sediment Barriers .I7Y-i,assau/Suffclk L/77 STI�A1,.�' BALE SEDI �IE � I �AtiRIERS -Prcvert+inGs sit Iatim of stormwater ,,•t,� `�'f -,lz�i Jam. construction k rn R • ��4f�.��t �' �i� 1 .�!cam. . . \', -i 6 y lcal Mace - siecl ppic '<C- S or s�alces ` embedded I%2'_ ?' 1n SIound ; -�- /`'J; �irst stske am led -toward pre��iousl la?d baleLr✓ . k � l')<)of�. •�xis j , 'Ihaf lit srow fence exfends -to drip line for free proteci ion tNc F-�,REOT CORRECT TRF;HCIIII'v J as shov//'l Tilf'viJEl_II��U under` �`he fre; ltifl �`lz� ofiil �resc;-ve ;�ur1� of ihr ON -SITE DISPOSAL OF, ROOF RUNOFF -� H-fFOLK m COUNTY SOIL AND Wklfg\ CONSERVATION DISTRICT 127 EAST MAIN STREET, ROOM 101 RIV€RNEAO, NEW YORK 11901 PNORE.S16.1212316 yuHerss dounsyouts Q,or{l1CY"L (well ✓e9efa�ed aFfer �nsh cfioh� OPEN VERTICAL DRAIN O 9ulf2rS C �,d e do�hsPo� drJwel/s vob +ale outlet CatcGrbas%a�, CIV2 well J U UNDERGROUND CATCH l� BARBARA ANKH IIOYCE 28 Old Hills Lane -- - Greenlawn, NY 11740 (516) 261-3070 EXPERIENCE: 1980-Present Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY 11973 Staff Engineer: Assist in development of projects focusing o water resources and water quality aspects of energy development These projects include modeling transport of contaminants in groun water; identification of injection water requirements and assessmen of environmental impacts associated with enhanced oil recovery an analysis of the federal and California state regulation pertaining to the disposal of sludges and liquid wastes associate with geothermal power production; an analysis of the potentia- impacts of the underground injection control program regulations of enhanced oil recovery in the U.S.; management of hazardous waste from commercialized synthetic fuels; and regulatory analysis of Superfund. Responsibilities: Development and preparation of proposals an( projects; assist in marketing; interface with sponsors, consultants , and coresearchers; provide technical supervision to project assistants; evaluate ground water models for their applicability tc specific analysis, utilize the model in performing the investigation, interpret its results, and use computer generates _ graphics to display the results; computer programming; complete project investigations; preparation of final reports including writing, editing, and overseeing completion. 1979-80 Teaching Assistant for Freshman Engineering Course - Principles of Mathematical Modeling. 1978-79 Research Assistant for Masters Thesis - Investigating the Applica- tion of Kalman Filtering to Water Quality Parameters. EDUCATION: 1978-80 M.S. Environmental Engineering, University of Massachusetts Areas of Study: Water Supply and Wastewater Collection, Water Chemistry, Unit Processes of Environmental Engineering, Numerical Methods of Analysis. Grade Point Average: 3.4/4.0 1974-78 B.S. Civil Engineering, Magna Cum Laude, University of Massachusetts Activities: President of student chapter of American Society of Civil Engineers; Member of the student chapter of ASCE, student chapter of Society of Women Engineers, UMass Concrete Canoe Team, and UMass ski club. Participated in intramural sports. Grade Point Average: 3.5/4.0 CERTIFICATION: Certified Engineer-In-Training by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts July 28, 1978. PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS: American Society of Civil Engineers American Water Works Association Society of Women Engineers BARBARA ANNE ROYCE HONORS: Tau Beta Pi; Alpha Lambda Delta; Howe Walker Student Award REFERENCES: Available upon request. SELECTED PUBLICATIONS: An analysis of potential impacts of the revised underground injection control regulations on enhanced oil recovery in the U.S. Royce, B. , Carrell, M. and Kaplan, E. BNL 36513, March 1985. Impacts of environmental regulations on the safe disposal of geothermal wastes, B. Royce, Draft BNL report, September 1985. Enhanced oil recovery water requirements. Royce, B. , Kaplan, E. , Carrell, M. , and Geffen, T. Minerals and the Environment, Vol. 6, No. 2, p 44-53, June 1984. An environmental assessment of enhanced oil recovery. Kaplan, E. , Royce, B. , Carrell, M. , Riedel, F. Sathaye, J. , and Rotariu, C. , Minerals and the Environment, Vol. 6, No. 2, p 54-65, June 1984. A Methodology for modeling the migration of FOR chemicals in fresh water aquifers. Royce, B. , Carrell, M. , Kahn, A. and Kaplan, E. U.S. Department of Energy, DOE/BC/99996-2, November 1983. Assessment of water issues associated with enhanced oil recovery: a user's guide. Kaplan, E. , Royce, B. and Shields, J. DOE/BC/10412-40. April 1983. A study of CERCLA's preemption of state taxation and financial responsibility law. Brooks, R. , edited by Royce, B. and Kaplan, E. Draft report. March 1983. Legal issues arising out of the relation of state and local transportation control of radioactive materials to federal regulation of similar material. Brooks, R. , edited by Royce, B. and Kaplan, E. Draft report. March 1983. Identification of water requirements for selected enhanced oil recovery methods. Royce, B. , Kaplan, E. , Carrell, M. , and Geffen, T. M. BNL 51595, September 1982. Assessment of environmental problems associated with increased enhanced oil recovery in the United States: 1980-2000. Kaplan, E. , Carrell, M. , Royce, B. , Riedel, E.F. , and Sathaye, J. BNL 51528, November 1981 . Revised January 1983. Solid and hazardous waste disposal at eastern coal gasification and liquefaction facilities. Royce, B. , Weeter, D. , Shypailo, R. , Meier, P. , Metz, W. , and Williams , M. BNL 51482, September 1981 . { r J) ^I) C y �^_^` New York State Department of Environmental Conservation SUNY - Bldg. 40 Stony Brook, NY 11794 (516) 751-7900 Henry G.Wllliame Commissioner February 19 , 1987 Mr. John M. Bredemeyer Vice President Board of Town Trustees Town of Southold - Town Hall 53095 Main Road , P . 0. Box 728 Southold, NY 11971 Dear Mr. Bredemeyer: I have your letter of January 28 and will attempt to answer the questions posed . By now you will have received the February 3 letter of Peter VanVolkenburgh , of our Marine Resources Division , responding to questions two , five and six. Question 1 . What is the current status of the Striped Bass Ban? Will there be a By-catch or recreational fishing this year? Response At present , the state-wide prohibition on possession and sale of ___ strioed_bass remains,__in,_effect� A decision_ will be announced later this winter as to whether any change in these regulations will be implemente3 in 1987 . Question 3 . Have all acquisitions under the Environmental Quality Bond Act of 1972 been made ? . . .A project proposed for a salt marsh island in Hallocks Bay, Orient (AKA Gids Island) owned by a Dr . Perrone was reportedly withdrawn while negotiations took place with your agency considering its purchase . What is the status of this? Response No . The Department will initiate a major acquisition project in the Long Reach/Hallocks Bay area in 1987 . We are not able to discuss details of what parcels we may and may not include in such as acquisition , but we feel. that the dimensions of the project will be consistent with out understanding of the Trustees ' interest . \Cd Cf?c_ ! C z . Question 4 . Can your agency support the use of EOBA 1986 moneys to purchase drainage easements , wetlands and install catch basins to improve surface water quality to reopen/maintain as open shellfish lands in Southold Town? Response Among the 1986 EQBA categories of environmentally sensitive lands for acquisition, fresh water and tidal wetlands are included . We doubt that purchase of lands for the specific purpose of conveying and purifying drainage would be allowed under the Act . However, acquisition of wetlands and water courses , wherever completed , certainly support these goals . Question 7. When might the proposed 1986 SEQR Law revisions be made public and become effective? Response The revised 6 NYCRR 617 regulations must be filed and made public by the- end of February, 1987 . It will probably become effective sometime this summer (following training sessions covering the changes) Question 8. There seems to be no head or tail for marine pump out regulations ; should our agency continue to go it alone with our C.A. C . ? Response The recently passed February , 1987 , Federal Clean Water Act Amendments enable the States to assume jurisdiction over sewage discharges from houseboats .. The Department is currently evaluating how it wishes to implement this amendment . Unfortunately , I cannot give you an estimate of when the Department will complete its evaluation . In the interim, I can only suggest that you work with the C .A . C . to develop ideas about how the Town would like to have houseboat sewage discharges regulated in anticipation of an opportunity to present those ideas to the Department . ' C 3 . Question 9 . What is your agency' s official position on tributyltin boat bottom paints ? What are you doing about their use? Response The Department does not have an official position on tributyltin antifouling paint at the present time . We are quite concerned about the potential effects of the use of these highly toxic substances on aquatic resources , however . We are presently endeavoring to initiate the required investigations of the extent of their use and concentrations in the aquatic environment of the State in 1987 to establish the basis of future regulations . We appreciate and welcome the support of local governments , including town trustees , in seeking voluntary suspension of the use of these substances pending the outcome of Federal and State investigations as to the appropriate means of regulating their use . Question 10. Does your agency ' s legal staff support as defendable the use of "Worst Case Senario" in Final Impact Statements ? Response 6 NYCRR 617 . g Decision making and finding requirements . 6 NYCRR(c) (2) (i) provides , "Consistant with social. , economic , and other essential considerations from among the reasonable alternatives thereto , the action to be carried out or approved is one which minimizes or avoids the adverse environmental effects to the maximum extent practicable , including the effects .,s.� disclosed in the releta,jit environmental inoact statement ; . . . Zt--r-s -di-f-ficult-to see how such findings and mitigations could be made as required by the statute unless all possible including "worst case" impacts were examined . - - --- - - - - - - - - We believe our visit to the Town of Southold was valuable to our staff and we hope it was of value to your citizens . Sincerely , Harold D . Berger Regional Director HDB : jlb L0 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1892 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 March 3, 1987 Minutes - Special Meeting 7:30 P.M. Present were: President Henry P. Smith Vice President John Bredemeyer, III Trustee Phillip J. Goubeaud Trustee Albert Krupski Trustee Ellen M. Larsen Mrs. Dove Mr. & Mrs. Moore Benjamin Herzweig Dr. Martin Carrell Town Attorney Tasker Secretary Ilene Pfifferling Trustee Bredemeyer called the meeting to order. The Board discussed this matter and the following resolution was adopted by the Board. [Transcript of the meeting has been typed under separate cover for the file. ] On motion made by Trustee Smith seconded by Trustee Bredemeyer it was RESOLVED that the Town Trustees will vote on the Application submitted by Thomas W. Cramer/William Moore at their next regular meeting in April, notice having been published in the newspaper to meet the S.E.Q.R. requirements at least ten days before the meeting. Vote of Board: Ayes: All - This resolution was declared duly adopted. Meeting adjourned at 9:05 P.M. Z� "� ✓ Cc 7�'d �� 2t� Ilene Pfifferl].ng, �S�cre�'3eard WILLIAM MOORE - MEETING OF MARCH 3, 1987 —DISCUSSION Present were: President Henry P. Smith Vice-President John Bredemeyer, III Trustee Phillip J. Goubeaud Trustee Albert Krupski Trustee Ellen M. Larsen Mrs. Dove Mr. & Mrs. William Moore Benjamin Herzweig - Town Attorney Robert W. Tasker Secretary Ilene Pfifferling Dr. Martin Garrell Trustee Bredemeyer advised that this meeting is a continuation of the work session held on February 24, 1987 which was recessed. The Board is present to further discuss the DEIS Impact statement and the Response Comments. He advised that the applicant has agreed to provide additional answers to questions for the Board before a decision is made as to "Who will and what form the Final Impact Statement will take". Trustee Bredemeyer advised that the announcement for the meeting was sent to the newspapers so the official notification was given. Trustee Bredemeyer gave a capsule summary of what happened at the meeting held on February 24th. : The Trustees distilled down questions on the project essentially to two broad areas. One being a question of the flow and nutrient loading of the pond, and there were still questions on the wildlife survey. - I know since that time, some of the Trustees have had an opportunity to talk to people, who they felt were experts or knowledgeable in the field. Several of us have gone back to the site several times to answer questions that we have had. I guess the Moore's have had something from Professor Black? Trustee Krupski read out loud the following from Professor John A. Black: Dear Mr. Cramer, Enclosed are my opinions regarding the possibility of the Meadow Lane property being considered suitable habitat for threatened, endangered or protected species. As noted, I can not conceive of this area providing significant open space ,for anything but common "Dooryard" species. I would not recommend anv further studies; after all the subiect property is but further surveys would, in my opinion, be an unconscionable additional expense and serve to inflate consulting fees. Additional studies would add nothing in terms of meaningful data. _Sincerely;—John A —Black_d_aGed�Max�ch_2,_--- _ 1987. Trustee Krupski: Is this an additional letter? Mr. Herzweig: The first letter is a covering letter to Cramer, then the second letter is his opinion. Mr. Moore: He said enclosed are my opinions, so I presume the second letter is his opinion. Trustee Krupski: Dear Mr. Cramer: In reference to questions raised regarding threatened species on or in the vicinity of the Meadow Lane property I refer you to my 1986 observations. I did not note, nor would I expect to find, any threatened, endangered or protected species on this property. As noted, the black duck population has been in decline but this is due to a variety of factors and will certainly not be affected by development of the Meadow Lane property. The entire undeveloped portion of Mattituck Estates east Page 2. — March 3, 1987 of Meadow Lane is approximately 1.5 acres [both uplands and marsh] . This is insignificant when compared to the available habitat at Maratooka Pond, Deep Hole, etc. In other words, the total open space on the east side of Meadow Lane is a very small area and the subject property smaller still. The status of this property is ecologically insignificant and I doubt that any upland species, save for common "Dooryard" birds, would be found there. Waterfowl has a much more varied and larger habitat available at Maratooka and Deep Hole. Perhaps the confusion lies in the table giving possible species. I understand that, for the sake of completeness, this was included. It certainly does not mean that these species will be found or are even probable. For example, a bald eagle over head does not mean that this individual will land on, take up residence upon or use the area for nesting. Sincerely, John A. Black — Dated: March 2, 1987 Trustee Bredemeyer: Thank you. I know during the last week we had an opportunity to talk to several people who were involved in birding in the area. This is a concern. I had an opportunity to talk to someone who is involved with routine bird counts in audubon who does nesting surveys. I know that he would be willing to do additional work gratis and he has what we would call a "Professional" standing and would be willing to look at it. Is this Mrs. Dove? Trustee Larsen: Yes it is. Trustee Bredemeyer: Mrs. Dove is involved in the Audubon Society. I would like to hear some of her thoughts on this? Possibly we can hammer out[if you at the work session what we would reasonably expect to do with this. It does seem that Professor Black did a very extensive list. I'm speaking of my own opinion. I went through it again. Where he does talk about possibles I think that that is where some of the confusion may have arisen. Maybe Mrs. Dove could tell us, did you have an opportunity to review this? Mrs. Dove: Yes I did. I had an .opportunity to review both the original listing not by Professor Black then the revised listing by him. The original hstind wasLiaccuiate: or 25 years old from some old reference that is absolutely not up to date and has no meaning to it at all. Trustee Bredemeyer: What about what Professor Black has to say? As far as his list, it does seem more encompassing? How did you find that? Did you get a chance to view the site? Mrs. Dove: I know the site very well. I live 3/4 of a mile away from there, and have for the last 20 years been birding in that area. I'm very familiar with that site and the bird life and the terrain . I have found Professor Black's list very incomplete and I have found that the times that he went there were not adequate to give a very good picture of the bird life: He said he went there in February, once a week from February 28th to PIarch, then one day in April and one day in June. Now, that can not give you a Picture of the bird life there at all. First of all the month of May was skipped. That is the peak month for migratory birds. That place should be considered a very important resting area and feeding ground for migratory birds. Both in May and August and September when they migrate back to the South again. Page 3. - March 3, 1987 Trustee Bredemeyer: You are principally talking about waterfowl species? Mrs. Dove: No, I'm talking about all kinds of species. I would also like to comment at this time, that I did include a number of land birds and species which would be found along the rim of the property where they are going to build the house and where the trees are. If they do what they say what they are going to do, which is to remove almost half of the woods there it would make a big difference in the list I have here of woodland birds. Trustee Bredemeyer: Let's say, for argument sake, because this is a work session we have to throw some ideas around. We have a lot of woodland sites in the town. The Town Trustees have a Wetlands Ordinance to uphold. It is a difficult thing because we don't have a Woodland ordinance yet. A lot of the birds you may have noted there would not be part of the Wetland inventory or necessarily directly derive their needs from wetlands. Would this site be any more unique, it's wood lands, than any other wood lands site in the town at this time? Mrs. Dove: Yes, because of it's association with the water. That would make it much more attractive to many birds, both nesting and migratory birds. There are two Warbler's that would easily nest there, the Yello Warbler and the Yellow Throated Warbler they like to nest near water. Trustee Bredemeyer: They do. Do they have have any specific nesting requirements? Mrs. Dove: Yes, they nest in trees and shrubs. Trustee Bredemeyer: Do you have any prepared statement to make? Mrs. Dove: Yes, I do have, it is rather sketchy. If anyone wishes to follow this in the D.E.I.S. I have been concentrating on the response comments. On page 47, Professor Black visited the area for a total of 161 hours, not nearly enough time to obtain an-accurate picture of the bird life there. He claims to have visited the area weekly from February 2 to March 27, a time period of low numbers of bird species. Once in April and once in June is not enough time when the species count would be nearest its highest. In May, which would be a peak month for migratory species, he paid no visits. He gave a total of 31 species. [Listing a Black Chickadee twice. ] Then on page 48, He quotes "Bull" extensively. One of the best field ornithologist, but from out of date data from 1964. There is an abundance of current, up to date information available. Page 49, He says all of the species observed are common to Long Island. We cannot be complacent about the status of any bird with many threats to habitat feeding and resting areas and so forth. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Dept. is presently quite concerned and alarmed at the sudden decline in numbers of many species of ducks. So that today the species that you would consider the common species like the mallard would became a very rare and endangered species. This is happening all the time in the world of ornithology. Black tries to belittle the area because of its proximity to Deep Hole Creek and Marratooka Lake, and its small size. This is not germain. A small area like this is always of value when in proximity to larger wetlands. He specifically mentions three species. Among them the Black Crown Night Heron. It is commonly found in the whole area. '? 3J Page 4. - March 3, 1987 At Marratooka Lake, at Deep Hole Creek and the pond in question. The only known nesting site of the Black Crown Night Heron in Southold Town is on Robins Island. They fly from there over to the mainland all the time to feed and to rest. You can not say that a small place is insignificant, it is not. It contains the proper type of food or whatever its find. In the revised table, Black lists three groups of birds as though they were one species. Gull -- three or four species can be seen here; Wren-- he lists Wren as one species. There are two species of Wren. The House Wren and the Carolina Wren which are likely visitors and very possible nesting species. Warblers he lists as one species. There are about 30 species that migrate through this area in spring and fall and several that nest here. The common Yellow Throat and the Yellow Warbler would be good nesting possibilities. Of course, if the woodland was reduced from .23 acres to . 14 acres as stated, the picture would change. I have made an estimate of 77 species that could possibly be seen in this area as visitors nesting or- over-wintering. The list is based on my familiarity with the site since I have lived about 3/4 of a mile west on New Suffolk Avenue over looking Marratooka Lake for twenty years. A final criticism of this "expert" wildlife survey is that he uses out dated nomenclature for the birds listed, indicating that he does not keep up to date. The latest changes, which are considerable were made in 1983 by the American Ornithology Union. I visited the area on March 2, 1987 for about 10 to 15 minutes. During that time I saw one Great Blue Heron, 16 Mallards, all in pairs, 2 Red Breasted Mergansers, 2 Ruffle Head, an American Crow, one Belted King Fisher and one House Finch. The American Crow and the House Finch were not on Mr. Black's list. So I have to conclude that it was a very superficial examination of the bird watch there. Trustee Goubeaud: What type of a study would you recommend to get a better over all picture of the wildlife there? For how long? At what times? Mrs. Dove: I think that the minimum time would be April, May, June, July, August and September. Now, a birder would know what months what birds are nesting and where. How much time to spend during those months. You would not spend -an equal amount-of time during each one of those months. But those are the times that the birds are active, not in the middle of the winter. Trustee Bredemeyer: Is May the most critical, as far as migration and nesting? Mrs. Dove: May, yes, but September is also very significant as far as migration. That is the returning migration. Trustee Bredemeyer: As far as migration of birds do you have the same visitants to a lot both spring and fall? Or is it that varied? Mrs. Dove: No that is quite varied. Trustee Bredemeyer: Okay, now the thing is this lot doesn' t seem to have a lot of food. It has cover. What would be the chief value, or would there be a value to continue a survey into the fall months. I'm thinking in terms of all the bird species, particularly the ones that are threatened or endangered species. That we could find a use that they are using the property. Thev are nesting on the property. Something very specific, A reason why a fall sur:ev :;ould be necessary over, let s say an indepth look for a very short Page 5. - March 3, 1987 period of time. Let's say May. Apparently May was left out. Mrs. Dove: In May the major migratory route of most of the land birds is up the Hudson River Valley. We get a spill over out here on the East End. But we don't get the full number of migratory species that do go up that valley. In September that migration is coastal. You do get a heavier migration. As far as food goes, insects, there is all sorts of food there at the end of the summer that is available to the migrating species that has to feed on their way south. Trustee Bredemeyer: In looking this over, did you notice anything in the way of species that is protected by law. In other words that would leave this Board with no alternative but to take a further look. It's all well and good to say that there is 30 species of Warblers on the lot. Mrs. Dove: They are all protected by law. Trustee Bredemeyer: No, I'm talking about the protection afforded by the Protected Species Act or Threatened Species. We are in a situation that this Board is running out of time. The applicants have given us, and of course we have tried to get additional expert opinions to try to get an idea where the comments in the draft statement are coming from and how we can deal with them. Although a lot of us have experience with birding or what ever, we do not have the stature of a Professor or yourself. So we are coming up against some needs for making a proper decision, and working with the applicant to get this going. Mrs. Dove: If you were going to make a decision on the threatened or endangered species, or nesting water fowl species, you are going to have a very small list of birds practically none. Trustee Bredemeyer: Okay. Thank you. Does anyone on the Board, or Mr. _Herzweie. Mr. n- Mrs . Moore 1,ive anv nre- «;,-71 Mr. Moore: No, I think that lasCcomment was a very telling one. I only - ask that again, and I respect your knowledge of the birds, in a general sense I need any more specific —because—of—your-re-sidence and—l�-o-cat-i`on of---— the area. I point again to the size of the. property. T don't want to get into the detail. I think that you should focus on the concerns. From where the information is to be gathered and again be site specific. I think the la,t comment about the endangered species was an important one. Trustee Goubeaud: Mrs. Dove, what about the Tern that is listed by Mr. Black on this revised edition. . . Mrs. Dove: That is a common Tern. That is a threatened species. I have on my list the least Tern that nests on Robins Island also. That is endangered. They would fly over the area, or feed in the pond. Trustee Bredemeyer: Would they be affected by a house on that site? Mrs. Dove: How can you take a house and put it in the center of the headwaters of freshwater drainage area for Deep Hole Creek and say that it is not going to imDact the wildlife? Page 6. — March 3. 1987 Trustee Bredemeyer: There seems to be, Tern activity doesn't seem to be affected by the presence of man or of structures. Mrs. Dove: That is what has made them endangered species. The presence of man. Trustee Bredemeyer: Or is it on the nesting. I'm having trouble here. In other words, do they feed in the coastal areas of the headwaters or are we talking nesting here? Mrs. Dove: They feed over freshwater sometimes, they feed over salt water. Mainly over salt water. Trustee Bredemeyer: We have some of our intensely used marina areas that seem to have a large tern population on the islands and immediately off shore. If there is a distinction to be made, in other words, if you can say that this tern can be nesting on the site which doesn't seem to be tern nesting habitat, as opposed to feeding. That is the only question I had. Mrs. Dove: If you placed a house on that marsh area, it would have a considerable impact to the whole health of that marsh. Trustee Bredemeyer: Okay, those are other areas of our discussion. If there are no other questions I would like to say that we appreciate what you had to say this evening. We may in fact, if we can possibly use your services in the future if any additional questions arise on this site specific look, we would appreciate it. Mrs. Dove: I'm very happy to be of service to you. Mr. Moore: As part of you comments, for my own information, I would like to know what vour background is in hi�dic Mrs. Dove: I have taught Natural History over a period of ten years in four - different schools and in adult education, in Nassau County, Great Neck, Port Washington, Manhasset. -I -have—been--the-founder of—two-Autoba-hn—Societies one in Port Washington and one in Mattituck. I don't have any formal. Mr. Moore: I wasn' t putting you on the spot. I was curious to know what your background was? Mrs. Dove: No, No, I'm very happy to tell you. I'm a self educated person. I have been studying and working, since I was a child. I have always been involved in birding. Trustee Smith: Mrs. Dove, would you consider birding one of your devoted hobbies? Do you consider yourself an expert in the field? Mrs. Dove: Yes, I consider birding a devoted hobby, and yes I consider myself an expert in this field. :dr. Herzweig: Has anyone else ever considered your testimony as an expert Page 7. - March 3, 1987 in birding. Have you ever testified in a court or Administrative proceeding where there is a Judge or any other Administrative Tribunal have ever accepted your testimony as that of an expert? Mrs. Dove: No, I don't think so. Trustee Smith: I would think that her testimony would be very critical. Trustee Bredemeyer: Being so familiar with the area. Mrs. Moore: She just popped out of the blue. Trustee Bredemeyer: As a matter of fact, I should have asked for her qualification up front. We had discussed several people to get some information back and forth. We had asked for resumes. Quite honestly I had forgot to ask what her background was. Dr. Garrell is here. Would you like to join us? Dr. Garrell: I just brought in the statement. I think everyone knows me. I'm going to take off. Trustee Bredemeyer: Distilling what Mrs. Dove said, if May is a critical month, we are talking about our responsibility as far as endangered and threatened species. Every woodland and every corner of town, the parking lot at A & P could have one of these unique birds show up during the migration. I just wonder if we could look at this during the month of May, a little more thoroughly as part of the study. Is that out of the possibility of the Board or the applicant? Trustee Krupski: Mrs. Dove seemed to think that September was important to. If the applicant and the Board can' t agree on what an important time is to get a good idea of what the area is, then we can call in a third party. This way all parties could be satisfied. __ Tr re, . th .,___ __ _us Snith. l, .i., c^_ species and the nesting. I'm sure that there could be a visitor to that spot or any other spot. It has a lot to do with different weather conditions. I think our main concern is during the nesting time. Trustee Goubeaud: If a species is on the critical or endangered list and this is a feeding source or habitat area for feeding for a particular bird, when we take a habitat away from the bird we are endangering the species all the more. Trustee Krupski: I agree with you. It is just one more area that, not only the threatened ones but the ones on the special concerns, right down the list of priorities, that you could loose a habitat. Trustee Smith: I agree withwhat Jeff and Al are saying. We need some documentation on this. Mr. Moore: You specifically asked about Endangered and Threatened species on this site specific piece of property. Mrs. Dove said that it would be very small to non-existent. You have your report before you in a D.E. I.S. which was accented by this Board as thorough after it was reviewed by Mr. Emilita. These questions were not raised then. Theoretically the time iJ Page 8. — March 3, 1987 frame in which that list was prepared, the original list and the revised list magical things have not happened on that piece of property that suddenly changed that analysis. As she closed her comments tonight, she also said, "Threatened and endangered would not be a list that she would find". I don' t, I'm starting to put on my lawyers hat again. Trustee Bredemeyer: That all right. William Moore: I don't like that. The bottom line is, you can sit there and shake your head Albert, but the bottom line is that half—acre piece of property has been put through an incredible process. Now, if you are not happy with the process address its weaknesses, where ever they lie. Trustee Krupski: That report was superficial. William Moore: You accepted it. We can go on. I don't want to prey. Trustee Bredemeyer: We never voted as to it's thoroughness or it's completeness. William Moore: It is really unfair to allow a full year to go by and then come back and penalize us and say that we want to come back and say we are contemplati: September for migratory patterns. Trustee Bredemeyer: May had already transpired, we did not get the statement until after September. William Moore: You had a D.E.I.S. in January for contemplation and review. Trustee Bredemeyer: Mrs. Dove said that the list would not likely be larger. She didn' t say that there was something missed on the endangered or threatened list that was here. In other words she didn't say that there was a defect on the endangered or threatened list. It looks to me like we don't have a woodland — code here. It looks to me like the endangered or threatened may have a lot more t0 �ilaC a1 �� lil:� JVUi .-.�:.. ...•..._. -..: .. going to be inhibited in feeding, provided it is�a reasonable house construction. It is no different from Mr. Costanza or from the gentlemen who is south on the pond or other houses on the pond_.—_L_would-like- to—see—another—intznse—look over a very short period of time. I think she raised a question about May, and I think that that is a very legitimate question. There was very little done during that time. If certainly something showed up that a person with professional [If you will] standing, that would hold up in a court of law, that attorneys coulc, deal with would be something that would be a credit to this process which has beer extremely exhaustive. We have had a very good working relationship so far. It seems that Mr. Cramer worked overtime on getting this document out. It is a very hard process for every one. William Moore: You are right. Trustee Bredemeyer: At this point it is our turn to take a section of the burden. It seems to me that if we get the birders we should be the ones to look at the bird species with people that would have some credit. Town Attorney Tasker: Does anyone know how many birds we are talking about? Page 9. — March 3, 1987 Trustee Bredemeyer: We are probably only talking about. . . . . Town Attorney Tasker: An insignificant amount it would seem. Trustee Bredemeyer: One endangered species doesn't leave us any latitude. Town Attorney Tasker: Let's take one tenth of one percent of that endangered species. Would that concern you? Trustee Bredemeyer: It would concern me. I can't speak for the rest of the Board? Trustee Goubeaud: If one bird or one animal is endangered, it is endangered for a specific reason. That means. . . . . Town Attorney Tasker: It has to be significant? Trustee Goubeaud: Bob, you think about it? You brought something up that really bothers me. If an animal is endangered, it is endangered because people are killir or destroying or totally obliterating this particular species. It doesn't matter if it is an animal, fish or human. One person or one animal, yes, it does make a difference. It is significant'. Trustee Bredemeyer: I don't think that we are asking for a hunt to find the last individual? William Moore: From the applicant's prospective, it has reached that level. It has become a search to the sublime. I gave the example last week. I thought that when we were all finished we were looking for some substantiation of some of the comments that our experts had raised last week. One was of groundwater, and I hope that we don't analyze the hell out of that again. I think that we have a letter coming. I think that if you look at the process, the S.E.Q.R.A. process, it has not been done correctly. A full year has gone by. I'm not saying that it was done shabbily in—terms of what was submitted to you. But that we didn't sneak by and put past you a lousy document. I will have people sit and tell you that that was a fine document, Mr. Emilita, for one. So it is not as so we are sitting here playing very cute, technical gamessTKAA gha, we caugh you guys in a screw up, you accepted a document and now we are going to hold you to it] when we know it is a lousy document. That is not the case. It is a thorough document. S.E.Q.R. is to be applied within the realm of reason. Now rea as applied to a subdivision, of which this is one parcel. We are not talking about 225 condo's being built on a peninsula as heretofore been in it's natural state. It is a rule of reason. You have more than enough information to justify the determination, and granting a permit. Far more than you would ever need if someone were to challenge you in a court of law for having granted a permit. That is my professional opinion, I'm wearing my lawyers hat. You have enough information. And you have had it. Trustee Bredemeyer: I think that part of the reason that the Board has been working with you and trying to come to a conclusion on this, I guess we feel that we are within grasps of being able to mitigate impacts we look at it .ice Page 10. — March 3, 1987 that there are essentially two potential impacts we feel have not been addressed to the satisfaction of the Board. We wanted to lay them to rest so we would have no option but to approve, with mitigating measures, as opposed to deny. Some of us believe that the process is not suppose to search for that mythical one animal that may show up. It is designed to look at some of the worst case impacts and try to mitigate them so that they don't exist. It is a tool to the benefit of the applicant, because it eliminates the potential for a denial. That's why I think we want to go that extra distance to get those answers. That is where we are coming from. William Moore: That was the spirit that we continued on. I haven't counted the days. That was the whole spirit that we continued on. Trustee Bredemeyer: I know Dr. Garrell wanted to say something. Dr. Carrell: There is the statement that I brought in, basically from someone from Brookhaven. I would like to leave that with you. The idea of it is that the groundwater analysis so far presents severe problems. Dave Emilita is not a ground water hydrologist. Neither is really Cramer or Voorhis. The physical analysis and the mathematical analysis if that system has not been done to the satisfaction to some of the people who were consulted with and we feel more time will be necessary if that is to be included in the final impact statement. For now, you can put that in the record. Mr. Herzweig: Dr. Carrell, what would that cost? Dr. Carrell: Time mostly, and it would cost two or three days of a qualified consultant. It would depend on the fees. If someone like Barbara Royce, at Brookhaven, did it, she probably gets about $400.00 a day. If you took someone like Jay Lehrd the head of the American Waterworks Association, well there are three people that I can think of, Barbara Royce, Jay Lehrd, George Pintrick at Princeton. These people are good at groundwater modeling. You can answer the questions once and for all what those plooms look like, given the hydraulic gradient given the characteristics of the soil and what that nutrient gloom is going to look like from that ring of cesspools. I figure a few days would do it because the computer programs are already there. Lehr would do it for about $1500.00 or 1,000. Barbara Royce would do it for probably half that plus any travel expense. Mr. Herzweig: Would any one of them do it for free? Dr. Carrell: Probably not, no one works for free any more? Do they? The Town, I presume, could get some imput from them in the F.E.I.S. Mr. Herzweig: Would you want us to pay for this? Trustee Bredemeyer: I think the final Impact statement would be a decision to be made right here as part of the work session. If the Trustees feel that this is important enough to put in, if they feel that it has not been addressed adequately? Maybe this is something that we should be looking at letting the applicant put the package together. If they want to put it together now. If we have a problem with it, if we feel that we want to mitigate it, we will say go back to the nutrient removal or some other kind or sanitary system, and all of the restrictive covenants they offered. Page 11. — March 3, 1987 Maybe this is wasting public money and private money to go ahead on the search on this? Dr. Garrell: You can't suspend the laws of physics. You can't suspend the laws of hydraulics. You can not suspend the laws of nutrient chemistry. You can answer the question of weather that system is nitrogen limited or phosphorus limited by doing some sampling in the pond. Just like you can answer the question of what the cesspool plooms are going to look like by doing some computer modeling. It has been done. What I'm telling you. . . . Town Attorney Tasker: Does the Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services do this? Trustee Bredemeyer: I honestly don't know? Dr. Carrell: No. Town Attorney Tasker: If it is so dam important. Dr. Carrell: Bob, it is hinted at in the 208 study. Town Attorney Tasker: There are thousands and thousands of permits being issued. That is sophisticated study. Dr, Carrell: This is not sophisticated at all Bob. It is absolutely critical. Trustee Bredemeyer: I'm sure it is all known. It is a question that this site is so peculiar, it is a small surface water pond that may have a character that is more related to freshwater bodies. It is going to be directly impacted. I do swimming pools and bathing beaches in the Health Dept. I have had a lot of experience there, I think I know for a fact, if major thrust is protecting public health and maybe not protecting the health of a Pond. We have a ZJ�Clw"lU3 -.:r$l..u,ie�li.. e wl:er . vd atu buppjsc of the wetlands and their environs. I think that that is where the difference is occuring between the agencies on this sort of thing. Mr. Herzweig: Mr. Bredemeyer, the only thing that I would say in response to Dr. Carrell's observations is no. 1, the Laws of Physics or what ever other laws of science you mentioned were still in existence in Jan. of 1986. In Jan. of 1986 you spoke very eloquently about how flawed that document was. I don't recall you saying anything like the things that you said tonight? My main objection is, the things that you are saying tonight, my laymen's experience is the first time I have heard it. Bill has spoken about the rule of reason, that is from the New York Court of Appeals. You can go on and on forever. You can have two Professors in the same room and have three opinions. I'm telling you now, it is never going to end. You can listen to Dr. Carrell and Mrs. Dove, it is never going to end. Trustee Bredemeyer: Dr. Carrell was concerned with the nutrient loading. I think that everyone was surprised that a study was going on so well, everyone was cooperating so well, there was one thing, get us information on the nutrient status of the pond. That was one thing Dr. Garrell was concerned with. Page 12. — March 3, 1987 Mr. Herzweig: I think that is what is coming from the Health Dept. ? Mr. Moore: No not the nutrient loading. Trustee Bredeme yet: If you don't get the nutrient loading get us the ground water flow. William Moore: That is what we're getting you the groundwater flow. And it is being substantiated. Trustee Bredemeyer: We don't have to know what is in it if it isn't going there? Mrs. Moore: That's on the way. Dr. Carrell: The problem that I pointed out in the beginning when I first looked at the D.E.I.S. they kept insisting that when you have a flow gradient [like that showed] that the only place that you have to look for a spot that travels through that system, is directly down stream of it. I insisted at that time that if they looked at trees and cherry and if he looked at books that included groundwater problems that you notice that even though the gradient is pointed in that direction you still look for flow that is perpendicular to the gradient. In other words, the nutrient gloom spreads out like that. Those nutrient plooms spread out in a more pointed direction if the gradient is sharp. If the gradient is not sharp, if the gradient is less, what happens there is more of a circular spread. There is always a transverse direction to look at. We know that out here with the problem Of temik. If you inject the temik in the middle of a potato lot, and the hydraulic gradient goes one way. YOu don' t look merely north or south in the direction of the gradient, you have to look at how the guys are getting affected to the side. This is what I said. This was not ever answered in the response to the comments. The problem is very predictable if you know where your cesspools are. If you know what the hydraulic gradient looks ook like that are injected into that pond. That should be done to do aW proper final impact statement. I said that from the start. Trustee Bredemeyer: What if we try to set up a deadline to get this read to vote on it at the end of May. y William Moore: I'm putting the lawyers hat back on. Last week I thought we excercised our patience by trying to get information to you. The offer was uone to assist you, as you pointed out, this document is your baby. We know how the system works. We had information from Professor Black. If you wish to disregard it, that's fine, but have competent evidence to disregard it. We said that we would get you information on groundwater. That has been promised to us. That letter will be available_ tomorrow, if not by week's end. To answer the very specific question that you had last week about this piece of property and about the methodology that was used there. Mr. Voorhis talked to me about it this afternoon, and he assured me that the methodology was accurate was substantiated by the hydraulics at the County who in fact, read the entire impact statement over the weekend. I an not going to preempt his comments because I don' t know to what extent he Will dive into them. The cooperation has been from our end. I think that the ...for=tion is here. I have reached n}' wits end, my patience 's end, Board of Trustees — March 3, 1987 — page 13. my legal end. We have done everything we can, we have done everything we are going to do. Trustee Bredemeyer: You are saying that the Final Impact Statement is our baby. We are at a point now, that we will vote out a resolution stating the fact that we have expert testimony from people involved and in birding that May is critical. We want May. William'Moore: Where was last May? Every time we sit down more questions arise. Trustee Bredemeyer: We want May. Trustee Goubeaud: The document was incomplete. The study was not complete. William Moore: The document was done, was being reviewed, and was accepted. Trustee Bredemeyer: The response comments did not come in until November. William Moore: Good point, the response comments are also the obligation of the Board. I'm not knocking you for saying what happened in January. He took the summer and did his responses. You had a chance to respond. We are going in circles here. Trustee Bredemeyer: I think the Board is ready to set a date certain that we will vote out, in other words you have to have a 10 day comment, or a 10 day publishin William Moore: From the announcement of the final impact statement you must wait a minimin of 10 days before you can make your findings. You have a form notice that has to go out to other agencies telling them that you completed vour final impact statement. You must wait ten days. Trustee Bredemeyer: How can we finish a final impact statement when we feel that ---sae. ..'.a `:_`:y_. .] _.._ 1-' Sni_�_ h1q c.=L. _1 . . n. � done our thing. " We are saying now we have a very creditable person saying that she knows the site. She is saying that May is critical. We are not saying June, July, August, or September. We are saying May based on what creditable information that was given to us by an expert witness. We are willing to set it up that we vote it at our May regular meeting. We will publish it ten days before. We have to go out if we are not happy with the County or who ever. We call in our own expert witnesses. We have the burden of putting in test wells or shooting elevations. - The only thing that you, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Voorhis will have to do is put it together, a table of contents, we will send you our report if we have something additional. Mrs. :bore: The packet though, we will have the response on the water analysis we are going to have it to you by the end of the week. This means that the whole packet will be ready for you, for the final for April's meeting. I have asked Mr. Cramer if it would be possible to have it for April. He said yes. It is a very formalistic process. So what you are asking is, two or three months before You are willing to put the process together. We're saying that it is ready to go. Trustee Krupski: We asked for more information. They said yes. Then they will give us the same information. Page 14 - March 3, 1987 Mrs. Moore: No. William Moore: You have the benefit of a two page letter tonight. You will have the benefit a letter from the Health Dept. by weeks end. Trustee Krupski: Substantiating your methodology. William Moore: Which is the question that was raised by Mr. Bredemeyer last week. I really lost my patience. This is it gang! I ask you to seek legal opinion as to whether or not you complied with the process? Trustee Krupski: That is why our Attorney is here? William Moore: That's good, I hope that you will continue to seek his wise counci You are asking to reopen and add up. . . . . . .We tried to pin it down. Trustee Bredemeyer: In this area, we can not fight with the applicant. If the Board, or someone wants to go with a resolution after consulting with Mr. Tasker, that we want additional time? We can look at the S.E.Q.R. Handbook and the S.E.0 Law? Town ATtorney Tasker: With all due respect to the Board. I looked at the file. The file goes back to 1985. You people have had this thing for more than a year and one-half. Now you are talking about another three months. Consider the applicant. I don't care what kind of a case they have? Good or bad, you can' t dangle them on a string. I don't think that you will find anything in S.E.Q.R. that will give you a year and one-half to fiddle around. Every time you meet you come up with something different. This is what you are doing tonight. You had two people here tonight coming up with two different things. Trustee Bredemeyer: No, that was a continuation of discussion. Town Attorney Tasker: A continuation, you just took two witnesses here tonight - ..-. Trustee Bredemeyer: We afforded the applicant to come in to explain to our satisfaction information on the- hydr-alogy_ and -wildlife_ survey.—We--are being-- realistic. Town Attorney Tasker: Now you talked about doing a bird study and going into nest May and. nest September? Trustee Bredemeyer: This was discussed at the last meeting. Didn' t we send you a notice of the meeting? Town Attorney Tasker: The application started in Sept. of 1985. That will be 1988 that will be three years. Trustee Bredemeyer: We have asked you to come to how many meetings? Did you show up? Town Attorney Tasker: I happened to he sick, John. But, for God sake you can' t drag this on. You have to make a decision. Page 15. — March 3, 1987 Trustee Bredemeyer: We can take what they have given us. We can deal with it. We have information that they feel is sufficient. We will have to deal with it. We will be under the gun. I guess we will have to vote on it at the next meeting. A year and a half, Bob, a year was eaten up by their own analyst who had it sitting on his desk. He had it sitting on his desk for a year. Town Attorney Tasker: Tonight you are talking about having a study made for these gradients, or what ever it is? Trustee Coubeaud: These items have all been questionable. Trustee Bredemeyer: Under S.E.Q.R. the Board is entitled. . . . . Town Attorney Tasker: Have you ever done this before? Have you ever experienced this before? Have you sought the Board of Health's council on this? Clerk: Yes, we have asked for a copy of their file. Trustee Krupski: It's our job. Not to rubber stamp it. Town Attorney Tasker: What did they say? Clerk: We are awaiting their response. Town Attorney Tasker: It seems to me you are going out on a tangent by yourselves seeking information that is basically the province of another Board? Trustee Smith: You said a year and one—half, this is dated October 16, 1986, Trustee Bredemeyer: Those are response comments. Town Attorney Tasker: The original hearing goes back to 1985. Trustee Smith: I agree. William Moore: Your S.E.Q.R. public hearing was held on Jan. 1986. That is an important time frame.Now, I agree, the applicant took the burden of preparing the response to comments. Under S.E.Q.R. they are the Board's responsibility. Trustee Bredemeyer: See, we don't have the benefit of the letter from the Health Dept. , which would have been nice to have. Wiliam Moore: I was dying. Up until 4:00 P.M. this afternoon we were trying to get it. Believe me, we more than you wanted that. That would have cleared up one more dangling end. Mrs. Moore: The letter you are getting is a second opinion. Mr. Black's commentary in the letter is a second opinion to your questions. Now you have everything that you should need. William Moore: When we left last week, had we come in the spirit of cooperation with this information, and I really wished that we would have had that letter toda, Page 16. — March 3, 1987 that we would have resolved those questions. So that we wouldn't be talking about bird studies into May and June. That his letter of opinion, I thought would have been accepted by the Board. I continue to believe his letter is a respected opinion as an expert. That the Board would have acknowledged it as such. Trustee Bredemeyer: Okay, I think that we have. . . . Bob, Town Attorney Tasker: I don't know, I just have set in on two of these meetings. It seems to me that everytime you meet, you bring up something else that seems to be rather new at the tale end of the proceeding. I must say, in all of the time the Town Board was administering this law in doing their town business under S.E.Q.R. they never came anywhere near this time, except in Costello. This was a rather big thing that envolved legislation. It just seems that the S.E.Q.R. process was never designed to be carried on for two years. But still you are talking about having another bird study. You are talking about hiring another scientist to do the water study. Two and one—half years after you have the application? What will come after that? Trustee Bredemeyer: When we got the application, then we asked for an impact statement. We were in a position that we weren't pleased with the response comments. Maybe it was the biggest mistake that this Board ever made asking the Town Planner to review the information when he did not have a bases in hydrology? We are concerned with having this pond turn into a cesspool. It can happen. Your basic feeling would appear that this has gone beyond time. Town Attorney Tasker: You are just dragging. I get the impression that you are getting more stumbleing blocks. Trustee Bredemeyer: These were issues that were distilled out of the Public Hearii under the Wetland Ordinance. In the future we will have one hearing. William Moore: That was an area that I was frantic about. That was a new chance to open up a can of worms. _In this—Board's jurisdiction it overlaps in a very bif way. When you talk about the Town Board, their S.E.Q.R. Hearing is an Economic, Environmental and Social concern. Their public hearing then is for the public to comment on the merits of the application. There is a difference. In this case I reiterate to you a suggestion that you align your hearings. You have them one in the same. Trustee Bredemeyer: I suspect that we will in the future. This was a first for this Board. I think that we approached it, the response comments were offered to wrap it up as part of the Draft then have the total package. Then if there were questions, they would be laid to rest in the final impact statement. That is wher we find ourselves now. Trustee Krupski: I don' t think that this is the longest the Board ha on an application. s deliberated Trustee Bredemeyer: Silberman. That was two, two and one—half years. William Moore: What was that an application for? Trustee Bredemeyer: That was for dredging a pond. A very small, very similar to t. one you want to build on. Page 17. — March 3, 1987 William Moore: I hate to sit and stamp and shout and count the days. I like the way it is to live out here. I have an appreciation for that. Trustee Smith: We did set a date when we would vote on this thing, in May. I would think that that is a long way past where we have been so far. Mrs. Moore: We are in March. We have to go to the Zoning Board. Your two months will result in the Zoning Board not being able to get us on the agenda for possibl another two months. Their schedule gets booked up. Your two months, get's to be four months? Trustee Bredemeyer: Legally can this Board go ahead, take the Final Impact Statement from them and if there was an area for an approval as opposed to not approving, that the Board could finish the survey. I have a problem with the survey. I have a hang up with that. If someone from the Health Dept. is going to certify that there is no problem that is wonderful. Town Attorney: I just looked at the whole process, I may be an extreme minority position, but you are talking about a few birds as either making or breaking this whole process. If two or three birds are going to be displaced? Nothing was said about whether they were going to go across the street and nest over there? I don' t think that S.E.Q.R. was intended to get into this question of protecting the environment where you are talking about a blade of grass and a bird. Trustee Bredemeyer: A bird is like a snaldarter. It is an endangered species. Town Attorney Tasker: I don't think that was the intent to look at it that hard. Then if you do everything will come to a halt. Mr. Moore: You have to work within the rule of reason. You have Professor Black' letter. We could establish his expertise in the field. Town Attorney Tasker: His summarv, i think he has taken a great view. Mrs. Dove 15 lUOd1[ly.3L1 L1e S`C'r3Y DTYSS ur IS ll' wily'"-Z"1"iSJi.',".t-1t:""li bli a u`-e'0'2Yy" single application this way, no one would ever get a permit to do anything. You would be sitting at these hearings 365 day a year. You would never get anything do: Trustee Krupski: You're saying that we should not scrutinize? . _ Town Attorney Tasker: No, they never intended that you go that deep into it. This man has a half—acre of property upon which half of it is wooded. He is going to take half of it out for his house. How many trees are you talking about. Trustee Bredemeyer: We are concerned that the site is not used by species that are afforded special protection by the law. We had an impact statement that was expanded on very well by the Professor. Itmade you wonder what else is missing. Mrs. Moore: It was the consultant who boxed you in a corner. Mr. Moore: S.E.Q.R. is in the rule of reason. You have to pose whether this is going to have a significant environmental impact. Significant is an important word Trusteee Bredemeyer: When the pond turns, the Trustees can close it off and let it cook like in other towns. Page 18 - March 3, 1987 Town Attorney: If that did happen, am I correct to think that there are houses on the other side? Trustee Bredemeyer: Yes, and that can happen. Town Attorney: I think the planner said in his review that he would recommend against the remaining lots on the west side being developed. He kind of recommended approval of this one. Trustee Bredemeyer: The same arguments raised by this applicant can be raised by other applicants. Mr. Moore: One of the questions raised by Mr. Emilita was the potential cumulative impacts. One of the neat things of this project was the that you acquired it to be site specific. This piece of property has it's unique characteristics. This piece in itself can justify a permit when everything around it can not. Any judge can find a crack between the two, there is where the new law comes in. Trustee Bredemeyer: If April. . . William Moore: We were asked to come up with two additional items, the wildlife inventory, which weprompted with Professor Black's letters. The second one was a question of the methodology used to determine the groundwater gradients and the movement of groundwater, the question of the testing techniques that were used. We promised to go to . the Health Dept. and get a letter that the technique that was used is an accepted methodology to determine what was done. That letter is coming. Trustee Bredemeeyr: Those were questions that we had at the last meeting, and it goes back to questions resulting from the Public Hearing on the Wetland Application. The response comments did not address what we wanted after the original S.E.Q.R. Hearing on the Draft. That was the whole thing. The thrust was to wrap up that there will not be an impact on the pond. What if the letter from the Health Dept. doesn't come out. Mr. Moore: We will get that letter to you. Trustee Bredemeyer: If the Board--doesn' t- think that-it-is-thorough---enough - ---- - then we have to finish the study, we have to write the final. It would be nice to have you do it. Mr. Moore: I haven' t offered to write anything. Mrs. Moore: Are you talking April 1st or April 30th. You could get it on March. Trustee Bredemeyer: Why don't we set up a special meeting for the beginning of April? 1 Mrs. Moore: You will have to look at all the information that you have before you. Mr. :ioore: We ask that you expedite and move with all speed. Trustee Bredemeyer: I'll tell you I want to vote this thing out. We have to take the bull by the horns. Page 19 — March 3, 1987 Trustee Bredemeyer: Do you want to do the formal resolution on this to vote on the application in April? Trustee Smith: I move that we vote on the Moore/Cramer application at the April regularly scheduled meeting, notice having been published in the newspaper to meet the S.E.Q.R. requirements at least ten days before. Trustee Bredemeyer: I'll second that. Clerk: Vote of Board: Ayes: All — This resolution was declared duly adopted. Special meeting closed at 9:05 P.M. Memorandum from . . . . Southold Town Board of Appeals TOWN HALL, SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971 765-1809 G� Date : 0 To: f�� � e1 G�J yc2c.fe,t/ From: IY/7- f CA b 11 HENRY P. SMITH, President TELEPHONE JOHN M. BREDEMEYER, Vice-Pres. }T (616) 766ONE PHILLIP J. GOUBEAUD �,v gq� :+' -1892 ALBERT KRUPSKI, JR. s `^.- ELLEN M. LARSEN BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OFSOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 SCR NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF FINAL EIS LEAD AGENCY: Southold Town Trustees Project: Wetlands Permit Appl. NO. 312 ADDRESS: Southold Town Hall Thomas W.Cramer/William Moore 53095 Main Road P. 0. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 (516) 765-1892 Date: April 13, 1987 This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 (and Chapter 44) of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review) of the Environmental Conservation Law. The lead agency has completed and accepted a Final Environmental Impact Statement on the proposed action described below. TITLE OF ACTION: Meadow Lane Residence, Mattituck DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Construction of a 1,545 square foot, two story frame, single family residence with attached garage, deck, well and sanitary system. LOCATION: Meadow Lane, Mattituck Town of Southold County of Suffolk Long Island, New York COPIES TO THE FOLLOWING: 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 Adviso y council Bldg. Dept. Board of Appeals Town Clerk's Office Town Clerk's Bulletin Board Suffolk Times L. I. Traveler-Watchman William D. Moore, Esq. Benjamin Herzweig, Esq. Trustees file 0 cross rioad Ridge. N. V. il'j67. Hpr.11 in, loot Mr . menry R. Smith. President board of !own trustees Town of Southold Down Hal .:, b3095 !Actin Road P. U. Hox ,L8 Southold, N. Y. 110/1 He: Review or Wrameri Moore project .Dear Mr. amith : ncloseo please i.lnd my critique of the Urart unvirorl- mental impact Statement and one wesoonse to comments on tine Lr,'amer/Moore protect. ? ne rindings can generally oe cate- porized an topics whi cn Kau deers misinterpreted and reculren clarification and tonics ror which tiere appears ter de rnatnecuiate information. the majority of fincing5 are win,) regard to items having r.e4atively minor impacts. however, the tonic"' of contaminant transport may require additional consideration. - Please he advised than one enclosed critique required a total of eight to) r.ours r'or preparation. As per our agree-.. ment, the c:nar_]e 'ron tnl. s service is *so per lour. This resu:ts in a consultant see of Oc4it which can ue submitted to we at the aaores>s aaove. Very truly yours, OarUara P. Royce wivi i and mnvironmon'tal Snyineer Critique of the Draft Environmental Impact statement for the Meadow Lane Residence, MattitucK and the Response to Lomments on the Meadow Lane residence, Mattirwax Preoared for board of Town Trustees Town of Southold April 19a/ eardara A. Hoye& Civil and environmental engineer 1 ime TolioW1n❑ comments are uasec on a ruviow wT One Lrarr, onvironmental impact statement (Dols) mnc Eno !tessUor„e' to Lomments. (me actual rerc_rences r_isuo In the a..c" were not reviewed. H memorancum dated March 6. 1081 was Grovldea In wnicn comments are oresenteo ov a ovdrwyeoiogist at the butfolx Uounty ueoarrment of Heai.cn :oervlcos arcer reviewing _he nvorocjec_r_r„lc aspects or the same ma,.er_ni. 1t is recorpn zed Gnat tnerce may Do acc itlona;. wourccs or inrormat lun. or c r r r_so nuence and conversations nve_r•.: :r ions Sc tw+een cn moutnolm ! own irusteas anU We property ownersla .» l lcync. W micn m1unz orovlue at_IC:1iri na.: 11':5muns 17Cr Sombf 00 01scubseu D&iow. r ; Meru acuear io Ae WOWU C1TVer'. 0q v.laWQ r wWn&r:_vdr'_:v on a few too cw in cm, menownse 'cis LomwyNtE on '•''nn: ' wnxr_n snou.ic.I oe r'esolveo. iMin reviuw has also iuuntlrlecd some comics wr'11crr may recuire ciarlricata.on or acoltr.on•ai information. Ir. e rindlnos at trtls cr'•1t1c'.iue are urovlced oelow: me concenvr eclr_;n or ;:a r:i omica.i on waca,.. . eoresentis a measure or the Wa*S Or Une L nSCitunnt in En u '.tvun vo,, u w ov me nalccer. �_ cfvntl -�'l; LG195 ..T !_n riva._i.'. COnst1tU31nts In gaiter are "ot uawoin1vH in LOH sense 'Nou 'Jnr?a numer icai alura`_i can we sr_lmwe❑ 6ouetour or hx ! =..P'' at -. Waste stream W.:. C "1 .a SPtJIrCCrnGt'-at l _'-r) a• " IIi41 Haw . i "1cna1' _ei GO a rCCL v nu Wau,r o un a r -4oenc 9.1 ..on ui as 0/ ,. or ., i_' same constituent, the resulting concentration would not necessarily be e4 mg/ l. H mass balance on the parameter or interest must be performed to determine the resuitant concentration. Tnereto're, It several oArterent effluent streams discharged into the same body of water, the resultant concentration would depend on the concentration of the constituent in each effluent stream, the quantity of each effluent stream, the concentration of the same constituent in the receiving water, and the quantity or tnE:? receiving water as well as the amount of mixing that is expected to occur. i_. orround writer moves in acconoanQe wine the nyprauiic gradient, from areas or high neap to areas of low heap. Lont -ur" ANes on writer table (paps Qonnect points of equal head and the ground water movement is peroendicuiar to them. 3. H goound water contour map of the general site area is provided in the Response to Comments (Figure r-W . Phis reap is paseo on water" ievei monitoring data shown in laoie r-i. Figure K-d coes not lnciuoe a north arrow however, It is Included on similar site macs in the unit. inese were used to Identify Vhe approximate location of the north arrow on rLgure F W review or rigure F-e attar applying this method indicates that Una direction or mound water flow in Ma area appears, 60 be s_unn-soutneast as reported in the Unit. (=1 nydrogeologiat at the butfOlk. L:ounty .Department or Health Services (SCDHS) also reviewed the DEIS. une of the t.indings was that "the uireetio'n Of regional qro_unu water flow in the project area is due south, and not south- soutneast as indicated in the LEIS". whlle it is recognized that the 'WCDHS hydroreologist may have access to additional information upon whicn this statement- is based, it is noted that no additional information supporting this statement was provided. 4. hZeDatowski lissoclates, Inc. t5H11 and one boutnolu lawn Conservation kcvisory Council (WHO raised some very valid .questions in their reviews :a t'1P_ L015, one ma.iority of wnicn nave been adecuately addressed in one nesmonse to Commt_ncs. ncwever., in one response to bH1 ' s seventn item (witn regard to disturbance below the ten root contour) , the lase: sentence states Ina, 'L;opies of correspondence and revised permit is pound In One appendlx-. copies of One cc�rresponcrz�nce. were round in One apoenuix al'6nougn It appears tnat a copy or one revised permit may nave Been inadvertently _mitten. Mere is !still one area wnion remains unresoived or unc_ear: the Direction or around water flow and the extent of the potential nitrate plume- rrom The 'sanitary Tielo nave no-t been adecuatsl.y addressee. 'me ; 10w wn❑ 'transport Of chemical constituents :n pround water can be influenced by mechanisms sucn as advectiory dispersion, diffusion, adsorption, entrapment, decay, and transformation. H brief discussion of these mechanisms is provided to aid in the understanding of the transport of constituents in ground water. Aovection :is that portion of transport which is attributable to the flawing ground water. Hydrodynamic dispersion is responsible ror the spreading of the constituent away from the flow path that it would normally follow by advectlon. Hydrodynamic dispersion has been descrideo as vnt_ mixin,,j and spreading of particles ❑artially cue to microscopic variations within individual pores (Hnderson, it/&A . Hydrodynamic dispersion can be expressed in terms of two camponents, molecular oiftUsIOn and dispersivity. tiir-FUSIon is generally not considered in most ground water analyses because it is very small :in comparison with disnersivicy and is significant only at .low velocities. Discersivit'y is a property which is characteristic of the porous media. when there are variations of the hydrologic properties withi n then aquifer, dispersion occurs as the solute moves; selectively around less Permeable unit _. of the formation. Hdsr,ration :is 'to" pnysIvOc„emical rorce :y which a contaminant is retained in a mass or .,_ ii. it is oescr^ bed as the partitioning Of 'Une contaminant between liquid ;and solid phases in tine porous mecla ( ree_ze and Merry, :.079) . The amount of contaminant that is odsoreed on the soil is a function of its concentration and aAso depends or. u.th cr-�e cnemistry at the water and or txe geologic media. The transfer of contaminant mass from the pore water to the s0110 part of the porous media uy adsorption resuits in tna migration of the contaminant front at a rate slower than We ground water itself". Entrapment is the process wnereoy r"ntaminanus Qeccne trapped in small pores within the geologic formation ano can contribute to a reduction in the total concentration W constituent flowing tnroogh the porous redza. A const . t:eo�; in ground water can aiso ^e/ "cxeo upon gy the mec:anzsms of oecay or transformation. Some constituents can "ecay ano oe reouceo in nass; etners can oeray arm oe transfcrmeo different products" S^metames these uy—protucts are oF :rre concern Man tne orioinai ccnstz�uen�. The geoiogy of tne aquifer plays a very szgnifzcann roje in tne transport of ronstztuents, foe rate of adsorption or contaminants varies accoruing to the media t:rcugK wn^cn i,� is flowing. We geologic conuitzons of a given aqvlrer WIll alsp affect rMe direction and rate of flow of flylo in that aquifer. Variations in geojvgzc properties s00n as toe porosity, permeauilicy ano myoraujic connuctzvity can affect tne czrectzcn ano note of flow" me iresence of clay ^enses can a�so inNuence rxe flow. juMer factors cxat cao znvluence tre race ano ozrecnion of wouno water ~ jow are oumpinc or inJectzcn wells and areas of recoarCe or u'srnarge. The shape of a contaminant plume is unique ror eac-1 source because of Variable hydrogeologic conditions and mecnanisms of contamination. Most contaminant plumes tend to elliptical in shape. fhe plume spreads laterally as it is transported away from the source due to the dispersive properties of the given formation. Mathematical models are frequently used to predict the extent of contamination in ground waters. H mathematical ground water model is an equation or set oP equations which describe the physical processes ocurring in the aoulfer. These equations, based on the .laws of conservation or mass r momentum, and energy, take the form of partial differential. equations and can be solved oy various matnematical metnoan. There are a variety of ground water models wva:j anle :in the open .I. verature. home are much more sophltlt icaoso Irian Others. Simpie ground water moCels can be used to perform a bounding or worm case analysis however they must: Oe applicable to the contaminant release scenario and to the: geology at the site of interest. H m-�round water g - icel could be used to d WI= the extent of contamination vrom the sanitary field at the Meadow Lane residence, 40wever should be noted that the OEIS does not provide sui` f-':,ci ant information on the geology or the aquifer to oc00. t should also be recognized that such an analysis way not bey necessary it the direction or ground water flow and the extent; of the potential nitrate plume can be de!lned by other methods. References Hnderson, M. P. , Using Models to Simulate the Movement of Contaminants through Ground Water Flow Systems, CRC Critical. keviews in Environmental Control, 5:c:97-156, Nov. iy/9. Freeze, R. H. and J. P. Cherry, Vroundwater, Prentice-Hall, inglewood Cliffs, NJ .19/9. CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES � Ic Environmental and Planning Consultants L� _/,�. P.O.Box 622 .. -._. _ _. .. . . . -. Miller Place,New York 11764 (516)473-6302 Thomas W.Cramer, LA Charles J.Voorhis April 3 , 1987 Mr. Henry Smith President Town Trustees Town of Southold 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re : Meadow Lane Residence Mattituck Dear Mr. Smith: Enclosed please find a completed Final Environmental Impact Statement that has been prepared as per your request. It has not been bound in order to allow for ease of copying. This document conforms to the requirements of a Final Environmental Impact Statement as set forth in Part 617 . Also, for your convenience, I have enclosed a Notice of Completion of Final Environmental Impact Statement as taken from the SEQRA Handbook. If we can be of any further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to contact us . V,pry truly, ypurs� Thomas W. Cramer, R.L.A�-"/- TWC: lf Enclosure cc: Mr. William Moore Benjamin Hertzweig, Esq. f SEAR Notice of Completion of Final EIS Lead Agency: SOUTHOLD TOWN TRUSTEES Project 0(if any ) WetlandsAddress: Town of Southold, Town Hall Permit n312 53095 Main Road P. 0. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 ( 515 ) 765-1892 Date: This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 (and local law # Chap. 44 if any) of the imple- menting regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review) of the Environ- mental Conservation Law. The lead agency has completed and accepted a Final Environmental Impact Statement on the proposed action described below. Title of Action: .^.eadow Lane Residence , Matti tuck Description of Action: Construction of a 1 , 345 square foot, two story frame , single family residence with attached garage, deck, well and sanitary system. Location: (Include the name of the county and town.) Meadow Lane, Mattituck Town of Southold County of Suffolk New York f C-20 SEAR Time Frames FILE NOTICE FILE NOTICE FILE NOTICE 1 j 60 Days (unless extended) 30 Days' 15 Days 30 Days 10 Days (min.) START (maximum) (maximum) NO TIME FRAME (minimum) 30 Days (max.) END Proposed Determine Determine Prepare Determine Public Comment Lead Agency Findings and SEOR Action Lead Agendy Significance DEIS Completeness Prepares FEIS Decisions Process D If Hearing Is Needed 12 additional business days for lead agency disputes 45 Days 15 Days (min.)' No Time (unless 60 Days (max.) Frame extended) publish hearings Commence Hearing Lead Agency notice at least Hearing Prepares FEIS 14 days before After Hearings public hearing • M:f' = !=i��r. i „►',�`���~ �� •����..`�'Z.:a�.�1:.a :.., ' .ill . II r 1t •.���w\�=�w\���.. .\ 4�"�'���w������wel�www� �•\�.vww w'�I•.� ']�� . l' �., mow.\�.... .....�. _ jrl w�.�\ew ���w�":w��w.���•:�w ` �IRIIIRI�RIUIIIIIHIIIII �' •;°I �- NNR�IRR�RIIRRIIRRII -- ---��_ +-� _ �-' 1 j -- --�:• +1►,r�'�:� ram-. -: ;' - - CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants P.o.Box 6 2 2 Miller Place,New York 11764 (516)473-6302 Thomas W.Cramer, LA Charles J. Voorhis FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR MEADOW LANE RESIDENCE MATTITUCK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK MARCH, 1987 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 TRUSTEE'S COMMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 SAI REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 CAC REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 RESPONSE TO SAI REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 RESPONSE TO CAC REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 NITRATE IMPACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 WILDLIFE SPECIES LIST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 SMALLER HOUSE ALTERNATIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 FLOW PLUME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 NITRATES & VIRUSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 GROUNDWATER & SOIL CHARACTERISTICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 SCDHS CORRESPONDENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 DECLARATION OF COVENANTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 WILDLIFE SURVEY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 ENGINEER'S CORRESPONDENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 CORRESPONDENCE AS RESULT OF WORK SESSION SCDHS CORRESPONDENCE . . . . . . . . . . 54 ORNITHOLOGIST CORRESPONDENCE . . . . . . 59 NOTICE OF RECEIPT OF DEIS . . . . . . . . . . 61 NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF DEIS. . . . . . . . 63 ENVIRONMENTAL NEWS BULLETIN . . . . . . . . . 65 INTRODUCTION The following is the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Meadow Lane residence, Mattituck, Town of Southold, New York. The DEIS was submitted to the Town of Southold Town Trustees, as Lead Agency on December 2 , 1985 , receipt of same was acknowledged on December 9 , 1985 . Notice of Completion of DEIS was dated January 6 , 1986 . A public hearing was scheduled and held on January 23 , 1986 . The official notices of the above can be found in the Appendix of this Document. The DEIS is part of this FEIS, although not printed with same. The DEIS is on file with the Town Trustees as Lead Agency. This Document contains copies of and a summary of substantive comments as received from the Lead Agency. Also found within this Document are the Response to the Comments and other relative correspondence . - 1 - CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants o • TELEPHONE (516) 765-1892 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road •- P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 February 11, 1986 Mr. Thomas W. Cramer P. O. Box 622 Miller Place, New York 11764 Re: Meadow Lane, Mattituck Dear Mr. Cramer: Pursuant to your submission of the DEIS and subsequent Public Hearing held on January 23, 1986 regarding the above referenced matter, please furnish a Supplemental DEIS subject to the following requests: 1. Items in SAI review. 2 . Items in Conservation Advisory Council ' s review. 3 . Re-evaluation of nitrate impact on the wetland and pond. 4 . Complete list of wildlife on the parcel with documented monitoring. 5. Smaller home alternative (less than 1000 square ft. ) . 6. Flow plume characterization and all other chemical questions asked by the CAC on recharge, lawn fertilization and alternative sanitary systems . 7. Nitrites and viruses . 8 . Document seasonal fluctuation of groundwater, ground- water mounding and soilborings. Thank you for your cooperation in regard to this matter. inr t my yoursy P. Smith, President Board of Town Trustees HPSLip 2 --- - SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS d TO: Southold Board of ^_own Trustees RE: Single Family Residence, Meadow Lane Mattituck FROri: Szepatowski Associates, Inc. DATE: January 20 , 1986 Upon SAI ' s review of the draft Environmental Impact Statement of "Meadow Lane Residence" by Cramer & Voorhis Associates, the following questions have been raised. In general we find the DEIS to be a thorough and sensitive examination of the site but several areas need amplification. 1. Lots 5 , 6, 7 , 8 , 9 , and 12 directly surrounding the intertidal marsh in question, are undeveloped. What would the cumulative impact be if all these lots were to be developed? The DEIS does not address the subject of cumulative impacts were the adjacent lots capable of being developed. 2. Directly relating to the above cumulative impact, what then would be the impacts on the fresh groundwater resources ( salt water intrusion) and sanitary waste disposal? 3 . If the proposed well and septic system is allowed where shown, what negative or positive effects would they cause adjacent lots -- 6 & 8 (100 ' setback of well from sanitary system) . We note there has been no approval obtained for the on-site well. 4 . On-site groundwater elevations and gradients are not shown. the use of coil-borings would have provided this information and verified groundwater elevations. It would have been possible to provide this information by limited clearing in the proposed disturbance areas. 5 . The floor of excavation is not shown for the structure or tae septic system. Coupled .with the lack of groundwater elevation data, it cannot be determined whether excavation will or will not penetrate groundwater. This has implications for environmental impacts that cannot be precisely determined until such data are included in the EIS. 3 6 . It has not been specified how stockpiled material will be contained so as not to prevent erosion, or where erosion control measure will be placed on the site. 7. It has been stated that no disturbance would take place below the 10 ' contour, yet the plan approved by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (p.54 . ) clearly shows that there will be such a disturbance. This conflict needs to be addressed. Further discussion of these concerns needs to be addressed in the impact statement so that a complete overview of the proposed action may be seen. Should the applicant be able to successfully address the above points and a finding of no significant environmental impact be made, the following measures would have to be taken at a minimum: 1. Condition all permits on the granting of a well permit from SCDHS. 2 . Specify containment of stockpiled material. 3 . Place two interlocking and staked rows of havbales at the ten foot contour and erect a shoe; fence uphill to protect them from dislodging during construction. 4 . Ribbon trees to be maintained in the area of minimal disturbance and the areas of no disturbance prior to submission of the FEIS. 5 . Approval of the building permit site plan snowing the mitigation measures to be incorporated into the project shall be 'granted by the Board of Trustees prior to submission to the Building Inspector. Interior water saving fixtures also to be shown. 6. Approval should stipulate that no building permit be issued prior to the first of June 1986 . In conclusion, we find that this lot is probably the only buildabie lot remaining on the east side of :ieadow Lane. The physical liniration of lots 5 , 6 , d , and 9 probably render then unauiidable without significant adverse impact--. :1e cannot cor:ment on wildlife impacts since only two field visits were made earlier in Januarv. we have no other familiarity .pith the species alleged to inhabit the site or surroundings. SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIAEFS IVC. n 4 CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL COMMENTS ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT7'7'-�71/�" 3/i STATEMENT (DEIS) for Project of T .Cramer SOUTHOLD T014N WETLAND PERMIT APPLICATION no . 312 Despite the length of the DEIS we find the document to be substan- tially flawed and feel that a number of issues will have to be addressed in greater detail in the Final Environmental Impact Statement ( FEIS) - A summary of our comments appears below and will be followed by page-by-page criticism of the DEIS . SUMMARY 1 . The addition of 14 . 4 lbs of nitrogen per year to the ground water by the project will have a significant effect because it will increase the nitrogen concentration substantially beyond the current levels which may already be a-bov S ppm,, The effects of nitrogen loading are additive and the effects of all houses is cumulative ! 2 . Besides effects on groundwater the effects of nitrogen and phosphorous loading on the small pond must be calcualted as well. The pond water in the wetlands must be sampled four or six times per year for nutrients to predict the impact of another dwelling . 3 . The deleterious effects on wildlife , particularly nesting wildfowl , will be obvious , not merely during construction , but durin the entire period of occupancy of the structure . It will be necessa know exactly what fauna is in that marsh during the year throug a detailed periodic wildlife survey ; a mere listing from a naturali handbook does not suffice here . 4 . Alternatives to the proposal are given short shrift . For example , we would like to know the answers to the following questior Usin the Composting Toilet ( Clivis Multrum) and Orlanci Kitchen Svstem of Appendix 6-2 plus a cesspool for gray water ( already per- mitted in Southold Town) , what does the new numher for nitrogen poundage from sanitary disposal look like? If the turfed area were eliminated completely with fertilizer only applied to shrubs , what is the new estimated poundage of applied nitrogen? 5 . It would }e helpful to see yet another alternative siting plan which would put a smaller home on the property and move it nex to the road (Meadow Lane) . The environmental impacts could be grea reduced by leaving a much larger buffer between dwelling and wetlan< 5 Page-by-page comments p . 6 Where are the catch basins for subsurface recharge? How will wildfowl breeding periods be handled once the dwelling is occupied? p . 14 What does a typical flow plume look like for groundwater in$ (71'64 the area? Flow will take place not only along the hydraulic gradient but also perpendicluar to it . See various models as discussed in texts likeb`Freeze and Chem p . 15 Where were these samples taken? At what time of year? Are they averages? Units appear scrambled for pH and for ions in Table 4 and were left out altogether 4r conductance . Are the readings of ammonia , and nitrate zmb*4X,nay for the ions or for ammonia-N and nitrate-N? You say that no organics have been detected in the vicinity , yet Table 3 lists clear contamination leve p . 24 What is "practical difficulty" ? Could you scale down the structure or go to ZBA of Planning Board for modifications? p . 25 No mention here is made of the Town Wetlands Act . No thought is given to attempts to change covenants should they actually be in force . IP . 31 The statement that"no significant a impact is anticipated from sanitary disposal or lawn fertilization"Ss hardly appears justified from the discussion of the preceding paragraph because 7 . 3 ppm is rather close to 10 ppm and because you will be adding to the current levels (already 16 ppm) Besides you should address the impact on the pond area , not . just groun water . p . 32 See p . 14 comment ,You are not taking perpendicular movement into account here . We cannot aggree with the conclusion that "no surface water impact will occur " on that basis p . 37 What would such a covenant look like? p . 38 Again see comment for p ..31 1I1 p , 47 Septic systems are indeed required inaddition to the systems discussed , but there is no reason why such a hybrid cannot be Vs ed here You should detail the nitrogen reduction which would be possible by using composting toilets and by eliminat turf areas altogether . 6 CONCLUSIONS We hope these questons will be adequately addressed in a rewritten FEIS so that the CAC may proceed in our deliberations for a recommendation for a Wetlands Permit . Sincerely Dr . martin H . Carrell Chariman , Southold Town CAE 7 I. Items in SAI Review 1. Cumulative impacts of lots 5 - 9 , and 12 were developed : The above named lots refer to the Real Property Tax Map for lands adjacent to the tidal marsh in the vicinity of the subject parcel . Review of these parcels finds that Lot 7 is the subject site, 'and lot 12 is owned by the County of Suffolk. The remaining lots are north (5 and 6) and south (8 and 9) of the subject parcel . Review of the topographic map on Page 13 of the DEIS finds that lots 5, 6, 8 and 9 all have significantly more tidal wetlands on site , and do not have sufficient upland area above the 10 foot contour to situate a house in compliance with NYSDEC Tidal Wetlands Regulations (6NYCRR Part 661) and do not provide the opportunities for minimal disturbance as proposed in the Action. Therefore , lot 7 is unique. As stated in the concluding paragraph of the SAI review, Lot 7 is ,,probably the only buildable lot remaining on the east side of Meadow Lane . The physical limitation of lots 5 , 6 , 8 and 9 probably render them unbuildable without significant adverse impacts . " The subject site can be constructed without significant adverse impacts as demonstrated through the research and analysis of the Environmental Impact Statement . Because of the unique configuration of lot 7 , and the highly sensitive nature of lots 5 , 6 , 8 and 9 , it is beyond the scope of this DEIS to investigate the cumulative impacts of this highly theoretical and nearly impossible development scenario . If the four lots were developed with similar CRAMER& VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants 8 constraints as lot 7 , it is possible that the cumulative ground- water impacts would be minimal on existing conditions (see Response II) . However, setbacks from wetlands would be less than the proposed action and the impacts associated with same would increase. Since the area was previously subdivided and each lot is singly and separately owned , each lot , as development is proposed , should be required to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement to assert the potential impacts. 2 . Please refer to Question 1 . 3 . Both the well and sanitary system received approval from Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) on September 13 , 1985 (HS Ref . No . 85-5) -164) . This documentation was provided in the DEIS on page 54 . Any subsequent applications would require review and approval from SCDHS for well and sanitary installation. The Town ' s consultants ' review conclude that lots 6 and 8 do not appear to be buildable. However , given the dimensions of lots 6 and 8 , 115 ' and 130 ' respectively , it is considered that the 100 foot separation can be achieved between wells and sanitary systems . In addition , SCDHS rules allow less of a separation on single and separate lots if the well is .extended 15 ' deeper for every 5 ' closer to the sanitary system. (This extension is in addition to the 40 ' minimal depth below groundwater elevation . ) 4 . A test boring was conducted on-site to determine ground- water elevations . The hole was completed on April 3 , 1986 using a CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants 9 gasoline powered auger , at the location shown on the survey in Figure F-1 . The elevation of groundwater at this location was 1 . 94 feet above sea level on April 3 , 1986 and 2 . 35 feet above sea level on April 27 , 1986 as recorded in Table F-1 . The hydraulic gradient is determined by the following expression (Freeze, Cherry , 1979) : _ dh : dl Where, dh is the change in elevation , and , dl is the change in distance. The gradient between the on-site well (Station 1) and Station 4 , in line with groundwater flow (4-3-86) is determined as follows : _ dh __ . 98 FT = 0 . 0016 Z dl 600 FT The velocity of groundwater flow is determined using Darcy ' s Law as follows : v = ki n where K = hydraulic conductivity , (250 ft/day) and n = porosity ( . 30) . The velocity of flow from Station 1 to 4 is 1 . 33 feet per day. 5. The floor of excavation for the foundation is 6 feet above sea level . This is determined from the DEIS Figures 3 and 4 by subtracting the foundation height from grade. The area for the approved sanitary system will be graded such that the excavation CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants 10 � � \ \ I1�T—.• IIIIIII�IIII( aIII(lilllfllit111 � = i�/ I `\ \� \I 1II IIIi�Iiri(III WfnnNoSIIIIIII'lllll�ll / 1 I III VFW Ih9l a IIIIII Ili(: r I uinrts� �h Illllllq III . IlNlllI�lllllgl �1glllllll I I I i I (� �I Illu i�pV / d4 dl I l(Ilu I(di �lllllldllWilli I II�III6111rq dl�(((m: � / / /� � / /e'�illllllllyl Ilyl�l hll�llll III i Illlllll illl mu111116 flu � �Ilr�(��(f Hilllu '!IIVtlI Ilf Z / No / / / /ulllll III � � dlllll(f PRO v� rlligldllnulriNll'I flllluA4r rlllu = o• b FIGURE F-1 TEST HOLE LOCATION Final Environmental Impact Statement Not to scale MEADOW LANE RESIDENCE (approx. 1"=32') Mattituck, New York August 1986 TABLE F-1 WATER LEVEL MONITORING NETWORK APRIL 3 , 1986 APRIL 27 , 1986 MEASURING DEPTH TO WATER DEPTH TO WATER STATION DESCRIPTION POINT WATER ELEVATION WATER ELEVATION 1 On-site 2" PVC 3 ' screen 11 . 38 9 .44 1 . 94 8 . 74 2 . 35 2 Fire well Cardinal Dr. 17 . 04 14 . 24 2 . 80 14 . 02 3 . 02 3 Reference stake Cardinal Drive bridge 3. 30 1 . 74 1 . 56 1 . 38 1 . 92 4 Reference stake New Suffolk Avenue bridge 3 . 33 2 . 37 0 . 96 1 . 68 1 . 65 r . for leaching pools will have a floor elevation of 5 feet above sea level . Therefore, groundwater will not be intercepted , and sufficient unsaturated soils will be provided beneath the foundation and sanitary system to avoid adverse environmental effects . 6 . Erosion Control on Site : On pages 4-5 of the DEIS , there are four major design features that are incorporated into proposed project which will reduce the potential of erosion . These are : 1 . Establishment of Natural Buffers . 2 . "Stepping" of Structure. 3 . Use of Crane for Excavation . 4 . Storm Water Control . The above are explained on pages 4 and 5 and are also addressed in the "Mitigation Measures" Section , pages 33 and 35. In an effort to assure that erosion potential is further reduced , it is proposed to install two rows of interlocking , staked haybales at the ten foot contour and to erect a snow fence in front to protect them and the area to remain natural from disturbance. (See page 33 of the DEIS) . As stated, the site will be monitored for erosion and appropriate methods used to further reduce erosion. Also as stated in the DEIS , surplus material from the excavation from the foundation will be trucked off site. The method of construction will negate the need for stockpiling large quantities of material for regrading. The use of a crane instead of a bulldozer for excavation will significantly reduce the amount of material disturbed on site, and thus reduce the amount of soil CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants 13 ' necessary to be replaced around the foundation . The design and location of the proposed structure also reduces the amount of regrading and disturbance to the natural soils . It is not intended to allow soils to be exposed or stock- piled for an extended period of time (page 33 DEIS) . However , any soils that are stockpiled between the period of excavation and backfilling of the foundation will be graded to a suitable angle of repose and contained by hay bales on the down gradient side . 7 . No disturbance will take place below the 10' contour , see number 6 above. The exact configuration of the leaching pools were sketched in by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services inappropriately on the approved plan . The configuration of the leaching pools on the approved permit shows one pool on the north side and two to the south. Subsequent discussions and letters confirms that a pattern of two pools to the north and one to the south would be acceptable to Suffolk County Department of Health Services . Such a configuration maintains the distance between the approved well site and leaching pools , required separation between pools , and does not encroach over the 10 ' contour . Copies of correspondence and revised permit is found in the appendix. CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants 14 The review by Szepatowski Associates , Inc . also outlines six measures which should be included in the approval of the project . All six can and will be adherred to , most have already been incorporated into the proposed project . It should also be noted that measure 111 refers to the conditioning of all permit-s on the granting of a well permit from Suffolk County Department of Health Services ; the well permit has been granted by SCDHS , permit 1185-SO-164 , dated September 13 , 1985 (page 54 DEIS) and the same is reconfirmed in SCDHS letter of June 3 , 1986 . We again note that the Town ' s consultant , in conclusion finds that lot 7 , the site of the proposed action, is "probably the only buildable lot remaining on the east side of Meadow Lane. " The remaining lots , if they were ever able to be constructed would require measure similar to what is proposed in this action . Such measures would help to avoid significant impacts . CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants 15 f II . Items in Conservation Advisory Council ' s Review 1 . The potential impact of releasing a total of 14 . 4 lbs . of nitrogen per year on the subject site has been calculated using currently acceptable and state of the art methods developed by Cornell University as part of the Water Resources Program. The results are reported in the DEIS on pages 30 and 31 . The predicted concentrations of nitrogen in recharge is 7 . 32 mg/l. The CAC ' s summary comment 111 states that this loading will . . . "increase the nitrogen concentration substantially beyond the current levels which may already be 15 ppm by your (DEIS) own assertion . " This statement is incorrect . This DEIS indicates that no significant impact is anticpated because nitrogen in the discharge is less than half than existing groundwater concentrations . Nitrogen concentrations are not additive, this is an apparent misconception of the reviewer . Recharge from the subject site will contact the water table, and move with groundwater along a flow line. Due to laminar flow of solute through the porous media, and the low velocity of groundwater flow, the solutions do not readily mix. Instead , a plume of groundwater containing lower levels of nitrogen than surrounding groundwater is expected to result . Dispersion will cause the plume to become increasingly wider with distance from the site . Therefore , the effects of nitrogen from the proposed project will not add to the existing groundwater concentrations. CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants 16 Y . 2 . The effect on nutrients on the pond are calculated by first predicting the concentration of nitrogen and phosphorus in recharge from the site which enters groundwater . The ground and surface water systems interact closely as described on page 16 of the DEIS ; therefore, conservatively predicted nutrient concentrations in recharge are representative of groundwater quality before it enters surface water . ~ The concentration of nitrogen in recharge resulting from implementation of the project has been calculated to be 7 . 32 mg/l (DEIS page 31) . This represents an estimate of the nitrogen which gets beyond the root zone and enters groundwater . Nitrogen is then transported with groundwater as described in question 1 above. Concentrations of nitrogen will remain fairly constant due to its conservatism in groundwater, travelling along a 300 - 400 foot path to the wetland and pond . Additional chemical transformation occurs as groundwater nitrogen is discharged to surface water . Removal of nitrogen will occur as groundwater passes through the fine clay, silt and organic layer of sediment which constitutes the streambed . This transformation is known as ion exchange and is measured by the Cation Exchange Capacity of the soil (CEC) . Soils with high humus and clay content will have a higher CEC and therefore increase removal efficiency (Canter, Knox, 1985) . Additional chemical processes such as absorption and chemical precipitation will occur in the soils . As a result of chemical processes which occur as groundwater discharges to surface water , nitrogen concentrations will be reduced to an insignificant level . The wetlands adjacent to the pond are a source of nutrients CRAMER &VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants 17 important as food to the ecosystem. Decomposition of plants and organic debris releases nutrients for utilization in the food chain. The proposed construction of a dwelling on Meadow Lane with the mitigation included in the DEIS will not increase or adversely affect nitrogen levels in the pond , or cause a significant impact upon the environment . Phosphorus is a component of sewage discharge and fertilizer , though to a lesser extent than nitrogen . Characteriza- tion of sewage wastewater finds that phosphorus is approximately one-third the concentration of nitrogen in wastewater (Canter , Knox, 1985) . The fate of phosphorus in a septic system is also different than nitrogen. Phosphorus is not a major groundwater pollution concern , because it is easily retained in unsaturated soils due to chemical changes and absorption . Scientific study has confirmed phosphorus from sanitary systems is not usually transported through soils to groundwater (Canter , Knox , 1985) . Phosphorus is also a component in fertilizers which may be used on lawns . The content of phosphorus is lower than nitrogen in lawn fertilizers due to turf needs (Koppelman , 1984) . Lawn application is usually based on nitrogen, with 0. 5 lb. of nitrogen per 1 , 000 sq. ft . in spring and fall as the recommended rate. In the fall , the phosphorus content should be raised for better growth. Fertilizer practices are outline in the 208 Nonpoint Source Management Handbook (Koppelman , 1984) . Guidelines were developed for groundwater protection purposes to promote maximum uptake of fertilizer in soil . The proposed project involves a fertilized CRAMER& VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants r lawn area of 1, 350 sq. ft . Phosphorus applied to the lawn for normal fertilization will be primarily taken up by plant material . Excess phosphorus is not expected to enter groundwater due to chemical changes and absorption in the unsaturated zone. Sampling of the surface water is not appropriate in this case as the project has been designed so as not to allow any surface flow to the pond . The only interconnection to the surface water will be through the groundwater which has been discussed , in the DEIS and above. The proposed project will not cause a significant impact upon groundwater or the wetland - pond system as a result of the approved sanitary disposal system or fertilization of the minimal lawn area. 3 . As stated in the DEIS , numerous site inspections were conducted . These occurred during the period of the winter of 1985 through the summer of that same year . This in conjunction with consultation with ornithologists and a review of relevant publica- tions , resulted in the listing of "Wildlife Species" found in Table 7 , page 18 of the DEIS . The statement that Table 7 is a "mere listing from a naturalist handbook" is incorrect. The list is site specific and is so identified in the DEIS. In an effort to assure that all possible species and their breeding habits were addressed , Professor John A. Black, a qualified Ornithologist and Biologist with some 20 years experience , was retained to perform field investigations between February and June of 1986 . In his report dated July, 1986 , Prof . Black states that , Table 7 "Wildlife Species" was found to be "overly ambitious" for the site. He did though note that two additional species should be added to the list . CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants Those being Redwinged Blackbirds and Muskrats. The summary of a detailed wildlife survey can be found in Request IV. As stated in the DEIS and supported by the recommendations of the Town ' s Environmental Consultants , construction must be limited to certain periods of the year to avoid undue impact on the breeding patterns of wildlife that may be found in the area . Construction should therefore be restricted to the time between June and February. The two most sensitive portions of the site, for breeding wildlife, is the wetland and the immediate shoreline . These two areas will remain unimpacted and a natural buffer will be maintained to preclude future intrusion into these areas . Without such protective measures, the values of the area could be impacted as is evident with some of the existing sturctures surrounding the wetlands . 4 . Use of composting toilet and subsurface discharge for "grey water" is suggested as a❑ alternative to the Suffolk County Department of Health Services approved system. As stated on Page 47 of the DEIS, SCDHS will not approve such a system as the sole means of sanitary disposal . The use of composting toilets would be considered by the SCDHS Board of Review. In this case, where a sanitary permit has been granted , it would only be considered in conjunction with A conventional septic system with flush toilets if at all . (Personal communications with SCDHS) . CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants Therefore, conservative calculations for nitrogen loading would be the same as discussed in the DEIS and in the response to comments . This alternative is not considered acceptable because the loading will not be reduced . Personal habits are not regulatory and the agency responsible for sanitary approval$ has issued a permit . A more reliable and efficient method of r,gducing the loading is to curtail water usage through the installation of water saving devices and fixtures at the time of construction as proposed in the DEIS and recommended by the Town ' s Consultant. With regard to eliminating turf area completely (as suggested in the CAC Review) , and no fertilizer were applied to shrubs, the total weight of nitrogen released on site per year would be 12 . 7 lbs . The resultant concentration of nitrogen in recharge can be predicted using the methods outlined in the DEIS on Page 30 . The estimated concentration is calculated to be 6 . 58 mg/- If fertilizer were to be applied to shrubs , the difference in nitrogen loading will be an increase of something less than 0. 74 mg/l . 5 . A smaller house alternative has been developed in response to Request V from the Southold Town Trustees as Lead Agency. The impacts associated with same are discussed there. A 35 foot front yard setback is used, in conformance with Town Code . The comment suggests that the alternative place the home "next to the road (Meadow Lane) . " This has not been done as it will impact the community character , violate Town Codes , restrictive Covenants and would require similar amounts of land clearing ( See Alternative Designs "B" and "D" , pages 42 and 45 , DEIS) CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants 21 -PAGE BY PAGE COMMENTS Page 6 - The catch basin inlet for the driveway is to be located at a low point in front of the garage as shown on the plan , page 54 of the DEIS . Two dry wells , one in the front and one in the rear , for containment of roof runoff from the gutters and leaders will be located adjacent to the proposed structure. These dry wells do not represent a pollution source . No overland flow will be permitted and the dry wells will be placed within the area excavated for the foundation excavation. Breeding waterfowl is addressed in the response to CAC comment 03 . Page 14 - The Freeze on Cherry text referred to in the CAC comments clearly indicates that groundwater must flow from higher hydraulic head to lower head . The hydraulic gradient is the difference in head divided by the distance. If hydraulic gradients are determined, groundwater will flow in the direction of the highest gradient . The CAC comment that flow will take place perpendicular to the hydraulic gradient is incorrect . Perhaps what was meant is that flow will take place perpendicular to the ground- water contours, which is the hydraulic gradient . Groundwater flow in a water table aquifer is commonly characterized by determining the groundwater elevations at three or more points in order to construct contour lines of equal head . Horizontal groundwater flow will occur perpendicular to the contours in an isotropic formation . An isotropic conditions in the horizontal dimension may skew flow lines such that groundwater does CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants 22 not flow directly perpendicular to contours ; however , general movement will still be from the higher contours to the lower contours. Long Island glacial deposits tend to be fairly isotropic in the horizontal dimension . Hydraulic conductivities typically range from 220 to 270 feet/day (McClymonds , France 1972) . Vertical conductivity is significantly reduced due to stratification and the orientation of sand grains in the glacial material . The subject site is in a zone of shallow or horizontal flow as documented in the 208 Areawide Waste Treatment Management Plan (Koppelman, 1978) . In addition, the proximity to Peconic Bay and surface water features further characterize this as a hydrologic system of horizontal flow. Given those conditions of fairly uniform horizontal hydraulic conductivity and horizontal flow, groundwater is expected to move primarily perpendicular to the contour lines of the water table , as previously stated on page 14 of the DEIS . A groundwater contour map and direction of flow is shown in Figure F-2 , using the data recorded in Table F-1 . Page 15 - Samples were taken from a private well located on Meadow Lane, Mattituck. Chemical data was sample in January , and pesticide data was sampled in August . The recorded results are not averages , they are the actual measured concentration for each of the parameters indicated . The units in Table 4 of the DEIS were reported incorrectly. Please note that pH is reported in pH units ; specific conductance is reported inA(mhos ; and all other units should be mg/ l . The readings for ammonia and nitrate are for ammonia - N and nitrate - N. CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants 23 r S - s.Bo' Ile > 1 J cvcPxVt FIGURE F-2 GROUNDWATER CONTOUR MAP Final Environmental Impact Statement Scale: P=600'-0" MEADOW LANE RESIDENCE Mattituck, New York, August 1986 Pesticides were detected as reported in Table 5. Please note that units should be .yg/1, rather than mg/l. No organics or hydrocarbons were detected in samples analyzed by SCDHS for a full range of compounds and breakdown components which were not enumerated in the DEIS. For each parameter, the reported result was less than the limit of detection. Page 24 - "Practical Difficulty" is the standard proof which the applicant assumes when seeking an area variance. From a legal standpoint a variance to a setback requirement is identified as an area variance along with requirements as square footage, height, etc. The standard of proof for a use variance is "unnecessary hardship." It has never been specifically defined as to what qualifies as a "Practical Difficulty". However, in the case of Wachsberger v. Michalis 19 Misc. 2d 909, 191 N.Y.S. 2d 621 (1959) . The court said the following matters should be considered: 1. How substantial the varaince is in relation to the requirement. 2. The effect, if the variance is allowed, of the increased populatioi density thus produced on available governmental facilities. 3. Whether a substantial change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a substantial detriment to adjoining properties created. 4. Whether the difficulty can be obviated by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a variance. 5. Whether in view of the manner in which the difficulty arose and in consideration of all the above factors the interests of justice will be served by allowing the variance. Other statutes include the requirement of economic loss and the presence of other existing non-conforming housing in the neighborhood. CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultant 25 An applicant can also satisfy the requirement of Practical Difficulty by showing that due to its peculiar size, shape or grade, the land is not fit for any other purpose or places him in violation of other applicable laws and codes. An alternative design "E" has been developed in response to Request V, of the Lead Agency, which addresses a house with a coverage of less than 1 ,000 sq. ft. An application is pending before the Zoning Board of Appeals as stated on page 24 of the DEIS at which time the full practical difficulty is intended to be demonstrated. Page 25 - The omission of mentioning the Town Wetlands Act in this section is acknowledged. The project is covered by the Town Wetland Act, as it is the application which received a positive declaration under SEQRA which resulted in the preparation of this Environmental Impact Statement. Significant thought and action has and will continue to be taken to modify the existing covenant(s) in question. As stated in the DEIS, page 26, the private covenants. predates applicable Town and State laws. Strict adherance to them would place the action in direct violation of the various laws and result in a significant impact on the environment. Page 31 - As previously discussed in response to CAC question 1 , the impact of nitrogen upon groundwater is not cumulative in the same sense that it would be if it were a well mixed system. The 10 mg/1 figure is used for comparison because it is the drinking water standard for nitrogen and the most restrictive standard. There are no wells down gradient of the site, therefore, groundwater will not be used for drinking purposes. Discharge from the site will not degrade groundwater quality which is already more than twice the concentration of the predicted site discharge. With regard to the pond, existing conditions are such that groundwater with nitrogen concentrations of 15 mg/1 is discharging to surface water. It is CRAMER &VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants 26 likely that chemical processes remove nitrogen in the silt, clay and organic sedimer of the streambed. The proposed project will not significantly alter existing conditions or processes which now exists. Therefore, no significant impact will occur to the pond or wetlands as a result of this project. Page 32 - Addressed in response to the question on page 14. Page 37 - The proposed covenant for the protection of the steep slope area, the existing vegetation and wetlands is to preclude future development or activitie; on the site which would impact the environment. The covenant would place the Town of Southold Trustees or other appropriate agency as the enforcers. The Trustees are suggested for they are the agency from which a permit must be obtained for activities within this area and also the agency within the Town with appropriate review capabilities. The Town Wetlands Act states a permit must be obtained for activities adjacent to the wetlands and Chapter 100 states that all buildings must be set back from the wetlands. It is possible for future owners of this parcel to seek a permit or variance to the local laws, for example to clear or construct an addition, respectively. Such a situation would place activities closer to the wetlands and thereby create impact being avoided in the proposed action. The use of a covenant to establish the natural area would proclude such activities and associated impacts. A copy of the draft covenant can be found in the appendix. Figure F-3 illustrates the area to be covered in the covenant. Page 38 - Addressed in Response to the question page 31. Page 47 - Addressed in Response to CAC question 4. CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultant 17 71 00 i.N i .:::::::...::::........ . .b v � iz.s' $y Gov�NANT FIGURE F-3 AREA TO BE RESTRICTED BY COVENANT Final Environmental Impact Statement Not to scale MEADOW LANE RESIDENCE (approx. 1"=32') mattituck, New York III. Re-evaluation of Nitrate Impact on the Wetland and Pond. The impact of nitrate on the wetland and pond has been re-evaluated as part of the Response to CAC question 2 and some of the page specific comments. This aspect of the proposal has been fully assessed and documented, and it is concluded that nitrate from the proposed project will not significantly impact the wetland or pond. CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants IV. The following represents a revised Wildlife Species List . In addition to the field inspections which were used in compiling the list in the DEIS , an Ornthologist/Biologist conducted several field inspections and supplied this revised species list . A copy of the complete report can be found in the Appendix. CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants TAB A 7 (Revised) WILDLIFE SPECIES BIRDS Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias Snowy Egret Leucophoyx thula Green Heron Butorides virescens Black Crown Night Heron Nycticorax nycticorax Mute Swan Cygnus olor Canada Goose Branta canadensis Mallard Duck Anas platyrhynchos Black Duck Anas rubripes Pintail Anas acuta Clapper Rail Rallus longirostris Gull Larus spp. Tern Sterna hirundo Kingfisher Megaceryle alcyon Flicker Colaptes auratus Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata Black Capped Chickadee Parus atricapillus Tufted Titmouse Parus bicolor Wren Troglodytes spp. *American Widgeon Anas americans *Bufflehead Bucephala albeola *Hooded Merganser Lophodytes cucullatus *Morning Dove Zenaida macroura *Black Capped Chickadee Parus atricapillus *Grackle Quiscalus quiscula *Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia *White Throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos Catbird Dumetella carolinensis Robin Turdus migratorius Starling Sturnus vugaris Warbler Dendroica spp . *Red Winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus MAMMALS Opossum Didelphis marsupialus Raccoon Procyon lotor Eastern Chipmunk Tamias Striatus Gray Squirrel Sciurus carolinensis White Foot Mouse Peromyscus leucopus Meadow Mouse Microtus pennsylvanicus House Mouse Mus musculus *Muskrat Ondatra zibethica OTHER Box Turtle Clemmys guttata Garter Snake Thamnophis sirtalis Killifish Fundulus spp . Mummichog *Snapping Turtle Chelydra serpentina *Painted Turtle Chrysemys picta picta * Additions to Table 7 found in DEIS CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants �1 V. SMALLER HOUSE ALTERNATIVE One of the comments raised after submission and acceptance of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, was to consider the setting of a house having less that 1,000 square feet as an alternative to the proposed project. The suggestion of a smaller house was predicated upon the supposition that a smaller structure would somehow reduce any environmental impact. For the reasons which follow, a proposed smaller structure will not intrude upon the environment to any lesser extent than the Proposed Project. In other words, the environmental effects will not be reduced and could increase from that of the Proposed Action. The size of a single-family house does not correspond with the amount of sewer effluent producted from the structure. Studies conducted by the Suffolk County Department of Health have determined that 300 gallons per day are generated from an average single-family residence. This design flow has been used in sanitary waste calculations for the Proposed Action, and since the action and the alternatives are all single-family residences, the impacts associated with sanitary wastes are the same. The method of disposition of sanitary waste is the same as with the Proposed Action and the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Responses demonstrate that this will not have a significant impact. For the purposes of this review, the alternative plan will be designated "Alternative Plan E". (See Figure-4) The house depth has been reduced from 28 ' to 22' and the length from 56' to 43.8' . The set-back from the wetland has been increased by only 6' from the Proposed Action. While there is an increase in the set-back from wetlands. Plan "E" does not appreciably change the project's ability to comply CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants 32 with the 75' requirement and an area variance would still be necessary because of the unique configuration of the lot. The driveway and garage would be re-located on the south side of the structure. Due to the topography of the site and the need to drain storm water away from the garage, it would now be necessary to do substantially more regrading the front yard than the Proposed Project. As with the other designs, a low point with a catch basin has been incorporated into the driveway to collect storm water run off. Gutters and leaders would be connected to dry-walls as is intended in the Proposed Action. The Smaller House Alternative will cause increased disturbance to the rear of the structure because additional grading will be necessary to the rear of the structure to lower the existing grade sufficiently to facilitate the installation access and provide for proper drainage. The proposed Smaller House Alternative could have a greater impact than the Proposed Action due to this disturbance. As with the Proposed Action, there will be no disturbance below the 10' contour line and this area will remain natural. The area of no disturbance is therefore essentially the same as the Proposed Action. In summary, the Smaller House Alternative does not accomplish the same or similar objectives of the Proposed Project. While the size of the house is reduced, additional grading is necessary in both front and rear of the structure. THis, of course, means further disturbance. The appearance of the Smaller House Alternative is different from the existing structures in the area. From an aesthetics point of view, it is not as appealing as the Proposed Project. The environmental effects will not be reduced and, in fact, could increase from that of the Proposed Action. CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants 33 TIZFF ! G�rJ�w1/_ rex�s' Ilpl uurn til lei( ' 1 � }• � IIIIIbIIVI Wenaaos .� ' ` � ,�,� Iy7111ltllgl 'nuillllll{�iirl: ,L� ,��� I[!eSiDCNC I f Illll��l�llllyr Illllrl��l luuuu ualu�� 1 II��III � 411u�1Ud4nl„� .� /atrvEWAy IIII I 1 r n fill a lyq I'I�Pr'.'ll rll / � 41 � P 1 J I dIBIIIIUIIp nllnl 11 �Vl�: �I � �- Illlllllyl u�l 1(II Ilr IIII Illlll l JJ mlli Ilglll II '�i I�rl�ll(I w _ W�.CIANP r s � E'cuNa�Y �d5k""An .asp � ,, �,�-D Illlll l l llll ,Ily,aluu '�kl�lfllu�pl'�iii4i �'�`r r '` ��� ,} Illlilll l�llpl dll�llu ltuu, 11 I o b A1Z�. oP Rc> p IsT�REPNc _ FIGURE F-4 ALTERNATIVE SKETCH PLAN "E" Final Environmental Impact Statement Not to scale MEADOW LANE RESIDENCE (approx. ' 1"=32') Mattituck, New York August 1986 i ASPNA LT SN Il16 Lib GUTTEY- um I rtla --� - - ..��f�Q� -_Sp-CS.LT .==SMING LIb i�5r +ly � 4 _. -L•SVAIiTZ ED" CU[LLR _-._ -__._•�_' 'r lt+ CL oR - ♦ \ \ 1. � r 1TOOD � LN:L � __ �_ _ i60VC_ 1 IS-JEo C.Re. -LCV 6F. I I p 1 Q E1 _POV REO _CA Ik—c.R�C1. `� 1� cowc aE[�watts—, �- w I I � "'-If�llli _• I - � 1. . . _. . -_- --- ----- � ----- - -- _. -- -._--IL a-I .-- - _ Y i �ti� I_DC VAT 10 QONT LLf- I\ -T- 101, � • k`'� ti F RAYMOND F. FELLMAN • ARCHITECT r '• y PLAN NO..11-12 YI OFb -AFICMIT[CTUft.l i SCALE: -� DATE I+ '7 yy • 5" ■MOAOWY AMITYVILLG N. 1. AM•-0f00 ♦ FFT{pWV � •xis r V o•{ •wO.uD M +x• MKwi+{[t Mr0 �i {x..L{•• [ D�/rr..• n01/. • AwY.•\10x ♦{M� C VI . Flow plume characterization and all other chemical questions asked by the CAC on recharge , lawn fertilization and alternative sanitary systems . Additional investigation was conducted to characterize groundwater conditions in the vicinity of the subject site. The results of this study are shown in Figure F-2 and Table F-1 . The investigation confirmed the conditions which were reported in the DEIS . Groundwater beneath the subject site is travelling south- southeast . Groundwater will travel 300-400 feet from the subject site before intercepting surface water. Groundwater stands at an elevation of 2 to 2 . 5 feet above sea level beneath the subject . Horizontal flow rate is from 1 . 0 to 1. 5 feet per day . Questions asked by the CAC have been addressed in preceeding statements. CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants 36 VII . Nitrites and Viruses Nitrites were not specifically addressed in the DEIS , because the nitrogen predictions include total nitrogen in the various forms which may be present . The primary type of nitrogen in septic tank effluent is in the ammonium form (NH 4+) . Aerobic conditions in the septic tank and underlying soils cause nitrification of ammonium form nitrogen. Nitrification results in conversion of NH4+ to NO2 (Nitrite) to NO3 (Nitrate) . Nitrites are a temporary form of nitrogen during the nitrification process which occurs in the septic system (Canter, Knox, 1985) . Enteric viruses are present in sewage, and therefore there is concern that viruses could be transmitted to humans thus causing public health problems . There are no drinking water wells down gradient of the Meadow Lane site and therefore, public health impacts are limited . SCDHS also requires a minimum separation distance of 100 feet between a well and a septic tank. This distance is sufficient to allow entrainment of bacteria soil , however , there is speculation about whether this is a sufficient distance for smaller more resistent viruses. In order to determine the possible need to revise the standard , SCDHS has been conducting studies in cooperation with Brookhaven National Laboratory. Preliminary results found that viruses could travel downward and laterally up to 200 feet from a large communal system. Additional study in a single family residential area found no contamination from enteric viruses (Vaughn , Landry , 1981) CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES 37 Environmental and Planning Consultants A subsequent study involving the introduction of viruses into a small on-site system found that viruses could move horizontally through the aquifer for at least 50 - 60 feet (SCDHS) Viruses have not been detected in wells 100 feet from the source. To date, there is no indication that the 100 foot standard should be changed . With regard to the subject project , there are no drinking water wells down gradient , and the nearest surface water is 300 - 400 feet down gradient of the site. Therefore , no significant impact is expected from viruses which may be associated with the on-site system. Additionally, there will be no impact on Deep Hole Creek as a result of this action . CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants 38 VIII . Document seasonal fluctuation of groundwater , groundwater mounding and soil borings. Groundwater fluctuates seasonally depending upon precipitation . The water table aquifer will respond to precipitation events and groundwater will rise in the well casing. During dry periods groundwater will drop . A seasonal record of groundwater elevations was obtained for the County observation well 553334 , which is located north of Route 25 near Elishas Lane , less than one half mile from the subject site. Groundwater elevations were recorded as follows : 4 . 41 feet above sea level 12 - 1984 3. 67 feet above sea level 3 - 1985 3 . 36 feet above sea level 9 - 1985 3. 32 feet above sea level 12 - 1985 Data from the 1984-1985 period indicates that groundwater fluctuated over a range of 1 . 09 feet . With regard to the subject site, groundwater fluctuates less because the site is closer to the Bay where groundwater elevation is at sea level . In other words , the intersection of groundwater and Bay is 0 ' . This elevation remains constant and acts as a fulcrum. As groundwater fluctuates to the north, the elevations in between also fluctuate but to a lesser degree. Groundwater mounding may occur beneath the sanitary system due to leaching of effluent to the water table. Effluent will travel vertically downward through the unsaturated zone and contact the water table causing a slight rise in groundwater elevation. SCDHS indicates that total daily flow from a single family residence CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants 39 is 300 gallons . Three hundred gallons equals 40 . 1 cubic feet. This volume will be recharged over an area of approximately 5 , 000 square feet , resulting in a rise in the water table of 0 . 008 feet or 0. 1 inches . Therefore, it is concluded that groundwater mounding from sanitary discharge will be insignificant. A soil boring was taken at the location shown in Figure F-1 , using a gasoline powered auger. Soil character was recorded from the auger flights as the bore hole was constructed. Soils beneath the sanitary system are l ' of sandy loam and 10. 5 ' of sand to a depth of 11. 50 feet . No silt , clay or other fine grained , high moisture content soil was encountered. Soils are conducive to a properly functioning sanitary system, and will again be inspected by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services during sanitary system installation . (See correspondence in Appendix) CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants 40 R E F E R E N C E S Canter , Larry W. and Robert Knox, 1985, Septic Tank System Effects on Ground Water Quality , Lewis Publishers , Inc . , Chelsea, Michigan Freeze, Allan R. and John Cherry , 1979 , Groundwater , Prentice Hall , Inc . , Englewood Cliffs , New Jersey Koppelman , Lee, E . , 1984 , Nonpoint Source Management Handbook, Long Island Regional Planning Board , Hauppauge, New York Koppelman , Lee, E. , 1978 , Areawide Waste Treatment Management , Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board , Hauppauge, New York New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Tidal Wetlands Land Use Regulations , Albany, New York McClymonos , N . E . , and 0 . L. Franke, 1972 , Water Transmitting Properties of Aquifers on Long Island , New York, U. S . Geological Survey , Professional Paper 627-E , U . S . Government Printing Office, Washington , D . C . Porter , Keith S . and H. Hughes , 1983 , Land Use and Groundwater Quality in the Pine Barrens of Southampton , Water Resources Program, Center for Environmental Research, Cornell University , Ithaca, New York Suffolk County Department of Health Services , 1982 , Standards for Sub-Surface Sewage Disposal Facilities Other Than Single Family Residences , Division of Environmental Health Services , Hauppauge, New York Vaughn , J . M. snd E . F . Landry , 1981 , Entrainment of Human Viruses in a Shallow Sandy Soil Aquifer , Prepared for the Suffolk County Department of Health Services , by Brookhaven National Laboratory , Department of Energy and Environment , Upton , New York CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants 41 t COUNTY OF SUFFOLK S9 PETER F.COHALAN SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES DAVID HARRIS, M.D., M.P.H. COMMISSIONER January 28, 1986 Mr. Thomas W. Cramer, RLA 63 Clifton Place Port Jefferson Station, N.Y, 11776 RE: H.D. Ref. #85-SO-164 Dear Mr. Cramer: This letter is to clarify the above referenced permit. Please note that no construction of sewage disposal systems or water supply facilities is permitted below the 10 foot contour as depicted on your plan dated August 24, 1985. A portion of a leaching pool may have been inadvertantly shown below the ten foot contour. Furthermore, it is our understanding that an environmental review is being undertaken by the Town of Southold concerning the above referenced property. In the event recommendations are forthcoming from that review, which effect the water supply or sewage disposal systems, we will require that your permit be modified so as to reflect these recommendations. In this event three copies of your plan should be submitted reflecting any changes. If you have any questions concerning this please feel free to contact me. Veery� truly yours, Royal R. Reynolds, P.E. Sr. Public Health Engineer Wastewater Management Section RRR:ljr cc: Town Trustees Southold Town Hall COUNTY CENTER RIVERHEAD.N.Y_ 11901 548-3312 43 CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants P.O.BOX§�22 Miller Place,New Ymj 11764 (e1e)473-M Thomas W.Cramer, I.A Charles J. Voorhis April 18, 1986 Royal R. Reynolds, P.E. Suffolk County Dept. Health Services County Center Riverhead, N.Y. 11901 Re: Health Dept. Ref. ll 85-SO-164 Dear Mr. Reynolds: The following is to serve as clarification to your letter of January 28, 1986 and to our subsequent conversations regarding the above referenced permit number. It is my understanding that the configuration of leaching pools shown on the permit for my proposed residence on Meadow Lane, Mattituck, were misdrafted in the issuance of the permit and that the solution proposed by C.V.A. at the public hear- ing on the DEIS is acceptable to you, i.e. , the configuration of leaching pools, one to the north, two to the south, would be reversed to show two on the north and one on the south, thereby putting the leaching field above the 10' contour line and that your second paragraph in the letter refers to this situation. We will, therefore, be forwarding to you another copy of the plan for your locat- ing of the new field. The new configuration still maintains the 85' setback from the approved well. There was also reference made at the public hearing that the water supply was not approved. It is my understanding from the permit and subsequent conversations that a private well has been approved. Furthermore, in regard to your second paragraph and comments at the public hear- ing, the installation of "waterless toilets" do not fulfill Suffolk County Department of Health Services standards and, therefore, are not deemed as acceptable as the sole sanitary disposal method for new construction. As per our conversations, your letter was not to imply that your Division would approve the installation of "waterless toilets" as the only means of sewage disposal. Your letter, instead, referred to the location of the water supply and sanitary disposal systems. I would appreciate your response to the above so that it may be includQ • in our preparation of the response to comments on the DEIS. Very trul s, TWC:rk as W. Cramer, R.L.A. CC: Henry P. Smith, President Southold Board of Trustees 44 COUNTY OF SUFFOLK h 0 '4���`� PETER F. COHALAN SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES DAVID HARRIS,M.D., M.P.H. COMMISSIONER June 3, 1986 Thomas W. Cramer, R.L.A. Cramer & Voorhis Associates P.O. Box 622 Miller Place, N.Y. 11764 RE: H.D. Ref. #85-SO-164 Property: a/s/o Meadow Lane Mattituck (T) Southold Dear Mr. Cramer: I am in receipt of your letter dated April 17, 1986 concerning the above referenced property. This Department routinely accepts the recommendations of reviews by other agencies, provided these recommendations conform with the Department's minimum standards. Any variations from these standards would be forwarded to the Depart- ment's Board of Review. In this specific case, waterless toilets are not covered by existing standards and any proposals for such would be forwarded to the Board of Review. In addition, this is to confirm that a permit has been issued for the construction of a water supply well on the above referenced property. The water supply well must conform to standards for construction and water quality. Any variations from these well standards would also be forwarded to the Board of Review. If you have any questions concerning this please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, Royal R. Reynolds, P.E. Sr. Public Health Engineer Wastewater Management Section RRR:ljr cc: Southold Town Trustees 548-3312 COUNTYCENTER RIVERHEAO.N.Y. 11901 45 DECLARATION OF COVENANTS WHEREAS, the Declarants are the owners of certain premises described as follows: said premises being located at Mattituck, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, known and described as Lot No. 42 on a certain map entitled, "Mattituck Estates, Inc. ," filed in the Office of the Clerk of the County of Suffolk on September 8, 1985, as Map No. 4453. Being and intended to be the same premises in Liber 6410 page 312 and Liber 9836 page 264. WHEREAS, the Declarants deem it appropriate to impose certain covenants and restrictions as hereinafter stated in regard to the aforedescribed premises: NOW , THEREFORE , in consideration of the premises, the Declarants declare the aforedescribed premises are held subject to the following covenants and restrictions: 1. Any residential structure to be erected upon the subject premises shall be built in such a way as to preserve as many of the existing trees and shrubs as is practicable. 2. During and after the construction of any residential structure to be constructed upon the subject premises, there will be a natural buffer on and adjacent to the wetlands. 3. For the purposes of this Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions "Natural Buffers" shall mean, such areas on the subject premises as is designated as below the 10' countour (mean sea level) as shown on the map prepared by Thomas W. Cramer, R.L.A. dated August 24, 1985 and starting at a point 71 feet from the Northwestern corner of said premises; thence following the elevation of that point southerly approximately 130 feet to a point on the southern property line, approximately 12.5 feet from the southeast property corner; hence traveling easternly approximately 188.4 feet, thence traveling northernly approximately 95.94' thence traveling westerly to point of beginning approximately 158. 13 feet 46 WILDLIFE SURVEY MEADOW LANE MATTITUCK, NEW YORK The marsh, pond and adjacent undeveloped uplands along the east side of Meadow Lane, Mattituck , were surveyed weekly from February 2 , 1986 to March 27, 1986 , and on April 12 , 1986 to obtain a mid-April observation period and again on June 23 , 1986. This period represents a time frame which the most diversity of wildlife should exist on the site. Observation points were from the north and south ends of the pond as well as from an undeveloped woodland midway along the west bank. In addition, the northern portion of Deep Hole Pond (located to the south of Meadow Lane) was surveyed during this period to obtain a record of the avifauna on this adjacent water body. A total of 16 . 5 hours was spent afield during the survey. Table I gives the total species list. TABLE I Swan, Mute* Dove, Mourning** Goose, Canada* Jay, Blue** Mallard* Chickadee, Black capped** Duck , Black* Starling** Widgeon, American Blackbird, Red-winged* Bufflehead Grackle, Common** Merganser, Hooded Sparrow, White throated** Gull , Herring* Sparrow, Song** Great Blue Heron* Robin** * Observed on or over marsh-pond. ** Observed on uplands . All other species observed on Deep Hole Pond. 47 2 - According to Bull (1964) the Mute Swan, Canada Goose, Mallard, Black Duck , Herring Gull , Mourning Dove , Black-capped Chickadee, and Starling are common, year-round residents of Long Island. Although the Red-winged Blackbird and Common Grackle are listed as migrants , (Bull 1964) states that both species are locally " abundant in winter roosts on Long Island . Recent (1983 - 1985) , the numbers of Black Duck have been declining on Long Island. This may be correlated to over-hunting and , while the decline is of concern, this species is very adaptable and is known to nest in a variety of habitats ranging from salt and fresh marshes to the shores of lakes , ponds and streams; it has even been noted nesting in upland fields and open woodlands (Bull , 1964) . Thus , with more prudent hunting practices , the Black Duck population should increase. Bull (1964 ) lists the American Widgeon, Bufflehead , Hooded Merganser, White Throated Sparrow and Song Sparrow as common migrants . He does , however, note Long Island breeding records for the Widgeon. The White Throated Sparrow and Song Sparrow are considered to be common to abundant fall migrants. Winter flocks of these species are commonly found in coastal areas on Long Island. The above indicates that none of the observed species , except the Black Duck , are uncommon. As noted , the Black Duck should increase with prudent management. The maximum number of each species observed on or over the 48 3 _ Meadow Lane marsh pond and adjacent uplands are given in Table II . TABLE II SPECIES NUMBER *Swan, Mute 4 *Goose, Canada 2 „ *Mallard 35 *Duck , Black 2 *Gull , Herring 1 *Dove, Mourning 2 *Jay, Blue 1 *Chickadee, Black-capped 3 *Starling 2 *Blackbird, Red-winged 18 *Grackle, Common 7 **Sparrow, White throated 4 *Sparrow, Song 1 *Great Blue Heron 1 *Robin 2 *Commonly breed on Long Island **Migrant , no breeding record on Long Island It is to be noted that the species observed during the survey are all common to Long Island. None are rare or endangered . The low numbers observed on or over the marsh, pond and adjacent uplands indicates their relative unimportance to the avifauna of the area. With regard to the DEIS on the Meadow Lane residence, I have reviewed the relevant wildlife sections of that document and agree with the statements made. However, in reference to Table VII , "Wildlife Species" , I find the list is overly ambitious . Having performed the Wildlife Survey and therefore familiar with the site in question, I would doubt that several of the listed species would use the site for anything but the most transitory of purposes , particularly with Deep Hole immediately to the south and Lake Maratoka a short distance to the west. More specifically, with the amount of present development in the Meadow Lane area, I question the listing of the Black Crowned 4 - Night Heron, American Bittern and the Green Winged Teal . I also note that specific reference was made to the presence of Red Fox on the site. For the above reason, this species would be extremely transit and should not be included in the Species List. In conclusion, the following would be a complete species list for wildlife, to replace Table VII found in the DEIS. TABLE VII (REVISED) WILDLIFE SPECIES BIRDS Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias Snowy Egret Leucophoyx thula Green Heron Butorides virescens Black Crown Night Heron Nycticorax nycticorax Mute Swan Cygnus olor Canada Goose Branta canadensis Mallard Duck Anas platyrhynchos Black Duck Anas rubripes Pintail Anas acuta Clapper Rail Rallus longirostris Gull Larus spp. Tern Sterna hirundo Kingfisher Megaceryle alcyon Flicker Colaptes auratus Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata Black Capped Chickadee Parus atricapillus Tufted Titmouse Parus bicolor Wren Troglodytes spp. *American Widgeon Anas americana *Bufflehead Bucephala albeola *Hooded Merganser Lophodytes cocullatus *Morning Dove Zenaida macroura *Black Capped Chickadee Parus atricapillus *Grackle Quiscalus quiscula *Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia *White Throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos Catbird Dumetella carolinensis Robin Turdus migratorius Starling Sturnus vugaris Warbler Dendroica spp. *Red Winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus MAMMALS Opossum Didelphis marsupialus Raccoon Procyon lotor Eastern Chipmunk Tamias striatus 50 5 - Gray Squirrel Sciurus carolinensis White Foot Mouse Peromyscus leucopus Meadow Mouse Microtus pennsylvanicus House Mouse Mus musculus *Muskrat Ondatra zibethica OTHER Box Turtle Clemmys guttata Garter Snake Thamnophis sirtalis Killifish Fundulus spp. Mummichog *Snapping Turtle Chelydra serpentina *Painted Turtle Chrysemys picta Dicta * Additions to Table VII found in DEIS Respectfully submitted, John A. Black July, 1986 51 JOHN A. BLACK PERTINENT EXPERIENCE 1965 - Present - Professor of Biology, Suffolk Community College 1980 - Present - Coordinator: Environmental Science and Forestry Transfer Program to SUNY Syracuse 1975 - Present - Grouo Leader NYSDEC Annual Waterfowl Census (Riverhead - Noyak) PERTINENT PUBLICATIONS Black, J. A. 1972 . "Early Winter Distribution, 1971-72 of the Mockingbird Mimus oolyglottos" . American Birds , Vol . 26 , No. 2 . 1972 . "Winter Records of the Green Heron" . The Kingbird, Vol. XXII, No. 2 . 1977 . Water Pollution Technology. Virginia: Reston Publishing Co. 1986 . Oceans and Coasts : An Introduction to Oceanography. Iowa: William C. Brown and Co. Publishers . 52 NORTON BROTHERS 516 476-1452 CONSULTING ENOINEERS LAND SURVEYORS 294 MEDFORD AVENUE - P. O. BOX 191 PATCHOGUE. N.Y. 11772 DUDLEY W. NORTON NATH.WIeL C.NOm N IQ2 1072 NALPH T.NOR N IBBB-IBBB June 18 , 1986 Thomas Cramer, R.L.A. 63 Clifton Place Port Jefferson, NY 11777 Dear Tom: Please be advised that a representative of this office dug a test hole at property located on the east side of Meadow Lane 322. 95 ' north of New Suffolk Avenue, Southold, during the month of May, 1986 . The material found consisted of an upper strata of l ' of sandy loam and a lower strata of 10 . 5 ' sand. The test hole was dug to a total depth of 11. 5 ' . 4RT tJERS s, n DWN/en 53 CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants P.O.BOX 14e Miller Pla .New York 11704 (516)47341302 Thomas W.Cramer, LA Charles J. Voorhis March 13, 1987 Henry Smith, President Town of Southold Town Trustees 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Meadow Lane Residence Mattituck Dear Mr. Smith: As per our meeting with Trustee Bredemeyer on February 24 , 1987 , enclosed please find copies of two letters from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services as was requested. The conclusion being, and I quote, " . . . .no impacts on pond water quality should be anticipated. " I believe that this , in conjunction with the response from Professor John A. Black concerning the Wildlife Survey, answers the two remaining questions that the Trustees have on the above application and DEIS . Thank you for your consideration and attention to tie'' above. Very t , W. Cramer, R.L.A. TWC : lf Enclosure cc : Mr . William Moore Benjamin Hertzweig, Esq. 54 - I CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES _ Environmental and Planning Consultants PA.Box 622 1Uner Pkwe.New York 11764 (516)473-SM Thomas W.Cramer. LA Charles J. Voorhis March 2 , 1987 Mr. Aldo Andreoli , P.E. Bureau of Environmental Health Services Suffolk County Department of Health Services 225 Rabro Drive Hauppauge, New York Dear Aldo: As we discussed this morning, I am acting as a consultant on a project in the Town of Southold for the construction of a single family dwelling. The project site is located adjacent to a small pond and wetland area which is tributary to Deep Hole Creek, Mattituck. The Trustees of the Town of Southold, through the SEQRA process , have a required a DEIS. The document has been submitted, a public hearing has been held, and substantive comments have been addressed in a response to comments submitted to the Lead Agency in October, 1986 . At this time, the Town has only one concern with regard to groundwater-surface water impacts . Specifically, will nitrogen introduced to groundwater as a result of this project, impact the pond which is on and adjacent to the project site? This was expressed in a meeting with the Board last Tuesday, February 24 , 1987 . The DEIS and Response to Comments concludes that nitrogen in recharge from the project will not exceed the 10 mg/l . drinking water standard, and indeed is less than existing surrounding groundwater nitrogen. In addition, the documentation concludes that discharge from the sanitary system will not flow toward the subject pond. The Town has agreed that additional technical review of the groundwater-surface water impact assessment by SCDHS would resolve this matter. To this end, I am providing you with a copy of the documentation for technical comment of the hydrogeologic information. I would appreciate it if a letter from your designatee could be. prepared as soon as possible. - 55 - Mr. Aldo Andreoli , P.E. - 2 - March 2, 1987 In order to resolve this matter as expeditiously as possible, a meeting has been scheduled with the Board for tomorrow evening, March 3 , 1987 . As time is of the essence , I have taken the liberty of discussing this matter with Vito Minei and Sy Robbins . Your prompt consideration of this matter would be greatly appreciated. Very y yours, .GG arles J. Voorhis CJV: lf Enclosure cc: Mr. Vito Minei Office of Ecology Suffolk County Department of Health Services - 56 - COUNTY OF SUFFOLK 9 MICHAEL A. LOGRANDE COUNTY EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES DAVID HARRIS. M.D..M.P.H. COMMISSIONER March 11 , 1987 Mr. Charles J. Voorhis - Cramer 6 Voorhis Associates P. 0. Box 622 Miller Place, New York 11764 Dear Chic: With regard to your letter of March 2, 1987, I have requested Sy Robbins of our department to review the Environmental Impact Statement for the Meadow Lane Residence, Mattituck. I am attaching his comments for your informa- tion. You will note that his conclusion was: "Given the above hydrogeologic considerations, and the fact that the septic system leaching pools of the proposed action will not be located upgradient of the pond, no impacts on pond water quality should be anticipated." If there are any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Aldo Andreoli, P.E. Director of Environmental Quality AA/lst Attachment 225 RABRO DRIVE EAST HAUPPAUGE. N.Y. I1766 (516)546-291 T 10-LH-S.. - 57 - COUNTY OF SUFFOLK MICHAEL A. LOGRANDE COUNTY EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES DAVID HARRIS.M.D..M.P.M. COMMISSIONER Memorandum To: Aldo Andreoli , P. E. , Director, Division Of Environmental Quality . RECEIVE D From: Sy F. Robbins , Hydrogeologist, Bureau of water Resources MAR $ Iggp Date: March 3 , 1987 = ytldtwoar.jal. .. �G1S Division of Puhile Health Subject: Meadow Lane Residence, Mattituck j Ain 1fwino d*AW*A Hs000ma New York I have reviewed the EIS for the above referenced action, and have the following comments regarding the hydrogeologic aspects: 1 . The direction of regional groundwater flow in the project area is due south, and not south-southeast as indicated in the EIS. 2 . In a region of fairly uniform flow, such as the project area, an impounded surface water body will be characterized by inflow (and lowered groundwater levels) along the upgradient rim; downgradient portions of the pond will recharge the aquifer, producing a small outward ( radial) component of flow in the surrounding groundwaters. 3. Hydraulic conductivities of glacial materials , such as those found in the project area, are high (on the order of 250-300 ft/day) , and the projected flux rate of sewage leachate ( 300 gpd spread over three 81 -diameter pools) is low. Therefore, no "mounding" of the water table below the septic system leaching pools should occur, and the leachate plume will be entrained in the direction of regional flow, with no lateral movement. Given the above hydrogeologic considerations , and the fact that the septic system leaching pools of the proposed action will not be located upgradient of the pond, no impacts on pond water quality should be anticipated. 223 RASRO DRIVE EAST HAUPPAUG( M.Y, 1178E IS 101 3462917 14LHs.. - 59 - 259 oak St . Patchogue, N.Y. March 2 , 1987 Cramer and Voorhis Associates Box 622 Miller Place , N.Y. Dear Mr. Cramer, Enclosed are my opinions regarding the possibility of t:.e Meadow Lane property being considered suitable habitat for threatened , endangered or protected species . As noted , I can not conceive of this area providing significant open space for anything but common "dooryard'* species . I would not recommend any £irther studies ; after all the subject property is but 0.5 acres ! Indeed, any reputable scient- ist would concur. To carry out further surveys would, in my opinion, be an unconscionable additional expense and serve to inflate con- sulting fees. Additional studies would add nothing in terms of meaningful data. Si ce ely, John A . Black v 59 - 259 oak St. Patchogue , N.Y. March 2 , 1987 Cramer and Voorhis Associates Box 622 Miller Place , N.Y. Dear Mr. Cramer, In reference to questions raised regarding threatened species on or in the vicinity of the Meadow Lane property I refer you to my 1986 observations. I did not note , nor would I expect to find , any threatened, endangered or protected species on this property. As noted, the black duck population has been in decline but this is due to a variety of factors and will certainly not be affected by development of the Meadow Lane property. The entire undeveloped portion of Mattituck Estates east of Meadow Lane is approximately 1.5 acres (both uplands and marsh) . This is insignificant when compared to the available habitat at Maratooka Pond, Deep Hole , etc. In other words , the total open space on the east side of Meadow Lane is a very small area and the subject property smaller still. The status of this property is ecol- ogically insignificant and I doubt that any upland species , save for common "dooryard" birds , would be found there. Waterfowl has a much more varied and larger habitat available at Maratooka and Deep Hole. Perhaps the confusion lies in the table giving possible species. I understand that , for the sake of completeness , this was included. It certainly does not mean that these species will be found or are even probable . For example , a bald eagle over does not mean that this individual will land on , take up residence upon or use the are for nesting. S e� ohn A . Black 60 - oSorFo>x�o - ERR G � TELEPHONE (516) 765.1892 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOwN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 Date: January 6, 1985 NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF DRAFT EIS AND NOTICE OF HEARING Lead Agency: BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Address: Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 Applicant: Thomas W. Cramer Address: 63 Clifton Place Port Jefferson Station, New York 11776 Permit Applied For: Wetlands Permit Project Description: To construct a 1545 sq. ft. two story frame single family residence with attached garage, deck, well and sanitary system. Project Location: Meadow Lane, Mattituck, New York 11952 . More particularly known as Lot no. 42 of Mattituck Estates, Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-115-5-7, east of LILCO Pole No. 5; 322 . 95 ' north of New Suffolk Avenue, tributary north of Deep Hole Creek, Mattituck. POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: A. The intertidal marsh is extremely close to the property. B. Within the marsh there are a variety of species of nesting fowl. C. Controversy over the development of this lot within the neighborhood itself . This notice is issued pursuant to 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 A Draft Environmental Impact Statement has been completed and accepted for the proposed action above. Comments on same will be accepted in writing prior to the puniic hearing to be held on January 23 , 1986 at 8 : 30 P.M at the Southold Town Hall Main Road, Southold, New York. The draft may be reviewed in the Trustee Office prior to January 23, 1986 . 63 - Page 2. Copies to the following: The Suffolk Times The Long-Island Traveler Watchman Southold Town Board Southold Town Building Dept. Board of Appeals Conservation Advisory Council Town Clerk' s Bulletin Board Charles T. Hamilton, DEC, Stony Brook Commissioner Williams, DEC, Albany Aram Terchunian, Coastal Management Program Thomas, W. Cramer file Mr. David Emilita, Town Planner 64 - ��5UrF0(/velITT - VIVI TELEPHONE (516) 765-1892 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 NOTICE OF RECEIPT OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Date: December 9, 1985 APPLICANT: Thomas W. Cramer, 63 Clifton Place, Port Jefferson Station, New York 11776 Prepared by: Cramer and Voorhis Associates P. 0. Box 622, Miller Place, New York 11764 PERMIT APPLIED FOR: Wetlands Permit PROJECT DESCRIPTION: To construct a 1545 sq. ft. two story frame single family residence with attached garage, deck, well and sanitary system. PROJECT LOCATION: Meadow Lane, Mattituck, New York 11952 more particularly known as Lot no. 42 of Mattituck Estates, Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-115-5-7, east of LILCO Pole No. 5; 322 . 95 , north of New Suffolk Avenue, tributary north of Deep Hole Creek. SEQRA LEAD AGENCY: Southold Town Trustees AVAILABILITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT: The draft environmental impact statement may be reviewed at the address listed below. Comments on tt project must be submitted to the Contact Person indicated below no later than January 3, 1986. CONTACT PERSON: Henry P . Smith, President Board of Town Trustees Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 - 61 - PLEASE PUBLISH THE ATTACHED NOTICE ON DECEMBER 12 , 1985 and FORWARD ONE (1) AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO HENRY P. SMITH, PRESIDENT, BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES, SOUTHOLD TOWN HALL, MAIN ROAD, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971. Copies to the Following: The Suffolk Times The Long Island Traveler-Watchman Southold Town Board Southold Town Trustees Southold Town Building Dept. Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council Town Clerk' s Bulletin Board Charles T. Hamilton, DEC, Stony Brook Commissioner Williams, DEC, Albany Aram Terchunian, Coastal Management Program Thomas W. Cramer 62 - New York State Department of Environmental Conservation z:, /// _) 50 Wolf Road,Albany, New York 12233- " 4— Henry G. Williams Commissioner March 20, 1987 Francis J . Murphy, Supervisor vxrf Town of Southold MAR 2 3 P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 1197.1 SUpERVISSRSOFFICE LO Re: SEQR Review Fees Dear Mr . Murphy: I received your letter of March 10 , 1987 concerning SEQR review fees . With respect to your questions and comments on fees for review of small projects, I am forwarding your letter to Frederick Howell in the Department' s Division of Regulatory Affairs. Mr . Howell ' s address is Department of Environmental Conservation, Room 514 , 50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12233-1750 ( telephone 518-457-2224 ) . Very truly yours , Susan J. DuBois Administrative Law Judge cc : Frederick Howell, w/incoming letter 7�s�� WILLIAM D. MOORE ATTORNEY AT LAW SUITE 3, CLAUSE COMMONS 3 3e MAIN ROAD MATTITUCK, NEW YORK 11952 0 (516)298-5674 March 25 , 1987 Henry Smith, President Southold Town Trustees Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Application # 312 (Cramer/Moore/Herzweig) Dear Mr. Smith and Members of the Board: I hope that you have had the opportunity to review the information provided by Professor Black and the Suffolk County Department of Health Services with respect to the above application, and that it provides the necessary data to answer the questions raised during the work sessions. The timetable agreed upon at the work session calls for a decision on the permit to be made by the Board at its April meeting. To meet this timetable, the Final Environmental Impact Statement must be completed and the Notice of Completion must be sent by the Board to the other involved agencies at least ten ( 10) days prior to the date of your April meeting. If you grant the permit at your April meeting we would ask that you make it transferable to other people who might own the land at some time. We also ask that you do not limit the length of time of the permit' s validity since it is not clear how quickly action on the permit could be taken. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. V9k1jam ry truly yours, D. Moore cc: Benjamin Herzweig, Esq. Thomas Cramer, RLA DocId 032587. 002 CZ,2 ��,11Y�GGi r� Q.v-) V TELEPHONE (516) 765.1892 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 March 30, 1987 Mr. William D. Moore Attorney at Law Suite 3, Clause Commons Main Road Mattituck, New York 11952 Re: Application No. 132 Cramer/Moore/Herzweig - Meadow Lane Mattituck New York 11952 Dear Mr. Moore: Pursuant to the above referenced matter, please be advised that the following resolution was adopted by the Board of Trustees during their regular meeting held on March 26, 1987. RESOLVED that William D. Moore is hereby advised to submit his Final Impact Statement to the Trustee Office no later then April 10, 1987. Should you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact this office at the telephone number listed above. Very truly yours, Henry P. Smith, President Board of Town Trustees HPS:ip cc: Thomas Cramer, RLA Benjamin Herzweig, Esq. PLEASE CONTACT HENRY P. SMITH AT 765-3690 UPON SUBMISSION OF THE FINAL IMPACT STATE:IENT TO THE TRUSTEE OFFICE. PLEASE NOTE THAT THE BOARD WILL MEET ON APRIL 29, 1987 not APRIL 30th as previously scheduled. TELEPHONE BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES (516)765.1892 TOWN OFSOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 March 30, 1987 s Ms. Barbara Royce Division of SEP Bldg. 535-A Brookhaven Laboratory Upton, New York 11973 Re: Moore/Cramer Application Dear Ms. Royce: The following action was taken by the Board of Trustees during their recent meeting held on March 26, 1987 regarding the above y captioned matter. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Trustees approve the Consultant Fee for Barbara Royce to do a critique of the Environmental Impact Statement and the Response to comments on the Cramer/Moore Project, not to exceed $240.00 based on her submission of $30.00 per hour and possible seven (7) to eight (8) hours work. Said fee is to come out of research. Please submit this information to this office at the earliest possible date, if possible by April 10 , 1987. Should you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to call this office at the telephone number listed above. Very truly yours, Henry P. Smith, President Board of Town Trustees HPS:ip cc: Trustees Thomas Cramer, William & Patricia Moore Benjamin He eig, Esq. J BARBARA ANNE ROYCE ��\ l� U 28 Old Hills Lane Greenlawn, NY 11740 cy'7- (516) 261-3070 / q . HZPEHISl10E: 1980-Present Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY 11973 Staff Engineer: Assist in development of projects focusing on water resources and water quality aspects of energy development. These projects include modeling transport of contaminants in ground water; identification of injection water requirements and assessment of environmental impacts associated with enhanced oil recovery; an analysis of the federal and California state regulations pertaining to the disposal of sludges and liquid wastes associated with geothermal power production; an analysis of the potential impacts of the underground injection control program regulations on enhanced oil recovery in the U.S.; management of hazardous waste from commercialized synthetic fuels; and regulatory analysis of Superfund. Responsibilities: Development and preparation of proposals and projects; assist in marketing; interface with sponsors, consultants, and coresearchers; provide technical supervision to project assistants; evaluate ground water models for their applicability to specific analysis, utilize the model in performing the investigation, interpret its results, and use computer generated graphics to display the results; computer programming; complete project investigations; preparation of final reports including writing, editing, and overseeing completion. 1979-80 Teaching Assistant for Freshman Engineering Course - Principles of Mathematical Modeling. 1978-79 Research Assistant for Masters Thesis - Investigating the Applica- tion of Kalman Filtering to Water Quality Parameters. 7 •EDUCATION: 1978-80 M.S. Environmental Engineering, University of Massachusetts Areas of Study: Water Supply and Wastewater Collection, Water Chemistry, Unit Processes of Environmental Engineering, Numerical Methods of Analysis. Grade Point Average: 3.4/4.0 1974-78 B.S. Civil Engineering, Magna Cum Laude, University of Massachusetts Activities: President of student chapter of American Society of Civil Engineers; Member of the student chapter of ASCE, student chapter of Society of Women Engineers, UMass Concrete Canoe Team, and UMass ski club. Participated in intramural sports. Grade Point Average: 3.5/4.0 CERTIFICATION: Certified Engineer-In-Training by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts July 28, 1978. PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS: American Society of Civil Engineers American Water Works Association Society of Women Engineers BARBARA ANNE ROYCE HONORS: Tan Beta Pi; Alpha Lambda Delta; Howe Valker Student Award REFERENCES: Available upon request. SELECTED PUBLICATIONS: An analysis of potential impacts of the revised underground injection control regulations on enhanced oil recovery in the U.S. Royce, B. , Garrell, M. and Kaplan, E. BNL 36513, March 1985. Impacts of environmental regulations on the safe disposal of geothermal wastes, B. Royce, Draft BNL report, September 1985. Enhanced oil recovery water requirements. Royce, B., Kaplan, E. , Garrell, M. , and Geffen, T. Minerals and the Environment, Vol. 6, No. 2, p 44-53, June 1984. An environmental assessment of enhanced oil recovery. Kaplan, E. , Royce, B. , Garrell, M. , Riedel, F. Sathaye, J., and Rotariu, C. , Minerals and the Environment, Vol. 6, No. 2, p 54-65, June 1984. A Methodology for modeling the migration of FOR chemicals in fresh water aquifers. Royce, B. , Carrell, M. , Kahn, A. and Kaplan, E. U.S. Department of Energy, DOE/BC/99996-2, November 1983. Assessment of water issues associated with enhanced oil recovery: a user's guide. Kaplan, E. , Royce, B. and Shields, J. DOE/BC/10412-40. April 1983.. A study of CERCLA's preemption of state taxation and financial responsibility law. Brooks, R. , edited by Royce, B. and Kaplan, E. Draft report. March 1983. Legal issues arising out of the relation of state and local transportation control of radioactive materials to federal regulation of similar material. Brooks, R., edited by Royce, B. and Kaplan, E. Draft report. March 1983. Identification of water requirements for selected enhanced oil recovery methods. Royce, B. , Kaplan, E. , Garrell, M. , and Geffen, T. M. BNL 51595, September 1982. Assessment of environmental problems associated with increased enhanced oil recovery in the United States: 1980-2000. Kaplan, E. , Garrell, M. , Royce, B. , Riedel, E.F., and Sathaye, J. BNL 51528, November 1981. Revised January 1983. Solid and hazardous waste disposal at eastern coal gasification and liquefaction facilities. Royce, B. , Weeter, D. , Shypailo, R. , Meier, P., Metz, W., and Williams, M. BNL 51482, September 1981. WILLIAM D. MOORE ATTORNEY AT LAW SUITE 3, CLAUSE COMMONS MAIN ROAD MATTITUCK, NEW YORK 11952 (5161298-5674 March 28, 1987 Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Att: Linda Kowalski Re: Appeal #3412 Dear Linda: Enclosed please find an original and one print of a survey of the property which is the subject of the above appeal. Please advise if we will be heard at the April meeting. Very 'trruuly yours, Wi iam D. Moore Enc. DocId 032887. 003 WILLIAM D. MOORE ATTORNEY AT LAW SUITE 3, CLAUSE COMMONS MAIN ROAD MATTITUCK, NEW YORK 11952 (516)298-5674 Gn March 26, 1987 Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Southold Town Board of Appeals Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Appeal No. 3412 Thomas Cramer Meadow Lane, Mattituck Dear Mr. Goehringer and Members of the Board: I am a co-owner of the property which is the subject of a request for a variance from the 75 foot wetlands setback required in section 100-119. 2(B) . This property has been the subject of an environmental review process before the Southold Town Trustees since December 1985 . We have agreed upon a timetable with the Trustees that calls for a decision on the wetlands permit application to be made at their April meeting. We ask that you schedule the public hearing before the ZBA for your April meeting even though you may not have the written decision of the Trustees in hand at the time of the hearing. Your board could hold the public hearing and withhold decision -- until receiving the decision of the Trustees. This would save us time in what has been a very long process. Your consideration of this request is appreciated. Very truly yours, Wi2livam D. Moore cc: Benjamin Herzweig, Esq. DocId 032687. 003 Merr*andum from . . . . Southold Town Board of Appeals TOWN HALL, SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971 765-1809 Date : 3/19/87 To: MEMORANDUM FOR THE FILE Z . B. A. #3412 - THOMAS CRAMER , HERZWEIG & From: MOOR E Confirmed status with Pat Moore , Esq . by telephone today. Pat will arrange for certification that there are no wetland grasses growing about 2 ' contour (which is the greatest wetland boundary given on survey ) . Pat expects Trustees action April 30th . Following Z . B. A. meeting would be May 21st unless scheduled earlier by board members . `ram United States Soil Department of Conservation 127 Fast 'fain :street Agriculture Service Riverhead, -New York 11901 larch 6, 1937 Mr. Stanley A. Pauzer, District !1mager Suffolk County Soil and ]dater Conservation District 127 Fast Maui Street, Room 105 Riverhead, New York 11901 Dear Stan: I have reviewed the Draft rnvironnrntal Timact Sta.terent M'=)) for t-_e Meadow Lane residence in Mattituck and made a site inspection of the lot. Overall the D71S does a suitable job in addressing the potential adverse enviro- mental inpacts associated with this site. There are areas however, where specific recomendations should be made and foliaged to ensure that the marsh is not ad- versly impacted by the proposed construction. The proposal calls for no disturbance within a natural buffer between t1:e 10 foot contour and the wetland boundary. This is an excellent idea and would help filter out any sedtrznt or other pollutants entering the creel: associated with runoff from overland flow. Dosing my site i specticn ha,ever it was noted that there was little or no beneficial venetrtion �rcm ng within this area. It is dominated by cat brier., Unich should be removed. I would recomm-nd selectivehv pruning the trees within this area to allow sun]12 it penetration and planting: Reed Canarr,—rass 0.50 lhs/1000 sq. ft. Redtop 0.25 11--s/1.000 sq. ft. Flatpea 1.0 1Ls/1000 sq, ft. This mixture will withstand variable drainage conditions, act ns an excellent filter for overland runoff and requires little or no fertilization, and does not have to be mowed. Optimal time for seeding would be between August 15th and September 30th. The entire parcel is steep sloping contrary to what the report states, lope readings taken at the site revealed a slope of 13 percent *,,There the garage is to be located, and 16 percent within the proposed house location. These are rather substantial slopes ciiich will generate trerrmdous erosion if disturbed areas are left unprotected during and after construction. The ^^IS addresses erosion con- trol, but is not specific as to what exactly will be done. With this in mind I vould recommend the follo:,ing practices to control erosion and minimize sediren- tation of the tidal creek. 1. All disturbed areas uiiich will not be reshapel for a period of 15 daces or more should be seeded to annual rye,rass at a rate of 1/2 pound per 1,000 square feet, and mulched uniformly u,rith straw at 3 bales per 1,000 square feet. All disturbed areas should be seeded no later than September 30th to avoid exposurre during the :-Tinter =, ths. All stockpiled material should be protected by this means also. A hydroseeder would be a suitable method for temporary as well as permanent seedings and is hig'.ily recormended for all seedings on this site, O -' Mr. Stanley A. Pauzer, District Nanager., Suuffoll: Count;, Soil and (^ tdater Conservation District - p!arc'., G, 19°7 lYaft Pnvironumental Imrlpact Statement RevieT:' - i'ea[lo?q Lane, ':'attitu'c:, ny 2. Install a silt fence using a geotextile f-J) ric (filter cloth) along the toe of t;he slope to intercept sedimmnt laden runoff. rollow the attached specifications for types of material and installation techniqu>_s. This temporary structure will be much more effective than a str . bale clike. 3. The lom area should be kept to a miniri m. a-lly loam Trainten-ance grass species should be used. Plant fine .rescue at a rate of 5 pounds per 1,000 square feet. A list of suitable varieties and maintenance recuiset:ents developed by Cornell's Cooperative 7xtension Service is enclosed for your information. Since this type of Imm requires no irri.pation, ? would re- comend that an irrigation system not be installed. This will prevent over irrigation which leads to leaching of fertilizers and pesticides. I would consider adding this restriction to the covenants and restrictions for this site. The storm water rranagerrnt proposal for the site is very good. There is no Tentic however of the number and size of the dry wells to handle the roof nnoff and drill way runoff. Based upon USDA, Soil Conservation Service calculations; 875 square feet of roof area would require 4 catch basins, 2.5 feet in diaeter, 3 feet deep, to handle the runoff generated from a 5 inch rainfall in 24 hours. The catch basi should be installed below the frost line, well away from the foundation, to ensure continual operation during the winter months. A paved driveway 40 feet x 12 feet in size would require a catch basin 3 feet in diameter, 4.5 feet deep to handle the runoff generated from a .5 inch rainfall in 24 hours. This too should he installed 'below the frost line. If I may be of further assistance with this project please let me Sincerely yours, Allan S. Cornell District Conservationist end c 'y? gVFFOG(���Grc a01 � rb� TELEPHONE BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES (516) 765-1892 TOWN OFSOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 SPECIAL MEETING FEBRY 24, 1987 7.30 P.UARM. PRESENT WERE: John M. Bredemeyer, III, Vice President Trustee Ellen M. Larsen Trustee Albert Krupski William Moore, Attorney Patricia Moore, Attorney Benjamin Herzweig, Attorney Thomas W. Cramer Chuck Voorhis Dr. Martin Garrell Ilene Pfifferling, Secretary Absent: Trustee Smith, Trustee Goubeaud Vice President John Bredemeyer called the meeting to order at 7:35 P.M. and advised that meeting notice was sent to the newspapers and also to the Town Attorney for his information. Trustee Bredemeyer advised that the Board is concerned with the fees for the review of the D.E.I.S. as this fee depleated the budget for shellfish research. Moved by Trustee Bredemeyer seconded by Trustee Krupski it was RESOLVED that the Secretary is to forward a letter to the Town Attorney asking for his written interpretation of the S.E.Q.R.A. Fees regarding the review of the D.E.I.S. on behalf of Mr. 6 Mrs. Moore and Mr. Benjamin Herzweig as submitted by Mr. Thomas W. Cramer. Vote of Board: Ayes: Trustee Bredemeyer, Trustee Larsen, Trustee Krupski This resolution was declared duly adopted. Lenghty discussion was held regarding this application. The Trustees raised questions regarding the survey that was submitted, additional monitoring of the Wildlife, as well as questions regarding the groundwater flow. The Trustees requested that the applicant submit a letter or some additional information regarding the groundwater flow. The Trustees will arrange to have someone monitor the site for additional Wildlife species. The meeting was recessed and the Trustees scheduled another meeting to be held on March 3, 1987 at 7:30 P.M. to be held at the Town Hall, Main Road, Southold to review the additional information requested by the Board. Meeting recessed t�9.41• P.M. Ilene rling S[fcY tar Trofs y tees • TCIWN�OF SOU'tHOLD PROPERTY RECORD CARD OWNF" STREET — v41,• ( \oat VILLAGE DIST. SUB. LOT — Ie We • FO ER OW ER /7 . b�rr/fib N !j I y E CR. '�3i [fi�7n/fC S W TYPE OF BUILDING VL. FARM COMM. CB. MILS. Mkt. Value LAND IMP. TO AL DATE REMARKS/ // Cal s r - �oU rA C. 6c 10o u _ 41 U r� T AGE BUILDING CONDITION — ----_._— NEW I NCRMAL ----_---- - -- - - ---------- BELOW ----- -- ABOVE ------- FARM — -- _ Acre T----- i Value Per Vclue r --- -- ---- Acre I Tillabie - -- IFRONTAGE C j— — -- — — — ----- N WATER ! - Weodland ----- --- ' _ __ _ — FRONTAGE ON ROAD --- ---- -- --- -- '�— Meadowland -- -- + --- — _ — ----- DEPTH — -- House Plot —_ BULKHEAD .Total � — --- DOCK — — y Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD - STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.L, N.Y. 11971 �n v ^`�> TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR., SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWICKI TO (WHOM IT MAY CONCERN : Enclosed herewith as confirmation of the time and date of the public hearing concerning your recent application is a copy of the Legal Notice as published in the L . I . Traveler- Watchman , Inc . and Suffolk Weekly Times , Inc . Someone should appear in your behalf during the public hearing in the event there are questions from board members or persons in the audience . Please be assured that your public hearing will not start before the time allotted in the Legal Notice . If you have any questions , please feel free to call our office , 765-1809 . Yours very tr} 1�,,, G RARD P . GOEIiRINGER CHAIRMAN Linda Kowalski Secretary and Board Clerk Enclosure NOTICE OF HEARINGS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN , pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and the Code of the Town of Southold , the following public hearings will be held by the SOUTHOLD�TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS at a Regular Meeting at the Southold Town Hall , Main Road , Southold , New York , on THURSDAY , JUNE 18 , 1987 , at the following times : 7 : 35 p .m. Appl . No . 3605 - TED DOWD. Variance for Approval of Access pursuant to New York Town Law , Section 280-a , over a private right-of-way located off the north side of the Main Road , Southold , and extending to the applicant ' s premises , identified on the Suffolk County Tax Map as District 1000 , Section 56 , Block 1 , Lot 5 . 1 (5 ) , containing 7 . 3± acres . 7 : 40 p . m . Appl . No . 3632 - Rehearing on Amended Application of NORTH FORK EARLY LEARNING CENTER . Variance to the Zoning Ordinance , Article III , Section 100- 30 (A) to permit the estab- lishment of a Day-Care Center , at premises referred to as the Veterans Community Center , north side of Pike Street , east side of Wickham Avenue , and south side of Hill Street , Mattituck , NY ; County Tax Map Parcel ID No . 1000- 140-2-39 , containing 1 . 75± acres . 7 : 45 p .m . Appl . No . 3637 - C . KAPOTES AND A. HOMAYUNI . Variance to the Zoning Ordinance , Article III , Section 100-31 ( 100-32 ) for permission to construct deck addition to dwelling with an insufficient frontyard setback from Soundview Avenue . Location of Property : East side of Goldin Avenue and south side of Soundview Avenue , Southold , NY ; County Tax Map Parcel ID No . 1000-135-2-22 . 7 : 50 p . m . Appl . No . 3641 - BRETT AND JANET KEHL . Variance to the Zoning Ordinance , Article III , Section lOr-32 (A) for approval of the construction of an accessory building with height in excess of maximum 18-feet , or in the alternative , Article III , Section 100- 31 (A ) for permission to construct addition to dwelling with an insufficient sideyard setback . Location of Property : 5500 Main Bayview Road , Southold , NY ; County Tax Map Parcel ID No . 1000-78-4-32 . NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HERr GIVEN,pursuant to Section of the Town Law and the Code of the Town of Southold,the follow- 8:05 p.m. APP'. no. a41z as )F NEW YORK 1 ing public hearings will be held _ WILLIAM ) SS: by the SOUTHOLD TOWN Amended BOARD OF APPEALS at a MOORE AND BENJAMIN OF SUFFOLK 1 Regular Meeting at the Southold HERZgWEIG• Variances to,the Town Hall, Main Road, South- Zoning Ordinance, . old, New York, on THURS- XI, Section 100-119.2 for an in. d Wi l l iamS_ of Greenport, in DAY,JUNE 18,1987,at the fol- sufficient setback from - - - _ lowing times: area, and(b)III,Section 100-31orn, says 7:36 p.m. Appl. No. 3606 - for an ineutficientcefdro��etefare I Clark eof THE SUFFOLK TIMES, a Weekly TED DOWD. Variance for Ap- back,for a Propo proval of Access pursuant to ily dwelling structure at pram per, p Section ices known as 675 Meadow published at Greenport, in the Town New York Town Law, Mattituck Estates Map zao-a, over a private right-of- ape• Lot+Y42,Mattituck, a Old, County of Suffolk end State of New way located off the north side of #4453, District IOW, that the Notice of which the annexed is the Main Road, Southold, and County Tax Map lot 007, extendingto the applicant's Section 115, Block 05, pp lit 1 copy, has been regularly published in premises, identified on the Suf- containing. t Nu 36'l9 - Nspaper once each week for _ folk County Tax Map as District 8:20 P.m'AND' SONDR 1000,Section 56,Block 1,Lot 5.1 IRWIN Iccessively, commencing on the - 11 th (5),containing 7.3 t acres. THOMPSON. (To be reco - June 19 87 7:40 p.m.Appl.No.3632-Re. ! vend) - ---- -Appl. No. 3543 -- hearing on Amended EARL 8T p.m. D � BARBARA lion of NORTH FORK EARLY PETER AND LEARNING CENTER. Veri- HERZ.(To be reconvened) ' ante to the Zoning Ordinance, 8:40 P.M. APPI. No. 3640 Article III,Section 100-30(A) to FRANK AND EDITH `.N<,._tic__�_�.5.. �- �C_ permit the establishment of a SAWICKI. Variance for ❑p- Principal Clerk Day-Care Center, atdth 0 p y premises proval of insufficient ending referred to as the Veterans three Parcels in this p Community Center, north side Minor Subdivision,each having � . of Pike Street;east aide of Wick- a minimum lot area of 80,000 sit a ore'me this- -- 7 ham Avenue, and south aide of R. Location of Property: north y[.h- 19�Y / M"rftY K DEGNkN Now Yolk Hill Street, Mattituck, NY; side of C.R. 48 (alk)® North NnT 1 of N County Tax Map Parcel ID No, NY; Cow'ty o �� in-d td N0 484odb9d"d� 1000-140-2.39, containing Road), Southold, r m,/t 1.75t acres. Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000-51- 3-12.1,containing 15 t acres. KAPO7:45 p.m. Appl. No. 3H -C, 8.50 p.m. APPI, No. 3625 - YUNI. Variance AND A. HOMA- pUDGE CORP. Resolution YUNL Variance to the Zoning I concluding hearing. (No oral Ordinance, Article III, Section teastimony.l 1 Wtruct31 de32)ck addition pertion to dwello 8.55 P.m. APPI No. 3G38 -- construct deck addition to dwell- JAMES AND MARY TYLER. ing with an insufficient front- Special Exception modifying yard setback from Soundview APPI No.3400 to permit vehicle Avenue. Location of Property: doors facing street side as con- East aide of Goldin Avenue end NY;;County intyy Avenue,Tax Map a P strutted in this establishment of Southold, N Southold, public garage under Article ou VII, Section 100-701B)l41 of the Parcel 7:50 p N. Appl.13o.2.22. Zoning Code, Location of Prep- 7:50 p.m. Appl. No. 3641 - 6795 Main Road, Laurel, BRETT AND JANET KEHL. ert'y' Co. NY; Mattituck Holding Variance to the Zoning Ordi- Minor Subdivision I'Dt J'i' County Tax Map District 1000, nance, Article Ill, Section 100- Section 125,Block 1,Lot 19.6. 32(A) for approval of the con- The Board of Appeals will stmetion of an accessory build- hear at said time and place all ing with height in excess of persons or representatives desir- maximum 18-feet, or in the al" ing to be heard in each of the ternative, Article 1II, Section I above matters. Each hearing 100-31(A)for permission to con" I will not start before the time al- struct addition to dwelling with lotted. Written comments may an insufficient sideyard setback, be submitted prior to the conclu- Location of Property:5500 Main sion of the subject hearing. For Bayview Road, Southold, NY; more information, Please call County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 765-1809. 1000-784.32. 21,1987. 7:55 P.m. Appl. No. 3634 - Dated:May BY ORDER OF RICHARD F. MULLEN, JR. THE SOUTHOLD TOWN Variance to the Zoning Ordi- BOARD OF APPEALS nance, Article XI, Section 1W- GERARDP.GOF.HRINGER, 119.1(A) for Permission to erect CHAIRMAN fencing in the frontyard area Linda Kowatsk', with a maximum height of six itn:,,d Secretary feet. Location of Property: East 1T3 11-fi625 Side of Cottage Place,Southold, --------- NY; County Tax Map District 1000,Section 62,Block 3,Lot 19. NOTICE OF HEARINGS _ NOTICE IS HEREBY GIV- • . EN,pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and the Code of COUNTY OFSUFFOLK the Town of Southold, the ss: STATE OF NEW YORK following public hearings will be held by the §OUTHOLD TOW N BOARD OF APPEALS at a Regular Meeting at the (Amended- BIOS p.m. Appl. No. 3412 as n du) sworn, says that she is the Southold Town Hall, Main WILLIAMMOORE g y yRoad, Southold, NY, onND BENJAMINHERZ ISLAND TRAVELER-WATCHMAN, THURSDAYJUNE18 1987 atE • VariancestotheZoning inted at Southold, in Suffolk County; the lollo»ing times: rdinance,Articles:(a)XI,Sec- 7:35 p.m. Appl. No. 3605- n100-119.2foraninsufficient which the annexed is a printed copy, TCDDOWQ. Variance for Ap- back from wetlands area,and in said Long Island Traveler-Watchman proval of Access pursuant to- )111,Section 100-31 for an in- /fficient frontyard setback, for ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' • ' ' ' ' . • • . • • . . we New York Town law, Section a proposed single-family dwell- - way to over a private right-of- ing structure at premises known ii way located off the north side of as 675 Meadow Lane,Mattituck ing on the . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . the Main Road, Southold, and Estates Map No.4453, Lot No. extending to the applicant's �f 42. Mattituck,NY;County Tax - c premises,identified on the Suf- l folk County Thx Map as District Map District 1000,Section 115, IOW, Section 56, Block 1, Lot Block 05, Lot 007, containing l 5.1 (5), containing 7.3± acres. .51± acre. . • . . _ _ . . ; /'v;..; . . . . . . 7:40 p.m. Appl. No. 3632. Rehearing on Amended Ap- 8:20 p.m.Appl. No.3629-101 plication of NORTH FO�t,IK WIN AND SONDRA EARLY _DARNING THO,�MUQN_. (To be CENT$. Variance to the Zon- reconvened). ing Ordinance,Article 111, Sec- 8:30 P.M. Appl. No. 3543- ie this . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . day of tion I00-30(A) to permit the PETER AND BARBARA -� establishment of a Day-Care HERZ. (To be reconvened). 19 .� Center,at premises referred to as 8:40 P.m. Appl. No. 3640- the Veterans Community Center, FRANK AND EDITH north side of Pike Street, east SAWICKI. Variance for ap- side of Wickham Avenue, and Proval of insufficient width of three parcels in this g, _south side of Hill Street, Mat-. P pending -��, �t__N tituck, NY; County Tax Map Minor Subdivision,each having' J • . . • . . • • . •es. . .>• Parcel ID No. 1000-140-2.39, a minimum lot area of 80,000 Notary Public containing 1.75± acres. sit. ft. Location of Property: north side of C.R. 48 (a/k/a 7:45 p.m.Appl. No. 3637-g. North Road), Southold, NY; BARBARA F(ri'lil:S KAPOT C AND County Tax Map Parcel ID No. Notary FuLSc, ti;r. ,_�s .L�. y - t' HOMAYUNI. Variance to the 1000-54-3-12.1, containing 15± Zoning Ordinance, Article 111, acres. (ji.ii' Section 100-31 (100-32)for per- 8:50 p.m. Appl. No. 3625- ( �+r..r:,I mission to construct deck addi- FUDGE CORP. Resolution u lion to dwelling with an insuf concluding hearing. (No oral ficient frontyard setback from I testimony.) Soundview Avenua Location of I 8:55 p.m. Appl. No, 3638- Property: East side of Goldin—! JAMES AND MARY TYLER. Avenue and south side of Special Exception modifying Soundview Avenue, Southold, Appl No. 3400 to permit NY;County Tax Map Parcel ID i vehicle doors facing street No. 1000-135-2-224 side as constructed in this 7:50 p.m. Appl. No. 3641- establishment of a public garage BRETT AND JANET KEHL. under Article VII, Section Variance to the Zoning Or- 100-70(B)]4] of the Zoning dinance, Article 111, Section Code. Location of Property: 100-32(A) for approval of the 6795 Main Road, Laurel, NY; construction of an accessory Mattituck Holding Co. Minor building with height in excess of Subdivision Lot No. 3; County maximum 18-feet, or in the Tax Map District 1000, Section alternative, Article III, Section 125, Block 1, Lot 19.6. 100-31(A)for permission to con- The Board of Appeals will struct addition to dwelling with hear at said time and place all an insufficient sideyard setback. persons or representatives desir- Location of Property: 5500 ing to be heard in each of the Main Bayview Road,Southold, above matters. Each hearing will NY;County Tax Map Parcel ID not start before the time allot- No. 1000-78-4-32. red. Written comments may be 7:55 p.m. Appl. No. 3634- submitted prior to the conclu- RICHARD F MULLEN JR. j Sion of the subject hearing. For Variance to the Zoning Or- more information, please call dinance, Article XI, Section 765-1809. 1 W-119.1 (A) for permission to Dated: May 21, 1987 erect fencing in the frontyard BY ORDER OF THE area with a maximum height of SOUTHOLD TOWN six feet. Location of Property: BOARD OF APPEALS East Side of Cottage Place, GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Southold, NY;County Tax Map CHAIRMAN District IOW,Section 62,Block Linda Kowalski, 3, Lot 19, Board Secretary IT-6/11/87(9) 5 Co G o: Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD - STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. May 27 , 1987 ROBERT J. DOUGLASS - JOSEPH H. SAWICKI Mr . and Mrs . William D . Moore 370 Terry Lane Southold , NY 11971 Re : Appeal No . 3412 (Variances ) Dear Bill and Pat : This letter will confirm our conversations recently and acknowledge receipt of the variance application as amended to reflect requests for an insufficient frontyard setback and revised setbacks of a proposed dwelling in this project . At our Regular Meeting held May 21 , 1987 , the Board declared the file incomplete until such time as four accurate prints of the amended survey or site plan have been filed with our office and re-placement of the stakes (at the closest points ) on the premises . If you are able to submit the above by our advertising i ; deadline of June 4th , we will be in a position to publish Notice for a June 18 , 1987 hearing date , etc . Unless we hear from you by June 4th , we will assume that this matter should continue to be held in abeyance . Please keep us advised regarding developments . Yours very truly , Linda Kowalski For the Chairman BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD In the Matter or the Petition of ! /EJ C" LyDd✓� NOTICE TO to the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold ADJACENT TO: PROPERTY OWNER YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN NOTICE: 1. That i[ ' e intention of the undersigned to petition the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold to request a Marian ) (Special Exception) (Special Permit) (Other) [circle choice] i 1. 2. That the property which is the subject of the Petition is located adjacent to your property and is des- cribed as follows: 5U K• roo wlA(� J /'SLR — /yCr�S q% VICA00W CrA4C . MA• T i Ynsz< 3. That the property which is the subject of such Petition is located in the following zoning district: y A Ar6Rt (_u#_TvA1%L 1 ayS. r>v_NT# 4 ,_ 4. That by such Petition, the undersigned will request the following relief: �AR, Apn•- (- 001, Y&RD St'i 6f�C�c JA'2taric4C FV& cotim'c—n am w %nt•+,4 7SFr. C14ataPvJNMQ L�- Wc1_wga/O S "D SUCH OSYIr7t WC✓_IGr- 4& MAY N6C SSA2 5. That the provisions of the Southold Town Zoning Code applicable to the relief sought by the under- signed are Article Xl ) , Tf Section 100-I11 a. � !00-,3 i [ ] Section 280-A, New York Town Law for approval of access over right(s)-of-way. 6. That within five days from the date hereof, a written Petition requesting the relief specified above will be filed in the Southold Town Clerk's Office at Main Road Southold, New York and you may then and there examine the same during regular office hours. (516) 7�5-1809. 7. That before the relief sought may be granted, a public hearing must be held on the matter by the Board of Appeals; that a notice of such hearing must be published at least five days prior to the date of such hearing in the Suffolk Times and in the Long Island Traveler-Mattituck Watchman, newspapers published in the Town of Southold and designated for the publication of such notices; that you or your representative have the right to appear and be heardat such hearing. Dated: �- l , Petitioner Owners ' Names : Post Office Address&CA-SF t nk F(61a'1-Ncl 370 TEl?(tL, ZA1iCr PROOF OF MAILING OF NOTICE ATTACH CERTIFIED MAIL RECEYPTS NAME ADDRESS n 11� 3 MW7o84 eigwd' �1 A, R% c to � ' `It ISM- �SlqoX Jab 1 1 IiITT /T VC/C r A/'' 11 t,p woo D C. 14 q 6T 3210 12 J i,i, U� 'n ° [' 1 L Y ru -� M mI Q ru y �0 ^ _ j. ...±'tip Orq ru P ➢ � ,mr! n N E T f- �� t J 0.� !P S� STATE OF NEW YORK ) ss.: COUNTY OF SUFFFFOLK) AllLIUrk ` ORES residingat .370 167617 40 U LQ hiew VIDIZlI being duly sworn, deposes and says that on the day of 119 deponent mailed a true copy of the Notice set forth on the re- verse side hereof, directed to each of the above-named persons at the addresses set opposite their respective names; that the addresses set opposite the names of said persons are the addresses of said persons as shown on the current assessment roll of the Town of Southold; that said Notices were mailed at the United States Post Of- ` fice at S0t/7I4OLA? a 67W ypf?fe ;that said Notices were mailed to each of said persons by tifi ) (registered) mail. �- Sworn to befpre me this / �A, day of y/Zak/ . 19 �7 o[ary Public e; MARY ANN CYBULSKI NOTARY PUBLIC.State of New York Residing in Suffolk County He 52.589MM comaw Ispnas Apnl 30 19.f8, (This side does not have to be completed on form transmitted to adjoining 11 ' .- property owners . ) a Np` l t • r z� ` CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES j Enviru: nenw and Planning Consultants P.c.sox 622 Miller Place,New York 11764 /1 (516)473-002 1q Thomas W. Cramer. LA o Charles J.Voorhis October 16, 1986 Mr. Henry P. Smith, President Board of Town Trustees Town of Southold Town Hall - 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 RE: DEIS on Meadow Lane residence, Mattituck - Response to comments Dear Mr. Smith: I am pleased to submit to you the response to comments on the above referenced project. Enclosed please find ten copies of same. I apologize for the delay, however, I feel that the questions raised in your February llth correspondence have been adequately and thoroughly addressed. I appreciarP your immediate attention to same and if Z a any assistance to you, please feel free to contact me. Very t o s, MA5 W. CRAMER, R.L.A. TWC:kr Encl. cc: Gerard Goehringer Ben Herzweig William Moore 4 Response to Comments on the ' Draft ENVIRONMENTAL - - - -- ' IMPACT STATEMENT for : Al ;� f%-•y r `��� f ` `a,..ter'. � �,�,s q':.• � \• •� ri is I _ 1 'h —- s Meadow Lane Residence , ' Mattituck , Town of Southold , ' New York 1 CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants ' CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES t Environmental and Planning Consultants P.o.aox 622 Miller Place,New York 11764 (516)473-6302 ' Thomas W. Cramer. LA Charles J.Voorhis 1, ' RESPONSE TO C011MENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT i ' FOR a MEADOW LANE RESIDENCE ' MATTITUCK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, N.Y. t ;1 7' t September 1986 i t TABLE OF CONTENTS ' INTRODUCTION . . . . . 1 TRUSTEE'S COMMENTS 2 SAI REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 ' CAC REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 RESPONSE TO SAI REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 RESPONSE TO CAC REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 NITRATE IMPACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 ' WILDLIFE SPECIES LIST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 SMALLER HOUSE ALTERNATIVE 32 ' FLOW PLUME 36 NITRATES & VIRUSES . 37 GROUNDWATER & SOIL CHARACTERISTICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 ' SCDHS CORRESPONDENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 DECLARATION OF COVENANTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 WILDLIFE SURVEY . . . . . . . 47 ENGINEER'S CORRESPONDENCE . . . • . . . . . . . . 53 4 1 1 INTRODUCTION ' The following is the response to comments which were summarized in the February 11, 1986 letter of Henry P. Smith, President, Board of Town Trustees, ' Town of Southold. - ' The DEIS referred to in the above letter and the subsequent responses is the document which was submitted to the Town Trustees on December 2, 1985, ' receipt of same acknowledged on December 9, 1985. Notice of completion of the Draft E.I.S. was dated January 6, 198(6) . A public hearing was scheduled and ' held on January 23, 1986. ' The response to comments do not represent any substantial revisions to the DEIS. The responses serve to elaborate upon the facts and conclusions found in the DEIS. As per the Lead Agency's request, a Smaller House Alternative has been included. 1 1 1 ' 1 ' CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants TELEPHONE 1 BOARD OF TORN TRUSTEES (516) 765-1892 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 1 Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 (1 February 11 , 1986 1 Mr. Thomas W. Cramer P. 0. Box 622 Miller Place, New York 11764 1 Re: Meadow Lane, Mattituck Dear Mr. Cramer: 1 Pursuant to your submission of the DEIS and subsequent Public Hearing held on January 23, 1986 regarding the above 1 referenced matter, please furnish a Supplemental DEIS subject to the following requests: 1. Items in SAI review. 1 2. Items in Conservation Advisory Council ' s review. 1 3. Re-evaluation of nitrate impact on the wetland and pond. 4 . Complete list of wildlife on the parcel with documented 1 monitoring. I 5 . Smaller home alternative (less than 1000 square ft. ) . 1 6. Flow plume characterization and all other chemical questions asked by the CAC on recharge, lawn fertilization and alternative sanitary systems. 1 7. Nitrites and viruses. 1 8 . Document seasonal fluctuation of groundwater, ground- water mounding and soilborings. Thank you for your cooperation in regard to this matter. 1 Very tzuly yours, 66nr7:;� Smith, President 1 Board of Town Trustees HPSLip 2 ' SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC. ENVIRONMENTAU-CONSI]tTAN 5---- -- ' TO: Southold Board of Town Trustees RE: Single Family Residence, Meadow Lane Mattituci, FROM: Szepatowski Associates, Inc. DATE: January 20 , 1986 1 Upon SAI ' s review of the draft Environmental Impact Statement of "'Ieadow, Lane Residence" by Cramer & Voorhis Associates , the ' following questions have been raised. In general we find the DEIS to be a thorough and sensitive examination of the site but several areas need amplification. ' 1. Lots 5 , 6, 7 , 8, 9 , and 12 directly surrounding the intertidal marsh in question, are undeveloped. What would ' the cumulative impact be if all these lots were to be developed? The DEIS does not address the subject of cumulative impacts were the adjacent lots capable of being developed. 2. Directly relating to the above cumulative impact, what then would be the impacts on the fresh groundwater resources ' (salt water intrusion) and sanitary waste disposal? 3 . If the proposed well and septic system is allowed where ' shown, what negative or positive effects would they cause adjacent lots -- 6 & 8 (100 ' setback of well from sanitary system) . 'He note there has been no approval obtained for the on-site well . 4. On-site groundwater elevations and gradients are not shown. the use of soil-borings would have provided this information ' and verified groundwater elevations. It would have been possible to provide this information by limited clearing in the proposed disturbance areas. ' S . The floor of excavation is not shown for the structure or the septic system. Coupled with the lack of groundwater elevation data, it cannot be determined whether excavation ' will or will not penetrate groundwater. This has implications for environmental impacts that cannot be preciseiy determined until such data are included in the EIS. r-'3rs.�nn. ... �1 6 . It has not been specified 'note stockpiled material will 1 be contained so as not to prevent erosion, or where erosion control measure will be placed on the site. 7 . It has been stated that no disturbance would take place 1 below the 10 ' contour, yet the plan approved by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (p. 54 . ) clearly,• shows that there will be such a disturbance. 1 This conflict needs to be addressed. Further discussion of these concerns needs to be addressed in the impact statement so that a complete overview of the proposed 1 action may be seen. Should the applicant be able to successfully address the above 1 points and a finding of no significant environmental impact be made, the following measures would have to be taken at a minirurm: 1 1. Condition all permits on the granting of a well permit from SCDBS. 1 2 . Specify containment of stockpiled material. 3 . Place two interloc;cing and staked rows of havbales at 1 the ten foot contour and erect a show fence uphill to protect them from dislodging during construction. ?. Ribbon trees to be maintained in the area of minimal 1 disturbance and the areas of no disturbance prior to submission of the _ EIS. 1 5 . Approval of the building permit site plan showing the mitigation measures to be incorporated into the project shall be 'granted by the Board of Trustees prior to 1 submission to the Building Inspector. Interior water saving fixtures also to be shown. 6. Approval should stipulate that no building permit be 1 issued prior to the first of June 1986 . In conclusion, we find that this lot is probably the only 1 buildable lot remaining on the east side of ieadoti Lane. The physical limitation of lots 5 , 6 , and 9 probably render them unbuildable without significant adverse impacts. 1 [:e cannot comment on wildlife impacts since only two field visits were made earlier in January. we have no other famiiiarity with the species alleged to inhabit the site or 1 urrounuings. SZFPATOWcKI ,\SS(:CIaI;S I c. ' ' ' CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL COMME;7TS - ON DRAFT ' STATEMENT (DEIS) for Project of T . Cramer SOUTHOLD TOWN WETLAND PERMIT APPLICATION no . 312 Despite the length of the DEIS we find the document to be substan- tially flawed and feel that a number of issues will have to be addressed in greater detail in the Final Environmental Impact ' Statement ( FEIS) - A summary of our comments appears below and will be followed by page-by-page criticism of the DEIS . ' SUMMARY 1 . The addition of 14 .4 lbs of nitrogen per year to the ground- water by the project will have a significant effect because it will increase the nitrogen concentration substantially beyond the current 15 al Y� aw �ssa aio. _ levels which may already be a-beye I ppm.. The effects of nitrogen ' loading are additive and the effects of all houses is cumulative ! 2 . Besides effects on groundwater the effects of nitrogen and ' phosphorous loading on the small pond must be calcualted as well. The pond water in the wetlands must be sampled four or six times per ' year for nutrients to predict the impact of another dwelling . 3 . The deleterious effects on wildlife , particularly nesting wildfowl , will be obvious , not merely during construction , but during the entire period of occupancy of the structure . It will be necessa?'� 6e" know exactly what fauna is in that marsh during the year through ' a detailed periodic wildlife survey ; a mere listing from a naturalist handbook does not suffice here . ' 4 . Alternatives to the proposal are given short shrift . For example , we would like to know the answers to the following questions . Using the Composting Toilet ( Clivis Multrum) and Organci Kitchen System of Appendix 6-2 plus a cesspool for gray water ( already per-mitted in Southold Town) , what does the new number for nitrogen poundage from sanitary disposal look like? If the turfed area were eliminated completely with fertilizer only applied to shrubs , what ' is the new estimated poundage of applied nitrogen? 5 . It would }e helpful to see yet another alternative siting ' plan which would put a smaller home on the property and move it next to the road ( :Meadow Lane) . The environmental impacts could be greatl_: ' reduced by leaving a much larger buffer between dwelling and wetland . 5 ' Page-by-page comments ' p . 6 Where are the catch basins for subsurface recharge? How will wildfowl breeding periods be handled once the dwelling ' is occupied? p . 14 What does a typical flow plume look like for groundwater in4 ' 4, b" the area? Flow will take place not only along the hydraulic gradient but also perpendicluar to it . See various models as discussed in texts likebFreeze and Cherry C cad. d+ems (1 a^+ � He ' p . 15 Where were these samples taken? At what time of year? Are they averages? Units appear scrambled for pH and for ions tin Table 4 and were left out altogether (,irconductance . Are the readings of ammonia , and nitrate ro*ss for the ions or ' for ammonia-N and nitrate-N? You say that no organics have been detected in the vicinity , yet Table 3 lists clear contamination levels tp . 24 What is "practical difficulty" ? Could you scale down the structure or go to ZBA of Planning Board for modifications? ' p . 25 No mention here is made of the Town Wetlands Act . No thought is given to attempts to change covenants, should they actually ' be in force . 10 . 31 The statement that"no significant a impact is anticipated ' from sanitary disposal or lawn fertilization"bs hardly appears justified from the discussion of the preceding paragraph ' because 7 . 3 ppm is rather dose to 10 ppm and because you will be adding to the current levels ( already 15 ppm) Besides you should address the impact on the pond area , not just ground- water . p . 32 See p . 14 comment .You are not taking perpendicular movement ' into account here . We cannot aggree with the conclusion that no surface water impact will occur " on that basis . p . 37 What would such a covenant look like? p . 38 Again see comment for p . 31 ! 11 ' p . 47 Septic systems are indeed required inaddition to the systems discussed , but there is no reason why such a hybrid cannot be ' Vs ed 'here You should detail the nitrogen reduction which would be possible by using composting toilets and by eliminatL�� turf areas altogether . 1 6 ' CO,ICLUSIOVS ----_-`�-- We hope these questons will be adequately addressed in a rewritten ' FEIS so that the CAC may proceed in our deliberations for a recommendation for a Wetlands Permit . 1 Sincerely is — -- Dr . tartin H . Carrell ' Chariman , Southold Town E�E 1 1 1 t 1 I . Items in SAI Review ' 1. Cumulative impacts of lots 5 - 9 , and 12 were developed : ' The above named lots refer to the Real Property Tax Map for lands adjacent to the tidal marsh in the vicinity of the subject parcel . ' Review of these parcels finds that Lot 7 is the subject site, and lot 12 is owned by the County of Suffolk. The remaining lots are ' north ( 5 and 6) and south (8 and 9) of the subject parcel . Review of the topographic map on Page 13 of the DEIS finds that lots 5 , 6 , 1 8 and 9 all have significantly more tidal wetlands on site , and do ' not have sufficient upland area above the 10 foot contour to situate a house in compliance with NYSDEC Tidal Wetlands Regulations (6NYCRR Part 661) and do not provide the opportunities for minimal disturbance as proposed in the Action . Therefore, lot 7 is unique . 1 As stated in the concluding paragraph of the SAI review, Lot 7 is ' "probably the only buildable lot remaining on the east side of Meadow Lane. The physical limitation of lots 5 , 6 , 8 and 9 probably render them unbuildable without significant adverse impacts . " The subject site can be constructed without significant t adverse impacts as demonstrated through the research and analysis ' of the Environmental Impact Statement . Because of the unique configuration of lot 7 , and the highly sensitive nature of lots 5 , ' 6 , 8 and 9, it is beyond the scope of this DEIS to investigate the cumulative impacts of this highly theoretical and nearly impossible development scenario . If the four lots were developed with similar CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants ' 8 1 , constraints as lot 7 , it is possible that the cumulative ground- water impacts would- he minimal on existing_.canditi.ons-_f"-,P-_.--- ' Response II) . However, setbacks from wetlands would be less than the proposed action and the impacts associated with same would ' increase. Since the areawas previously subdivided a" teach--lot is singly and separately owned , each lot , as development is ' proposed , should be required to prepare an Environmental Impact ' Statement to assert the potential impacts. 2 . Please refer to Question 1 . 1 3 . Both the well and sanitary system received approval from tSuffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) on September 13 , 1985 (HS Ref . No . 85-5) -164) . This documentation ' was provided in the DEIS on page 54 . Any subsequent applications would require review and approval from SCDHS for well and sanitary ' installation. The Town ' s consultants ' review conclude that lots 6 ' and 8 do not appear to be buildable. However, given the dimensions of lots 6 and 8 , 115 ' and 130 ' respectively, it is considered that ' the 100 foot separation can be achieved between wells and sanitary systems . In addition , SCDHS rules allow less of a separation on ' single and separate lots if the well is extended 15 ' deeper for ' every 5 ' closer to the sanitary system. (This extension is in addition to the 40 ' minimal depth below groundwater elevation. ) ' 4 . A test boring was conducted on-site to determine ground- water elevations . The hole was completed on April 3 , 1981 using a 1 1 CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants ' 9 gasoline powered auger , at the location shown on the survey in Figure F-1 . The elevation of groundwater at this location was ' 1 . 94 feet above sea level on April 3 , 1986 and 2 . 35 feet above sea level on April 27 , 1986 as recorded in Table F-1 . ' The hydraulic gradient is determined by the following ' expression (Freeze, Cherry , 1979) : dh 2 dl Where, dh is the change in elevation , and , dl is the change ' in distance. The gradient between the on-site well ( Station 1) and ' Station 4 , in line with groundwater flow (4-3-86) is determined as follows : dh = . 98 FT = 0 . 0016 t dl 600 FT ' The velocity of groundwater flow is determined using Darcy ' s Law as follows : ' v = ki n ' where K = hydraulic conductivity , (250 ft/day) and n = porosity ( . 30) . The velocity of flow from Station 1 to ' 4 is 1 . 33 feet per day. i• 5. The floor of excavation for the foundation is 6 feet above ' sea level. This is determined from the DEIS Figures 3 and 4 by subtracting the foundation height from grade. The area for the ' approved sanitary system will be graded such that the excavation CRAMER &VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants 10 A t , rzt��' 1 ,I IT— 11111111("II(( a j1111(Illlll i1 Ill IIIII�IIgIVI WeIinNps uulllllu(lll opt,', � IpIIIIIVUIq ulllllllllq�� 1411 u 11 ��111111 lilll�l�� � / I 1 I lll Illll / / / I � �1�'I IIII pll I !IIIIIIIU(Ilnm� ' / / / / / / / `I III�11J111 f l I II III III III I lfllll(I IIIIII11q I'I'llllnllll III Nillu '�I all�llll aI111Ullull nlUllll IIU! '1 (Illy: / / �IIIIII VI fill 1( II II IIII� mlullpV uu'��'u�ld�(II(1 / / / / / WEcwNr� Iltlllll6 III�IIII I� o, NuL;—: /// WETIANIV_— Ilda(ui ,II(,1;"r\ 1 / I ,Illllgldlinul��i111'I fllllal�lu II(In _.--� / llllllli . . / / I�IIIIUI igl�ll I � Z i I i FIGURE F-1 f TEST HOLE LOCATION Final Environmental Impact Statement Not to Scale Y MEADOW LANE RESIDENCE (approx, P=32') Mattituck, New York August 1986 TABLE F-1 WATER LEVEL MONITORING NETWORK - APRIL 3 , 1986 APRIL 27 , 1986 MEASURING DEPTH TO WATER DEPTH TO WATER STATION DESCRIPTION POINT WATER ELEVATION WATER ELEVATION 1 On-site 2" PVC 3 ' screen 11 . 38 9 . 44 1 . 94 8 . 74 2 . 35 2 Fire well Cardinal Dr . 17 . 04 14 . 24 2 . 80 14 . 02 3 . 02 3 Reference stake Cardinal Drive bridge 3. 30 1 . 74 1 . 56 1 . 38 1 . 92 _ 4 Reference stake New N Suffolk Avenue bridge 3 . 33 2 . 37 0 . 96 1 . 68 1 . 65 i I for leaching pools will have a floor elevation of 5 feet above sea level . Therefore ,_ groundwater will not-- bP=inter_cepted,,- and sufficient unsaturated soils will be provided beneath the foundation and sanitary system to avoid adverse environmental effects . 6 . Erosion Control on Site: On pages 4-5 of the DEIS , there ' are four major design features that are incorporated into proposed project which will reduce the potential of erosion . These are : ' 1 . Establishment of Natural Buffers . 2 . "Stepping" of Structure. ' 3 . Use of Crane for Excavation . 4 . Storm Water Control . The above are explained on pages 4 and 5 and are also addressed in the "Mitigation Measures" Section , pages 33 and 35 . ' In an effort to assure that erosion potential is further ' reduced , it is proposed to install two rows of interlocking , staked haybales at the ten foot contour and to erect a snow fence in front to protect them and the area to remain natural from disturbance. (See page 33 of the DEIS) . As stated, the site will be monitored for ' erosion and appropriate methods used to further reduce erosion. ' Also as stated in the DEIS, surplus material from the excavation from the foundation will be trucked off site. The method of construction will negate the need for stockpiling large quantities of material for regrading. The use of a crane instead of a bulldozer for excavation will significantly reduce the amount ' of material disturbed on site, and thus reduce the amount of soil CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants ' 13 ' necessary to be replaced around the foundation . The design and location of the proposed structure also -reduces the amount of ' regrading and disturbance to the natural soils . It is not intended to allow soils to be exposed or stock- piled for an extended period of time (page 33 DEIS) . However , ' any soils that are stockpiled between the period of excavation and backfilling of the foundation will be graded to a suitable angle i ' of repose and contained by hay bales on the down gradient side. ' 7 . No disturbance will take place below the 10 ' contour , see number 6 above . The exact configuration of the leaching pools were sketched in by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services inappropriately on the approved plan . The configuration ' of the leaching pools on the approved permit shows one pool on the ' north side and two to the south. Subsequent discussions and letters confirms that a pattern of two pools to the north and one ' to the south would be acceptable to Suffolk County Department of Health Services . Such a configuration maintains the distance ' between the approved well site and leaching pools , required separation between pools , and does noI encroach over the 10 ' contour . Copies of correspondence and revised permit is found in the appendix. 1 . ' CRAMER& VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants 14 ' The review by Szepatowski Associates , 'Inc . also o`u'tlines ' six measures which should be included in the approval of the project . All six can and will be adherred to , most have already ' been incorporated into the proposed project . It should also be ' noted that measure 111 refers to the conditioning of all permits on the granting of a well permit from Suffolk County Department of ' Health Services ; the well permit has been granted by SCDHS , permit #85-SO-164 , dated September 13 , 1985 (page 54 DEIS) and ' the same is reconfirmed in SCDHS letter of June 3 , 1986 . ' We again note that the Town ' s consultant , in conclusion finds that lot 7 , the site of the proposed action , is "probably the only buildable lot remaining on the east side of Meadow Lane. " ' The remaining lots , if they were ever able to be constructed would require measure similar to what is proposed in this action . Such measures would help to avoid significant impacts . CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants 15 II . Items in Conservation Advisory Council ' s Review 1 . The potential impact of releasing a total of 14 . 4 lbs . of nitrogen per year on the subject site has been calculated using currently acceptable and state of the art methods developed by Cornell University as part of the Water Resources Program. The ' results are reported in the DEIS on pages 30 and 31 . The predicted concentrations of nitrogen in recharge is 7 . 32 mg/l. The ' CAC ' s summary comment #1 states that this loading will . . . "increase the nitrogen concentration substantially beyond the current levels which may already be 15 ppm by your (DEIS) own assertion . " This ' statement is incorrect . This DEIS indicates that no significant impact is anticpated because nitrogen in the discharge is less than half than existing groundwater concentrations . Nitrogen concentrations are not additive, this is an apparent misconception ' of the reviewer . ' Recharge from the subject site will contact the water table, and move with groundwater along a flow line. Due to laminar flow of solute through the porous media, and the low ' velocity of groundwater flow, the solutions do not readily mix. Instead, a plume of groundwater containing lower levels of nitrogen than surrounding groundwater is expected to result . Dispersion will cause the plume to become increasingly wider with distance from the site. Therefore, the effects of nitrogen from the proposed ' project will not add to the existing groundwater concentrations . 1 CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants 16 ' 2 . The effect on nutrients on the pond are calculated by ' first predicting the concentration of nitrogen and phosphorus in recharge from the site which enters groundwater . The ground and surface water systems interact closely as described on page 16 of the DEIS ; therefore , conservatively predicted nutrient concentrations in recharge are representative of groundwater quality before it ' enters surface water . The concentration of nitrogen in recharge resulting from ' implementation of the project has been calculated to be 7 . 32 mg/l ' (DEIS page 31) . This represents an estimate of the nitrogen which gets beyond the root zone and enters groundwater . Nitrogen is then ' transported with groundwater as described in question 1 above. Concentrations of nitrogen will remain fairly constant due to its conservatism in groundwater, travelling along a 300 - 400 foot path to the wetland and pond . Additional chemical transformation ' occurs as groundwater nitrogen is discharged to surface water . Removal of nitrogen will occur as groundwater passes through the fine clay, silt and organic layer of sediment which constitutes ' the streambed . This transformation is known as ion exchange and is measured by the Cation Exchange Capacity of the soil (CEC) . ' Soils with high humus and clay content will have a higher CEC and therefore increase removal efficiency (Canter, Knox , 1985) . Additional chemical processes such as absorption and chemical tprecipitation will occur in the soils . As a result of chemical processes which occur as groundwater discharges to surface water , nitrogen concentrations will be reduced to an insignificant level . The wetlands adjacent to the pond are a source of nutrients CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants 17 important as food to the ecosystem. Decomposition of plants and organic debris releases nutrients for utilization in the food chain. The proposed construction of a dwelling on Meadow Lane with the mitigation included in the DEIS will not increase or adversely affect nitrogen levels in the pond , or cause a significant impact ' upon the environment . Phosphorus is a component of sewage discharge and ' fertilizer , though to a lesser extent than nitrogen . Characteriza- tion of sewage wastewater finds that phosphorus is approximately one-third the concentration of nitrogen in wastewater (Canter , ' Knox, 1985) . The fate of phosphorus in a septic system is also different than nitrogen . Phosphorus is not a major groundwater pollution concern , because it is easily retained in unsaturated soils due to chemical changes and absorption . Scientific study ' has confirmed phosphorus from sanitary systems is not usually transported through soils to groundwater (Canter , Knox , 1985) . Phosphorus is also a component in fertilizers which may be used on lawns . The content of phosphorus is lower than nitrogen in lawn fertilizers due to turf needs (Koppelman , 1984) . Lawn application is usually based on nitrogen, with 0 . 5 lb . of nitrogen ' per 1 , 000 sq. ft . in spring and fall as the recommended rate. In the fall , the phosphorus content should be raised for better growth . ' Fertilizer practices are outline in the 208 Nonpoint Source Management Handbook (Koppelman , 1984) . Guidelines were developed ' for groundwater protection purposes to promote maximum uptake of ' fertilizer in soil . The proposed project involves a fertilized CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants ' 18 ' lawn area of 1 , 350 sq. ft . Phosphorus applied to the lawn for ' normal fertilization will be_ primarily taken up by plant material . Excess phosphorus is not expected to enter groundwater due to chemical changes and absorption in the unsaturated zone . ' Sampling of the surface water is not appropriate in this case as the project has been designed so as not .to allow any ' surface flow to the pond . The only interconnection to the surface water will be through the groundwater which has been discussed , in the DEIS and above . ' The proposed project will not cause a significant impact upon groundwater or the wetland - pond system as a result of the approved sanitary disposal system or fertilization of the minimal lawn area. ' 3 . As stated in the DEIS , numerous site inspections were conducted . These occurred during the period of the winter of 1985 through the summer of that same year . This in conjunction with 1 consultation with ornithologists and a review of relevant publica- tions , resulted in the listing of "Wildlife Species" found in Table 7 , page 18 of the DEIS . The statement that Table 7 is a ' "mere listing from a naturalist handbook" is incorrect . The list is site specific and is so identified in the DEIS . In an effort ' to assure that all possible species and their breeding habits were addressed , Professor John A. Black, a qualified Ornithologist and Biologist with some 20 years experience, was retained to perform ' field investigations between February and June of 1986. In his report dated July , 1986 , Prof . Black states that , Table 7 "Wildlife Species" was found to be "overly ambitious" for the site . He did ' though note that two additional species should be added to the list . ' CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants 19 ' Those being Redwinged Blackbirds and Muskrats . The summary of a detailed wildlife survey can be found in Request IV. ' As stated in the DEIS and supported by the recommendations of the Town' s Environmental Consultants, construction must be ' limited to certain periods of the year to avoid undue impact on the breeding patterns of wildlife that may be found in the area. ' Construction should therefore be restricted to the time between June and February. The two most sensitive portions of the site, for breeding wildlife , is the wetland and the immediate shoreline. ' These two areas will remain unimpacted and a natural buffer will be maintained to preclude future intrusion into these areas . Without such protective measures , the values of the area could be impacted as is evident with some of the existing sturctures surrounding the wetlands . 4 . Use of composting toilet and subsurface discharge for ' "grey water" is suggested as an alternative to the Suffolk County Department of Health Services approved system. As stated on ' Page 47 of the DEIS , SCDHS will not approve such a system as the ' sole means of sanitary disposal . The use of composting toilets would be considered by the SCDHS Board of Review. In this case, ' where a sanitary permit has been granted, it would only be considered in conjunction with a conventional septic system with ' flush toilets if at all . (Personal communications with SCDHS) . CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants 20 Therefore, conservative calculations for nitrogen loading ' would be the same as discussed in the DE -S_aEL-d__in xhg_sesgstnse to ' comments . This alternative is not considered acceptable because the loading will not be reduced . Personal habits are not tregulatory and the agency responsible for sanitary—pro-vals has issued a permit . A more reliable and efficient method of reducing ' the loading is to curtail water usage through the installation of ' water saving devices and fixtures at the time of construction as proposed in the DEIS and recommended by the Town ' s Consultant. ' With regard to eliminating turf area completely (as suggested in the CAC Review) , and no fertilizer were applied to ' shrubs , the total weight of nitrogen released on site per year would be 12 . 7 lbs . The resultant concentration of nitrogen in recharge can be predicted using the methods outlined in the DEIS ' on Page 30 . The estimated concentration is calculated to be 6 . 58 mg/l . If fertilizer were to be applied to shrubs , the difference in ' nitrogen loading will be an increase of something less than 0. 74 mg/l : ' S . A smaller house alternative has been developed in response to Request V from the Southold Town Trustees as Lead Agency. The impacts associated with same are discussed there. A 35 foot front yard setback is used , in conformance with Town Code . The comment suggests that the alternative place the home "next to the road ' (Meadow Lane) . " This has not been done as it will impact the community character , violate Town Codes , restrictive Covenants and ' would require similar amounts of land clearing (See Alternative Designs "B" and "D" , pages 42 and 45 , DEIS) . CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants ' 21 -PAGE BY PAGE COMMENTS Page 6 - The catch basin inlet for the driveway is to be located ' at a low point in front of the garage as shown on the plan, page 54 of the DEIS . Two dry wells , one in the front and one in the rear , for containment of roof runoff from the gutters and leaders will be located adjacent to the proposed structure. These dry wells do i not represent a pollution source. No overland flow will be permitted ' and the dry wells will be placed within the area excavated for the foundation excavation. Breeding waterfowl is addressed in the response to ' CAC comment #3 . ' Page 14 - The Freeze on Cherry text referred to in the CAC comments clearly indicates that groundwater must flow from higher hydraulic head to lower head. The hydraulic gradient is the difference in head divided by the distance. If hydraulic gradients ' are determined , groundwater will flow in the direction of the highest gradient . The CAC comment that flow will take place perpendicular to the hydraulic gradient is incorrect . Perhaps what ' was meant is that flow will take place perpendicular to the ground- water contours , which is the hydraulic gradient . ' Groundwater flow in a water table aquifer is commonly characterized by determining the groundwater elevations at three or more points in order to construct contour lines of equal head . ' Horizontal groundwater flow will occur perpendicular to the contours in an isotropic formation . An isotropic conditions in the ' horizontal dimension may skew flow lines such that groundwater does CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants 1 22 ' not flow directly perpendicular to contours ; however , general ' movement will still be from the higher contours to the-lower contours . Long Island glacial deposits tend to be fairly ' isotropic in the horizontal dimension. Hydraulic conductivities ' typically range from 220 to 270 feet/day (McClymonds , France 1972) . Vertical conductivity is significantly reduced due to stratification ' and the orientation of sand grains in the glacial material . The subject site is in a zone of shallow or horizontal ' flow as documented in the 208 Areawide Waste Treatment Management ' Plan (Koppelman, 1978) . In addition , the proximity to Peconic Bay and surface water features further characterize this as a hydrologic tsystem of horizontal flow. Given those conditions of fairly uniform horizontal hydraulic conductivity and horizontal flow, groundwater ' is expected to move primarily perpendicular to the contour lines of the water table, as previously stated on page 14 of the DEIS . A groundwater contour map and direction of flow is ' shown in Figure F-2 , using the data recorded in Table F-1 . ' Page 15 - Samples were taken from a private well located on Meadow Lane, Mattituck. Chemical data was sample in January , and ' pesticide data was sampled in August . The recorded results are not ' averages , they are the actual measured concentration for each of the parameters indicated. ' The units in Table 4 of the DEIS were reported incorrectly. Please note that pH is reported in pH units ; specific conductance is reported in and all other units should be mg/l . ' The readings for ammonia and nitrate are for ammonia - N and nitrate - N . CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants 23 T o / oP I u� � J �A4 10 o� i N r pGE? GREEI't G FIGURE F-2 GROUNDWATER CONTOUR MAP Final Environmental Impact Statement Scale: 1"=600'-O" 1 MEADOW LANE RESIDENCE Mattituck, New York August 1986 1 Pesticides were detected as reported in T-eble 5. Please--no-te-:the-t- units should be .yg/l, rather than mg/l. No organics or hydrocarbons were detected in samples analyzed by SCDHS for a full range of compounds and breakdown ' components which were not enumerated in the DEIS. For each paramet-er,- the reported result was less than the limit of detection. Page 24 - "Practical Difficulty" is the standard proof which the applicant ' assumes when seeking an area variance. From a legal standpoint a variance to a setback requirement is identified as an area variance along with requirements ' as square footage, height, etc. The standard of proof for a use variance is "unnecessary hardship." ' It has never been specifically defined as to what qualifies as a "Practical Difficulty". However, in the case of Wachsberger v. Michalis 19 Misc. 2d 909, 191 N.Y.S. 2d 621 (1959) . The court said the following matters ' should be considered: 1. How substantial the varaince is in relation to the requirement. 2. The effect, if the variance is allowed, of the increased population density thus produced on available governmental facilities. 3. Whether a substantial change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a substantial detriment to adjoining properties created. ' 4. Whether the difficulty can be obviated by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a variance. 5. Whether in view of the manner in which the difficulty arose and ' in consideration of all the above factors the interests of justice will be served by allowing the variance. ' Other statutes include the requirement of economic loss and the presence of other existing non-conforming housing in the neighborhood. CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants ' 25 An applicant can also satisfy the requirement of Practical Difficulty by showing that due to its peculiar size, shape or grade, the land is not fit for any other purpose or places him in violation of other applicable laws and codes. ' An alternative design "E" has been developed in response to Request V, of the Lead Agency, which addresses a house with a coverage of less than 1,000 ' sq. ft. An application is pending before the Zoning Board of Appeals as stated on page 24 of the DEIS at which time the full practical difficulty is intended to be demonstrated. ' Page 25 - The omission of mentioning the Town Wetlands Act in this section is acknowledged. The project is covered by the Town Wetland Act, as it is the ' application which received a positive declaration under SEQRA which resulted in the preparation of this Environmental Impact Statement. Significant thought and action has and will continue to be taken to ' modify the existing covenant(s) in question. As stated in the DEIS, page 26, the private covenants. predates applicable Town and State laws. Strict adherance ' to them would place the action in direct violation of the various laws and result ' in a significant impact on the environment. Page 31 As previously discussed in response to CAC question 1, the impact of nitrogen upon groundwater is not cumulative in the same sense that it would be if it were a well mixed system. The 10 mg/l figure is used for comparison because it is the drinking water standard for nitrogen and the most restrictive standard. There are no wells down gradient of the site, therefore, groundwater will not be used for drinking purposes. Discharge from the site will not degrade ' groundwater quality which is already more than twice the concentration of the predicted site discharge. With regard to the pond, existing conditions are such that groundwater with nitrogen concentrations of 15 mg/l is discharging to surface water. It is CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants ' 26 1 likely that chemical processes remove nitrogen it the sil`f, clay and organic sediments ' of the streambed. The proposed project will not significantly alter existing conditions or processes which now exists. Therefore, no significant impact will ' occur to the pond or wetlands as a result of this project. ' Page 32 - Addressed in response to the question on page 14. Page 37 The proposed covenant for the protection of the steep slope area, ' the existing vegetation and wetlands is to preclude future development or activities on the site which would impact the environment. The covenant would place the Town ' of Southold Trustees or other appropriate agency as the enforcers. The Trustees ' are suggested for they are the agency from which a permit must be obtained for activities within this area and also the agency within the Town with appropriate ' review capabilities. The Town Wetlands Act states a permit must be obtained for activities ' adjacent to the wetlands and Chapter 100 states that all buildings must be set back from the wetlands. It is possible for future owners of this parcel to seek ' a permit or variance to the local laws, for example to clear or construct an ' addition, respectively. Such a situation would place activities closer to the wetlands and thereby create impact being avoided in the proposed action. The use of a covenant to establish the natural area would proclude such activities and associated impacts. ' A copy of the draft covenant can be found in the appendix. Figure F-3 ' illustrates the area to be covered in the covenant. Page 38 - Addressed in Response to the question page 31. ' Page 47 - Addressed in Response to CAC question 4. CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants ' 27 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 7' / wx f , it, a - - .1.t 00 +:ate ,fit / fr li rti�trrrf , �L 2 /Z 5' -may c_o vaNANTr FIGURE F-3 AREA TO BE RESTRICTED BY COVENANT Final Environmental Impact Statement Not to scale MEADOW LANE RESIDENCE (approx. 1"=32') mattituck, New York III. Re-evaluation of Nitrate Impact on the Wetland and Pond. ' The impact of nitrate on the wetland and pond has been re-evaluated as part of the Response to CAC question 2 and some of the page specific comments. This aspect of the proposal has been fully assessed and documented, and it is concluded that nitrate from the proposed project will not significantly impact the wetland or pond. 1 CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants ' 29 IV. The following represents a revised Wildlife Species List . In addition to the field inspections which were used in compiling ' the list in the DEIS , an Ornthologist/I#iologist conducted several ' field inspections and supplied this revised species list . A copy of the complete report can be found in the Appendix. 1 b 1 ' CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants 30 TABLE 7 (Revised) WILDLIFE SPECIES ' BIRDS Great Blue Heron -Arden Iiero3ia�- ' Snowy Egret Leucophoyx thula Green Heron Butorides virescens Black Crown Night Heron Nycticorax nycticorax Mute Swan Cygnus olor ' Canada Goose Branta canadensis Mallard Duck Anas platyrhyncHos— - Black Duck Anas rubripes ' Pintail Anas acuta Clapper Rail Rallus longirostris Gull Larus spp. ' Tern Sterna hirundo Kingfisher Megaceryle alcyon Flicker Colaptes auratus Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata ' Black Capped Chickadee Parus atricapillus Tufted Titmouse Parus bicolor Wren Troglodytes spp. ' *American Widgeon Anas americans *Bufflehead Bucephala albeola *Hooded Merganser Lophodytes cucullatus *Morning Dove Zenaida macroura t *Black Capped Chickadee Parus atricapillus *Grackle Quiscalus quiscula *Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia ' *White Throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos Catbird Dumetella carolinensis ' Robin Turdus migratorius Starling Sturnus vugaris Warbler Dendroica spp . *Red Winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus ' MAMMALS Opossum Didelphis marsupialus ' Raccoon Procyon lotor Eastern Chipmunk Tamias Striatus Gray Squirrel Sciurus carolinensis ' White Foot Mouse Peromyscus leucopus Meadow Mouse Microtus pennsylvanicus House Mouse Mus musculus *Muskrat Ondatra zibethica ' OTHER Box Turtle Clemmys guttata ' Garter Snake Thamnophis sirtalis Killifish Fundulus spp. Mummichog *Snapping Turtle Chelydra serpentina *Painted Turtle Chrysemys pieta pieta ' * Additions to Table 7 found in DEIS ' CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants 31 ' V. SMALLER HOUSE ALTERNATIVE One of the comments raised after submission and acceptance of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, was to consider the setting of a ' house having less that 1 ,000 square feet as an alternative to the proposed ' project. The suggestion of a smaller house was predicated upon the supposition that a smaller structure would somehow reduce any environmental impact. For i ' the reasons which follow, a proposed smaller structure will not intrude upon the environment to any lesser extent than the Proposed Project. In other words, the environmental effects will not be reduced and could increase ' from that of the Proposed Action. The size of a single-family house does not correspond with the amount ' of sewer effluent producted from the structure. Studies conducted by the Suffolk County Department of Health have determined that 300 gallons per ' day are generated from an average single-family residence. This design flow has been used in sanitary waste calculations for the Proposed Action, and since the action and the alternatives are all single-family residences, ' the impacts associated with sanitary wastes are the same. The method of disposition of sanitary waste is the same as with the Proposed Action and the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Responses demonstrate that this will not have a significant impact. ' For the purposes of this review, the alternative plan will be designated ' "Alternative Plan E". (See Figure-4) The house depth has been reduced from 28' to 22' and the length from ' 56' to 43.8' . The set-back from the wetland has been increased by only 6' from the Proposed Action. While there is an increase in the set-back from ' wetlands. Plan "E" does not appreciably change the project's ability to comply CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants ' 32 with the 75' requirement and an area variance would still be necessary ' because of the unique configuration of the lot. ' The driveway and garage would be re-located on the south side of the structure. Due to the topography of the site and the need to drain storm ' water away from the garage, it would now be necessary to do substantially more regrading the front yard than the Proposed Project. As with the other ' designs, a low point with a catch basin has been incorporated into the driveway to collect storm water run off. Gutters and leaders would be connected to dry-walls as is intended in the Proposed Action. ' The Smaller House Alternative will cause increased disturbance to the rear of the structure because additional grading will be necessary to ' the rear of the structure to lower the existing grade sufficiently to facilitate the installation access and provide for proper drainage. The ' proposed Smaller House Alternative could have a greater impact than the ' Proposed Action due to this disturbance. As with the Proposed Action, there will be no disturbance below the ' 10' contour line and this area will remain natural. The area of no disturbance is therefore essentially the same as the Proposed Action. ' In summary, the Smaller House Alternative does not accomrlish the same ' or similar objectives of the Proposed Project. While the size of the house is reduced, additional grading is necessary in both front and rear of the structure. THis, of course, means further disturbance. The appearance of the Smaller House Alternative is different from the existing structures in ' the area. From an aesthetics point of view, it is not as appealing as the ' Proposed Project. The environmental effects will not be reduced and, in fact, could increase from that of the Proposed Action. CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants ' 33 i 1 Illl�� Iluflh�gl(III t /�'� � I� � uWr� � �I!llllllgl 'nlll(Illll��ill; 111WIll I ��u IIII i/ i�%; Fti.�� �s.o' ��/ I • �j ��I�IIIIIIIII 1 %i l 111 I I U(Ino�� /oRrvEWaY I 1 �I I(Illlrlllll u, I�Illl�lllllpl'�11 q� � II lilllll���lllllll IIII�lll II�IIII��III� tl����l�: � � � / � �,Ililllllll� II III IIII IIlII�' ll W�ClAN17 will I III II((lIl t4�� Ilr'jpll J 11111(II6 fp�u(i�ti ll� 0 t= t MINI MAt — 1,ri rAl,Y � i II WErw,nl t� III� 9 �, IIII II I� �lllll( �d 111 q r CIS-t'r�t'��,N� � ���j II�III{�Ili4;lllll ( I IIII (Nun �lll ''� �� ; , '' � } IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIzIIIIIIIIUIuI ..I I pl, ;u�llhl udllilll II rilUl . ._.--J o b z l�1zEA o� lyo p tS—(U��NC�_ FIGURE F-4 ALTERNATIVE SKETCH PLAN "E" Final Environmental Impact Statement Not to scale MEADOW LANE RESIDENCE (approx. 1"=32') Mattituck, New York August 1986 I i R, j fi I 11 EIAL SCRECURV Loug_ ft d OS PM A LT SILL I41G LEL - 16f -- --- Z&EVAN I ED GUrT EtL - I I• L1LG LIE - ( 1 .LS ' ILY !'.4 III —I - - i. o o. o A s a E S r o s 8 2" \ y' I I I I � I _MIN SBADE :._ 12 4GOVG__ESi4D�ISH'EO- CURH _LEY-L.T_— I - �youu4'E�GO N C a.Ei E WA LI_S.' � II I I I 1 3 CONCRETE _FLOG I i IDf_= L _VAT lOI � OHT � _AT_ 1 UL lot, S L_ T-_ V i L RAYMOND F. FELLMAN ARCHITECT `•n'o �•�" PLAN NO.,1'12 1 OFL I L ARCHITECTURAL '• 6 '� O•.wn •r F; .r _ CENTER- •S • SCALE: a DATE I I'� _ 070 BROADWAY AMITYVILLE. N. Y. • AM 4 5505 `• A THIS uAT An D.a ERv[nrr O rT • ♦.CT•I-. 6 ea 4�n�OArzn ' VI . Flow plume characterization and all other chemical questions asked by the CAC on recharge , lawn fertilization and alternative ' sanitary systems . ' Additional investigation was conducted to characterize groundwater conditions in the vicinity of the subject site. The ' results of this study are shown in Figure F-2 and Table F-1 . The investigation confirmed the conditions which were reported in the r, DEIS . Groundwater beneath the subject site is travelling south- southeast . Groundwater will travel 300-400 feet from the subject site before intercepting surface water. Groundwater stands at an ' elevation of 2 to 2 . 5 feet above sea level beneath the subject . Horizontal flow rate is from 1 . 0 to 1 . 5 feet per day . ' Questions asked by the CAC have been addressed in preceeding statements. 1 CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants ' 36 VII . Nitrites and Viruses v Nitrites were not specifically addressed in the DEIS , ' because the nitrogen predictions include total nitrogen in the various forms which may be present . The primary type of nitrogen ' in septic tank effluent is in the ammonium form (NH 4+) . Aerobic conditions in the septic tank and underlying soils cause nitrification of ammonium form nitrogen . Nitrification results in conversion of NH4+ to NO2 (Nitrite) to NO (Nitrate) . Nitrites 1 are a temporary form of nitrogen during the nitrification process ' which occurs in the septic system (Canter , Knox, 1985) , Enteric viruses are present in sewage, and therefore there ' is concern that viruses could be transmitted to humans thus causing public health problems . There are no drinking water wells down ' gradient of the Meadow Lane site and therefore , public health impacts ' are limited . SCDHS also requires a minimum separation distance of 100 feet between a well and a septic tank. This distance is ' sufficient to allow entrainment of bacteria soil , however , there is speculation about whether this is a sufficient distance for smaller more resistent viruses. In order to determine the ' possible need to revise the standard , SCDHS has been conducting studies in cooperation with Brookhaven National Laboratory. ' Preliminary results found that viruses could travel downward and laterally up to 200 feet from a large communal system. ' Additional study in a single family residential area found no ' contamination from enteric viruses (Vaughn , Landry , 1981) . ' CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES 37 Environmental and Planning Consultants A subsequent study involving the introduction of viruses into a small on-site system found that viruses could move horizontally through the aquifer for at least 50 - 60 feet (SCDHS) Viruses have not been detected in wells 100 feet from the source. To date, there is no indication that the 100 foot standard should be changed . ' With regard to the subject project , there are no drinking water wells down gradient , and the nearest surface water is 300 - 400 feet down gradient of the site. Therefore, no ' significant impact is expected from viruses which may be associated with the on-site system. Additionally, there will be no impact on Deep Hole Creek as a result of this action . t ' CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants 38 VIII . Document seasonal fluctuation of groundwater , ' groundwater mounding and soil borings . Groundwater fluctuates seasonally depending upon precipitation. The water table aquifer will respond to precipitation events and ' groundwater will rise in the well casing. During dry periods groundwater will drop . ' A seasonal record of groundwater elevations was obtained for the County observation well 553334 , which is located north of ' Route 25 near Elishas Lane, less than one half mile from the ' subject site . Groundwater elevations were recorded as follows : 4 . 41 feet above sea level 12 - 1984 3. 67 feet above sea level 3 - 1985 3 . 36 feet above sea level 9 - 1985 3. 32 feet above sea level 12 - 1985 ' Data from the 1984-1985 period indicates that groundwater ' fluctuated over a range of 1 . 09 feet . With regard to the subject site, groundwater fluctuates less because the site is closer to the ' Bay where groundwater elevation is at sea level . In other words , the intersection of groundwater and Bay is 0 ' . This elevation ' remains constant and acts as a fulcrum. As groundwater fluctuates ' to the north, the elevations in between also fluctuate but to a lesser degree. ' Groundwater mounding may occur beneath the sanitary system due to leaching of effluent to the water table. Effluent will ' travel vertically downward through the unsaturated zone and contact ' the water table causing a slight rise in groundwater elevation. SCDHS indicates that total daily flow from a single family residence CRAMER &VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants 39 1 I' is 300 gallons . Three hundred gallons equals 40 . 1 cubic feet . This volume will be recharged over an area of approximately 5 , 000 ' square feet , resulting in a rise in the water table of 0 . 008 feet or ' 0. 1 inches . Therefore, it is concluded that groundwater mounding from sanitary discharge will be insignificant . ' A soil boring was taken at the location shown in Figure F-1 , using a gasoline powered auger. Soil character was recorded from ' the auger flights as the bore hole was constructed. Soils Mbeneath the sanitary system are l ' of sandy loam and 10. 5 ' of sand to a depth of 11 . 50 feet. No silt , clay or other fine ' grained, high moisture content soil was encountered . Soils are conducive to a properly functioning sanitary system, and will ' again be inspected by the Suffolk County Department of Health ' Services during sanitary system installation . (See correspondence in Appendix) t i 1 t CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants 40 ' R E F E R E N C E S ' Canter , Larry W. and Robert Knox, 1985 , Septic Tank System Effects on Ground Water Quality, ' Lewis Publishers , Inc . , Chelsea, Michigan Freeze, Allan R. and John Cherry, 1979 , ' Groundwater, Prentice Hall , Inc . , Englewood Cliffs , New Jersey ' Koppelman , Lee, E . , 1984 , Nonpoint Source Management Handbook, Long Island Regional Planning Board, ' Hauppauge, New York Koppelman , Lee, E. , 1978 , Areawide Waste Treatment Management , Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board , Hauppauge , New York New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Tidal Wetlands Land Use Regulations , ' Albany, New York McClymonos , N. E. , and 0. L . Franke , 1972 , ' Water Transmitting Properties of Aquifers on Long Island, New York, U. S . Geological Survey , Professional Paper 627-E , ' U. S . Government Printing Office, Washington , D . C . Porter , Keith S . and H. Hughes , 1983 , Land Use and Groundwater Quality in the Pine Barrens of Southampton, Water Resources Program, Center for Environmental Research, Cornell University , Ithaca, New York ' Suffolk County Department of Health Services , 1982 , Standards for Sub-Surface Sewage Disposal Facilities Other Than Single Family Residences , Division of Environmental Health Services , Hauppauge, New York ' Vaughn , J. M. snd E. F. Landry , 1981 , Entrainment of Human Viruses in a Shallow, Sandy Soil Aquifer , ' Prepared for the Suffolk County Department of Health Services , by Brookhaven National Laboratory , Department of Energy and Environment , Upton , New York ' CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants 41 �I 1 APPENDIX i 1 42 ' COUNTY OF SUFFOLK l t� PETER F. COHALAN SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE ' DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES DAVID HARRIS. M.D.. M.P.H. COMMISSIONER ' January 28, 1986 Mr. Thomas W. Cramer, REA 63 Clifton Place Port Jefferson Station, N.Y. 11776 RE: H.D. Ref. #85-SO-164 ' Dear Mr. Cramer: This letter is to clarify the above referenced permit. ' Please note that no construction of sewage disposal systems or water supply facilities is permitted below the 10 foot contour as depicted ' on your plan dated August 24, 1985. A portion of a leaching pool may have been inadvertantly shown below the ten foot contour. ' Furthermore, it is our understanding that an environmental review is being undertaken by the Town of Southold concerning the above referenced property. In the event recommendations are forthcoming from that review, which effect the water supply or sewage disposal systems, we will require ' that your permit be modified so as to reflect these recommendations. In this event three copies of your plan should be submitted ' reflecting any changes. If you have any questions concerning this please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, ' Royal R. Reynolds, P.E. Sr. Public Health Engineer ' Wastewater Management Section RRR:ljr cc: Town Trustees Southold Town Hall 1 ' COUNTY CENTER RIV ERHEAD.N Y. 1 190 I 548-3312 ' 43 ' CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants P.O.BOX(, Miller Place,New York 11794 (516)470-6302 ' Thomas W.Cramer. LA Charles J.Voorhis April 18, 1986 ' Royal R. Reynolds, P.E. Suffolk County Dept. Health Services County Center ' Riverhead, N.Y. 11901 Re: Health Dept. Ref, # 85-SO-164 ' Dear Mr. Reynolds: ' The following is to serve as clarification to your letter of January 28, 1986 and to our subsequent conversations regarding the above referenced permit number. It is my understanding that the configuration of leaching pools shown on the ' permit for my proposed residence on Meadow Lane, Mattituck, were misdrafted in the issuance of the permit and that the solution proposed by C.V.A. at the public hear- ing on the DEIS is acceptable to you, i.e. , the configuration of leaching pools, one ' to the north, two to the south, would be reversed to show two on the north and one on the south, thereby putting the leaching field above the 10' contour line and that your second paragraph in the letter refers to this situation. We will, therefore, be forwarding to you another copy of the plan for your locat- ing of the new field. The new configuration still maintains the 85' setback from the approved well. ' There was also reference made at the public hearing that the water supply was not approved. It is my understanding from the permit and subsequent conversations ' that a private well has been approved. Furthermore, in regard to your second paragraph and comments at the public hear- ing, the installation of "waterless toilets" do not fulfill Suffolk County Department of Health Services standards and, therefore, are not deemed as acceptable as the sole sanitary disposal method for new construction. As per our conversations, your letter was not to imply that your Division would approve the installation of "waterless ' toilets" as the only means of sewage disposal. Your letter, instead, referred to the location of the water supply and sanitary disposal systems. I would appreciate your response to the above so that it may be includ - in our preparation of the response to comments on the DEIS. Very trul "may s, i ' TWC:rk Thb as` W. Cramer, R.L.A. CC: Henry P. Smith, President ' Southold Board of Trustees ' 44 ' COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ' PETER F. COHALAN SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTOF HEALTH SERVICES DAVID HARRIS. M.D., M.P.H. COMMISSIONER June 3, 1986 ' Thomas W. Cramer, R.L.A. Cramer & Voorhis Associates P.O. Box 622 Miller Place, N.Y. 11764 RE: H.D. Ref. #85-SO-164 Property: a/s/o Meadow Lane Mattituck (T) Southold ' Dear Mr. Cramer: ' I am in receipt of your letter dated April 17, 1986 concerning the above referenced property. This Department routinely accepts the recommendations of reviews by other agencies, provided these recommendations conform with the Department's minimum standards. Any variations from these standards would be forwarded to the Depart- ment's Board of Review. In this specific case, waterless toilets are not covered by existing standards and any proposals for such would be forwarded ' to the Board of Review. In addition, this is to confirm that a permit has been issued for the construction of a water supply well on the above referenced property. ' The water supply well must conform to standards for construction and water quality. Any variations from these well standards would also be forwarded to the Board of Review. ' If you have any questions concerning this please feel free to contact me. ' - Very truly yours, Royal R. Reynolds, P.E. Sr. Public Health Engineer Wastewater Management Section RRR:ljr cc: Southold Town Trustees 548-3312 COUNTY CENTER RIVERHEAD.N.Y. 11901 ' 45 1 DECLARATION OF COVENANTS tWHEREAS, the Declarants are the owners of certain premises described as follows: said premises being located at Mattituck, Town of Southold, Suffolk ' County, New York, known and described as Lot No. 42 on a certain map entitled, "Mattituck Estates, Inc. ," filed in the Office of the Clerk of the County of ' Suffolk on September 8, 1985, as Map No. 4453. Being and intended to be the same ' premises in Liber 6410 page 312 and Liber 9836 page 264. WHEREAS, the Declarants deem it appropriate to impose certain covenants and restrictions as hereinafter stated in regard to the aforedescribed premises: NOW , THEREFORE , in consideration of the premises, the Declarants declare ' the aforedescribed premises are held subject to the following covenants and restrictions: 1. Any residential structure to be erected upon the subject premises ' shall be built in such a way as to preserve as many of the existing trees and shrubs as is practicable. 2. During and after the construction of any residential structure to be constructed upon the subject premises, there will be a natural buffer on and ' adjacent to the wetlands. ' 3 . For the purposes of this Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions "Natural Buffers" shall mean, such areas on the subject premises as is designated as below the 10' countour (mean sea level) as shown on the map prepared by Thomas W. Cramer, R.L.A. dated August 24, 1985 and starting at ' a point 71 feet from the Northwestern corner of said premises; thence following the elevation of that point southerly approximately 130 feet to a point on the southern property line, approximately 12.5 feet from the southeast property corner; hence traveling easternly approximately 188.4 feet, thence traveling northernly approximately 95.94' thence traveling ' westerly to point of beginning approximately 158. 13 feet ' 46 WILDLIFE SURVEY— MEADOW LANE ' MATTITUCK, NEW YORK The marsh , pond and adjacent undeveloped uplands along the east side of Meadow Lane, Mattituck , were surveyed weekly from February 2 , 1986 to March 27, 1986 , and on April 12 , 1986 to ' obtain a mid-April observation period and again on June 23 , 1986 . ' This period represents a time frame which the most diversity of wildlife should exist on the site. ' Observation points were from the north and south ends of the pond as well as from an undeveloped woodland midway along the west bank. In addition, the northern portion of Deep Hole Pond ' (located to the south of Meadow Lane) was surveyed during this period to obtain a record of the avifauna on this adjacent water body. A total of 16 . 5 hours was spent afield during the survey. Table I gives the total species list. ' TABLE I ' Swan, Mute* Dove, Mourning** Goose, Canada* Jay, Blue** Mallard* Chickadee , Black capped** Duck, Black* Starling** Widgeon, American Blackbird, Red-winged* Bufflehead Grackle, Common** Merganser, Hooded Sparrow, White throated** ' Gull , Herring* Sparrow, Song** Great Blue Heron* Robin** * Observed on or over marsh-pond . ** Observed on uplands . ' All other species observed on Deep Hole Pond. ' 47 - z - According to Bull (1964) the Mute Swan, Canada Goose, Mallard, ' Black Duck, Herring Gull , Mourning Dove , Black-capped Chickadee, and Starling are common, year-round residents of Long Island. Although the Red-winged Blackbird and Common Grackle are listed ' as migrants , (Bull 1964) states that both species are locally abundant in winter roosts on Long Island. ' Recent (1983 - 1985 ) , the numbers of Black Duck have been declining on Long Island. This may be correlated to over-hunting ' and, while the decline is of concern, this species is very adaptable tand is known to nest in a variety of habitats ranging from salt and fresh marshes to the shores of lakes , ponds and streams; it ' has even been noted nesting in upland fields and open woodlands (Bull , 1964) . Thus , with more prudent hunting practices , the Black ' Duck population should increase. Bull (1964) lists the American Widgeon, Bufflehead, Hooded Merganser, White Throated Sparrow and Song Sparrow as common ' migrants . He does , however, note Long Island breeding records for the 'Widgeon. The White Throated Sparrow and Song Sparrow ' f are considered to be common to abundant fall migrants. Winter ' flocks of these species are commonly found in coastal areas on Long Island. ' The above indicates that none of the observed species, except the Black Duck, are uncommon. As noted, the Black Duck ' should increase with prudent management. ' The maximum number of each species observed on or over the ' 48 - 3 - ' Meadow Lane marsh pond and adjacent uplands are given in Table II . 1 TABLE II ' SPECIES NUMBER *Swan, Mute 4 *Goose, Canada 2 ' *Mallard 35 *Duck , Black 2 *Gull , Herring 1 ' *Dove, Mourning 2 *Jay, Blue 1 *Chickadee, Black-capped 3 ' *Starling 2 *Blackbird, Red-winged 18 *Grackle, Common 7 **Sparrow, White throated 4 *Sparrow, Song 1 *Great Blue Heron 1 *Robin 2 *Commonly breed on Long Island **Migrant , no breeding record on Long Island It is to be noted that the species observed during the survey are all common to Long Island. None are rare or endangered. The low numbers observed on or over the marsh, pond and adjacent uplands indicates their relative unimportance to the avifauna of ' the area. ' With regard to the DEIS on the Meadow Lane residence, I have reviewed the relevant wildlife sections of that document and agree with the statements made. However, in reference to Table VII , "Wildlife Species" , I find the list is overly ambitious . Having ' performed the Wildlife Survey and therefore familiar with the site ' in question, I would doubt that several of the listed species would use the site for anything but the most transitory of ' purposes , particularly with Deep Hole immediately to the south and Lake Maratoka a short distance to the west. ' More specifically, with the amount of present development in ' the Meadow Lane area, I question the listing of the Black Crowned 49 ' - 4 - Night Heron, American Bittern and the Green Winged Teal. I also ' note that specific reference was made to the presence of Red Fox on the site. For the above reason, this species would be extremely transit and should not be included in the Species List. ' In conclusion, the following would be a complete species list for wildlife, to replace Table VII found in the DEIS. ' TABLE VII (REVISED) ' WILDLIFE SPECIES BIRDS ' Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias Snowy Egret Leucophoyx thula Green Heron Butorides virescens ' Black Crown Night Heron Nycticorax nycticorax Mute Swan Cygnus olor Canada Goose Branta canadensis ' Mallard Duck Anas platyrhynchos Black Duck Anas rubripes Pintail Anas acuta Clapper Rail Rallus longirostris Gull Larus spp. Tern Sterna hirundo Kingfisher Megaceryle alcyon ' Flicker Colaptes auratus Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata Black Capped Chickadee Parus atricapillus ' Tufted Titmouse Parus bicolor Wren .Troglodytes spp. *American Widgeon Anas americana *Bufflehead Bucephala albeola *Hooded Merganser Lophodytes cocullatus *Morning Dove Zenaida macroura *Black Capped Chickadee Parus atricapillus ' *Grackle Quiscalus quiscula *Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia *White Throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos Catbird Dumetella carolinensis Robin Turdus migratorius Starling Sturnus vugaris ' Warbler Dendroica spp. *Red Winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus ' MAMMALS Opossum Didelphis marsupialus Raccoon Procyon lotor ' Eastern Chipmunk Tamias striatus 50 - 5 - ' Gray Squirrel Sciurus carolinensis White Foot Mouse Peromyscus leucopus Meadow Mouse Microtus pennsylvanicus House Mouse Mus musculus ' *Muskrat Ondatra zibethic-a- OTHER Box Turtle Clemmys guttata Garter Snake Thamnophis sirtalis Killifish Fundulus spp. ' Mummichog *Snapping Turtle Chelydra serpentina *Painted Turtle Chrysemys picta oicta * Additions to Table VII found in DEIS ' Respectfully submitted, John A. Black ' July, 1986 1 ' 51 tJOHN A. BLACK PERTINENT EXPERIENCE 1965 - Present - Professor of Biology, Suffolk Community College ' 1980 - Present - Coordinator: Environmental Science and Forestry Transfer Program to SUNY Syracuse 1975 - Present - Group Leader NYSDEC Annual Waterfowl Census ' (Riverhead - Noyak) ' PERTINENT PUBLICATIONS Black, J. A. 1972 . "Early Winter Distribution, 1971-72 of the ' Mockingbird Mimus poly lottos" . American Birds , Vol . 26 , No. 2 . ' 1972 . "Winter Records of the Green Heron" . The Kingbird, Vol. XXII , No. 2 . ' 1977 . Water Pollution Technology. Virginia: Reston Publishing Co . ' 1986 . Oceans and Coasts : An Introduction to Oceanography. Iowa: William C. Brown and Co. Publishers . i 1 1 t 52 ' NORTON BROTHERS _ ` _ 516 475_1452 CONSULTING ENGINEERS LAND SURVEYORS ' 294 MEDFORD AVENUE - P. O. BOX 191 PATCHOGUE, N.Y. 11772 ' DUDLEY W.NORTON _ _ _ _ NATHu IEL C.NOm O.W 1928-1972 RAVN T.NO R[ON 1928-19BB ' June 18 , 1986 ' Thomas Cramer, R.L.A. 63 Clifton Place ' Port Jefferson, NY 11777 Dear Tom: ' Please be advised that a representative of this office dug a test hole at property located on the east side of Meadow Lane 322 . 951 north of New Suffolk Avenue, Southold, during the ' month of May, 1986 . The material found consisted of an upper strata of 11 of sandy loam and a lower strata of 10. 51 sand. The test hole was dug to a total depth of 11 . 51 . ' Ver t urs, RT ERS 1 ' a rton DWN/en 1 1 1 ' 53 � k TELEPHONE (516) 765-1892 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOwN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 Date: January 6, 1985 NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF DRAFT EIS AND NOTICE OF HEARING Lead Agency: BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Address: Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 Applicant: Thomas W. Cramer \ Address: 63 Clifton Place Port Jefferson Station, New York 11776 Permit Applied For: Wetlands Permit Project Description: To construct a 1545 sq. ft. two story frame single family residence with attached garage, deck, well and sanitary system. Project Location: Meadow Lane, Mattituck, New York 11952. More particularly known as Lot no. 42 of Mattituck Estates, Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-115-5-7, east of LILCO Pole No. 5; 322 . 95 ' north of New Suffolk Avenue, tributary north of Deep Hole Creek, Mattituck. POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: A. The intertidal marsh is extremely close to the property. B. Within the marsh there are a variety of species of nesting fowl. C. Controversy over the development of this lot within the neighborhood itself. This notice is issued pursuant to 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 A Draft Environmental Impact Statement has been completed and accepted for the proposed action above. Comments on same will be accepted in writing prior to the public hearing to be held on January 23, 1986 at 8: 30 P.M, at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York. The draft may be reviewed in the Trustee Office prior to January 23, 1986. Page 2 . Copies to the following: The Suffolk Times The Long-Island Traveler Watchman Southold Town Board Southold Town Building Dept. Board of Appeals Conservation Advisory Council Town Clerk' s Bulletin Board Charles T. Hamilton, DEC, Stony Brook Commissioner Williams, DEC, Albany Aram Terchunian, Coastal Management Program Thomas, W. Cramer file FMI YOM-, STATE P PA',T2"Z"T OF F VI_IMI- i:TAL CONSERVATIT2 E.eSulatory Affairs Unit Bld'+. 40, SM Y--loon 219 Stony ?rook, YY 11794 (516) 751-7900 �V. C � AvnF!` 63 L4cC Fo �r ;eo--�arz 1 , C7-7 PZ: SCTt ,, fC-L tI . c0 1, 07 Dear MC- A review has been made of your proposal to:G��rs 3 i �v en-Tc r1A<c'.e Ft s s1 cam.. lei e x Ll o Location: I ^ Nc,;t� New York State P.enart^ent of Environnental Conservation has found the parcel _ project to be: Greater than 300' from inventoried tidal wetlands. _ Landward of a substantial man—made structure. Ereater than 100' in len¢th constructed prior to September 20, 1977. K Landward of 10' contour elevation above mean sea level on a gradual, ��``----��-- naulral slope. Lan ward of toponranhical crest of bluff, cliff or dune in excess of 10' in elevation above mean sea level. Therefore, no nernit under Article 25 (Tidal Setlands of the Environmental Conservation Law) is required at this time since the current proposal is beyond State mandated jurisdiction pursuant to this act. 'iovever, any additional work or nodifications to the project nny require a permit. It is your responsibility to notify this office, in writing, if such additional work or nodifications are contemplated. Very trulyyours, Alternate Pcrrait Administrator C_^.'.:r)n?:co's } L L 4 I I Lot 41 Dow or formerly County of Suffolk I r en S.88.°01 "E. I 2 291.I3%' mD z Lot 4 2 Area=22-3 57s.f.; mr E N I Iz= Pin 0 094. 20 a DZ BNoWr If (Ti IarbaO - - �Grmerlv N.3`54 00"VE 32295 Lot 43 I I x � m o C, 93 6 4. NEW SUFFOLK AVENUE SURVEY FOR vores= THOMAS W. CRAMER B BENJAMIN L. HERZWEICA I. a=MONUMENT LOT 42,"MATTITUCK ESTATES,INC." 2. O=STAKE AT MATTITUCK DATE AUG.15,ISM S. SU"DIVISION MAP FILED IN THE OFFICE OF TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCALE I"=40' THE CLERK OF SUFFOLK CO. ON SEPT 8,1965 As FILE N0.4453 - SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK No. 95-882 4.SUFFOLK CO.TAK MAP DIET 1000 SECT.115 BLOCK OS LOT OT •ulWurxp¢AD ALTERATIONOMMUItION TO ME GUARANTEED SURVEY AS VIOLAIIM OFSICTIOY Ti09OFTx[ Ut RAW VORA[TAT[AVOCATION LAW SECUR IT 0R V OA TY CO. A CORIb OF.1 SI[1 VAT NOT S[A... T..LEAR (NO. -AD UY ...VATORI.I...MAL R EYED..'0 VA.[.ILL THDM BR MEA" + r WAIT ISM CONSIDERED TO AT A rum TRUE COST a x WUA.rz[[RUICSTAO xtAI S, LYL .Y SOBENJ I ,4UHERZWE11 TWA REVERES OUR VxOY 1.E SYM[T IS P.EIMAO G C U.WI MS MUTALI TO THE VTL[CdMT,....- / R MENTAL AO[NCY Ai L[.OW[INSTITUTION LISTED II'', Aq[OV WO TO M[REARREST.01 ME L[.01AAUMEAS TO TITUTAON AOp TN".L TITUtx111 0 W. 1N AN .10M [N} WS , Ov[R. h A 93 ..In..1. A.A .EA[4.R IAOW ASSI..I. r ...l X RAW STRUCTURE.*Of TO ASSUS[O%ASIAN. x N A MAD ew+++D AAORE."SIN[.OR IOA I.,AAQOOW or 1,.cc. YOUNG & YOUNG 4R0,,0,0Rs"'ADw,EE:"�'E ALDEN W.YCUNG,PROFESSIONAL EWIMEER AND LAND SURVEYOR M TS.UCENSE Na 12045 IIDWARD W YOUNG, LAND SURVEYOR 1141 MTS.LICENSE MOA5993 A..MER A.ON.m LOWS �� • FORM NO.3 • TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE SOUTHOLD, N.Y. NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL Date . . . . . . .�.7. . . . . . . ., 19 . - To 7f/fJa4l�5 . .'.�-/Ct� .T ✓` /-/c /i71�! . . . . . . . . . . . . . PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that your application dated . . . . .1. f!.. . z? . . . . . . ., 19 .p�. for permit to CGrQ/YS?�vcl. . .QlVcs. . F/�/ ��Y. . /�w4=�� ' Location of Property . . .6-5 . . .!. .�. �1! /P� . .�/�m--: . . . . . . . . .«�Jl, l . . . . . . . . . . House No. Street _ Hamlet County Tax Map No. 1000 Section . . . !J.`.J . . . . . . Block . . .9�S . . . . . . Lot . .PC!7 . . . . . . Subdivision . . . . . . Filed Map No. . . . . . . . Lot No. . . . . . . . . . is returned herewith and disapproved on the following grounds . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V Building Inspector RV 1/80 3:� o Van, RECOVED • C OCT 021905 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK n'/ T"m �`^ i AP FROM DECISION OF BUILDING INSPECTOR APPEAL NO.V 04 DATE ...9.1.J..9/..8.5.......... TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, N. Y. 1, (We) ..........................of .63...Clifton„Place....... .............................. Name of Appellant Street and Number Port Jefferson Station New York HEREBY APPEAL TO ...................................... . .............. Municipality State THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR ON APPLICATION FOR PERMIT NO. .................................... DATED ...................................................... WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENIED TO .ThQjna.s..W.....Qr..=Q.r Qr.=Q.r................................. Name of Applicant for permit of 63...Clifton„Place,...Port„Jefferson. Stationr NY 11776 Street and Number Municipality State ( ) PERMIT TO USE PERMIT FOR OCCUPANCY ( x) Permit to build 1. LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY ..Meadow Lane, Mattituck, NY (Mattituck Estates) ......................................._.......................................................... Street Use District on Zoning Map M4.4 5 1 .3............................................4.2....................... ap No. Lot No. 2 PROVISION (S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE APPEALED (Indicate the Article Section, Sub- section and Paragraph of the Zoning Ordinance by number. Do not quote the Ordinance.) To-build-with-in 75 ' of Wetlands Art. XI Sec. 100-1192B 3. TYPE OF APPEAL Appeal is made herewith for x) A VARIANCE to the Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Map A VARIANCE due to lack of access (State of New York Town Law Chap. 62 Cons. Laws Art. 16 Sec. 280A Subsection 3 4, PREVIOUS APPEAL A previous appeal (has) (iaxxmat) been made with rv*=t=xki:gxMNy4i4# Rg(r�k�}� gwith respect to this property. Such appeal was ( ) request for a special permit (x ) request for a variance 3251 - ifrhd andwas made in Appeal No. ................................Dated ...................................................................... REASON FOR APPEAL ( ) A Variance to Section 280A Subsection 3 ( x) A Variance to the Zoning Ordinance is requested for the reason that the proposed residence cannot be located on the property without being within 75 ' of the wetlands . Form zBt (Continue on other side) REASON FOR APPEAL Continued 1. STRICT APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE would produce practical difficulties or unneces- sary HARDSHIP because Can use the property in a manner consistent with and for a use permitted under the recent zoning ordinance. 2. The hardship created is UNIQUE and is not shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in this use district because There is wetland in the rear of the property. 3. The Variance would observe the spirit of the Ordinance and WOULD NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT because We conform to the other homes and zoning requirements in area. Minimal grading will take place. House is to be "stepped" into slope. Furthermore, the architectural designs of proposed house conforms to the architectural setting of the surrounding area. STATE OF NEW YORK ; ss C ..................I..................... COUNTY OF S-W k- ) LSignature — r . Sworn to this ........ .J............................ day of....... j�r'All/................... 19 V f t Notary Public ENJAMIN L. HERZWEIG NOTARY 0 ;Sdt, Soh of New Y*di No, 4765984, Suffolk County �� Cnmi puion kxpira Much ]Q It • -FORM NO. 1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 89 111966 BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN HALL BLDG. DEFT. SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 1197' TOWN OF SOUTHOIA TEL.: 765-1802 Examined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19 . . . Received . . . . . . . . . . . , 19 . . Approved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19 . . . Permit No. . . . . . . . . . . . �DC e Disapproved a/c . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . wc.a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Building Inspector) APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT Date INSTRUCTIONS a. This application must be completely filled in by typewriter or in ink and submitted to the Building Inspector, with 3 sets of plans,accurate plot plan to scale. Fee according to schedule. b. Plot plan showing location of lot and of buildings on premises, relationship to adjoining premises or public streets or areas, and giving a detailed description of layout of property must be drawn on the diagram which is part of this appli- cation. c. The work covered by this application may not be commenced before issuance of Building Permit. d. Upon approval of this application, the Building Inspector will issued a Building Permit to the applicant. Such permit shall be kept on the premises available for inspection throughout the work. e. No building shall be occupied or used in whole or in part for any purpose whatever until a Certificate of Occupancy shall have been granted by the Building Inspector. APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE to the Building Department for the issuance of a Building Permit pursuant to the Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, and other applicable Laws,Ordinances or Regulations, for the construction of buildings, additions or alterations, or for removal or Omolition, as herein described. The applicant agrees to comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, building code smg�ode; and regulations, and to admit authorized inspectors on premises and in building for necessary inspecti9 ' i ure of applicant, or name, if aaccorporation) N�.c0 r%�. (Mailing address of applicant) Y '� 77C- State whether applicant is owner, lessee, agent, architect, engineer, general contractor, electrician, plumber or builder. f. / zNiT.. .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Name of owner of premises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . as on the tax roll or latest deed) If applicant is a corporation, signature of duly authorized officer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Name and title of corporate officer) Builder's License No. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Plumber's License No. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Electrician's License No. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Other Trade's License No. �A.00P%4P-l. . . . 1. Location of land on which proposed work will be done. . . . . . . . . . Jy/.. �Yz� p n 3ZZ • . .5 . . �. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .� . .��. . . . . . . . . 6. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .!�1 .�. . .( y - . .,. H._7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. House Number // Street Hamlet County Tax Map No. 1000 Section . . . . . . . . .,. . . . Block . . . .Jam. . . . . . . . . . . . Lot . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . Subdivision . . . ./"! QmT�C frd �. . . . Filed Map No. . T5. . . . . . . Lot . . . . . . . . . . 2. State existing use and occupancy of premises and intended use and occupancy of proposed construction: a. Existing use and occupancy C • • • • • • • . • . • . . • • . • , . . . . .. . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . SI llE- A� ��� �/ b. Intended use and occupancy . . . . . . . . . . . �, . . . . . . . . . . . . .1. . .��S�R�ri�---T. . . . . . . . . . . . . . k applicable): New Building . . . . dition . . . . . . . . . . Alteration . . . . . . . . . 3. Nature of work (check w Repair 'Vtmoval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Demolition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Other Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . t ( (Description) q 04 4. Estimated Cost . . . . . . . �O . . . . Fee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (to be paid on filing this application) 5. If dwelling,number of dwelling units . . . .3. gcp?a Number of dwelling units on each floor .. .�. A ..�. ._. . . . . Ifgarage,number of cars . . . . . . . . .�.V!at_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. If business,commercial or mixed occupancy, specify nature and extent of each type of use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7. Dimensions of existing structures,if any: Front . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Depth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Height . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Number of Stories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dimensions of same structure with alterations or additions: Front . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Depth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Height . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Number of Stories . . . . . . . . . . . .. .� . . . . . . 8. Dimensions of entire new construction: Front . . . 4�. . ... . . . Rear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Depth . . Z. . . . . . . . . . Height .43i5. . . . . . . . . . . Number of Stories . . . . . . . Z.z: . . . . . .z • . . / 9. Size of lot: Front . . . . . . .1.15:o.. . . . . . . . Rear . . . . 7 . . . . . . •Depth .Z :f)! C."?�.N•. . . . 10. Date of Purchase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Name of Former Owner ?LL�P.`l.� gsy�gap SM�-tt 11. Zone or use district in which premises are situated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12. Does proposed construction violate any zoning law,ordinance or regulation: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13. Will lot be regraded . . . . . . . . . . . . . Will excess fill be removed from premises: es , N<' 14. Name of Owner of premises ! AS. 60? h3»�-?7:-Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Phone No.�7 53—C�3-%•— Name of Architect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Phone No. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Name of Contractor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phone No. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PLOT DIAGRAM Locate clearly and distinctly all buildings, whether existing or proposed, and,indicate all set-back dimensions fron property lines. Give street and block number or description according to deed, and show street names and indicate whethe interior or corner lot. 7 W �m,ry zz v � [[fy1((•�j �� 'A #42- s 89�05 m w N N �, N Ew veFw_l�� r�vt_. STATE OF NEW YORK, S.S COUNTY OF . . . . . . .. . �¢Ws/•.>�, < . . . . . . . . . . . being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the applican (Name of individual signing contract) above named. Heisthe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Contractor, agent, corporate officer,etc.) of said owner or owners, and is duly authorized to perform or have performed the said work and to make and file thi: application; that all statements contained in this application are true to the best of his knowledge and belief;and that t11, work will be performed in the manner set forth in the application riled therewith. Sworn to before me this „d n 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .day of. . . .Av '5 , 19 8S Notary Public, . . . . . . . v — County GLORIA G. O'MALLEY NOTARY I'MIC, Stem of Now York • . . . . • . • . • • . • • • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No. 4103137, suffoik C"my p/ (Signature of applicant) Commission ti■lara MWA 30, 1�py The N . Y . S. Environmental Quality Review Act requires sub- mission of this for& and an environmental rev�v will be t made by this board fore any action is taken . SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASS SSMENT FORM AISTRI.'Mr1 s: (a) In order to answer the questions in this short EAF is is assumed that the preparer will use currently available inforration concerning the project and the likely impacts of the action. It is not expected that additional studies, research or other investigations will be undertaken. (b) If any question has been answered Yes the project may be significant and a ccmpleted Environmental Assessment Form is necessary. (c) If all questions have been answered No it is likely that this project is nc- significant. (d) Environmental Assessment 1. Will project result in a large physical change to the project site or physically alter more than 10 acres of land? . . . . . . . . . . . . Yes k No 2. Will there be a major change to any unique or unusual land form found on the site? . . . . Yes No 3. Will project alter or have a large effect on J an existing body of water? . . . a . . . . . Yes L No 4. Will project have a potentially large impact on groundwater quality? . . . . . . . . . . . a . Yes No 5. Will project significantly effect drainage flow on adjacent sites? . . . . . . . . . . . . YCs Y No 6. Will project affect any threatened or endangered —_ plant or animal species? . . . . . . . . . Yes No 7. Will project result in a major adverse effect on air quality? . . . . . . . _ Yes No S. Will project have a major effect on visual char- acter of the community or scenic views or vistas known to be important to the community? . . . Yes X No 9. Will project adversely impact any site or struct- ure of historic, pre-historic, or paleontological importance or any site designated as a critical environmental area by a local agency? Yes X No 10. Will project have a major effect on existing or future recreational opportunities? . . a Yes —4 No 11. Will project result in major traffic problems or cause a major effect to existing transportation J systems. . . . . . . . . . . Yes L No 12. Will project regularly cause objectionable odors, noise, glare, vibration, or electrical disturb- ance as a result of the project's operation? Yes No 13. Will project have any impact on public health or _- safety? . . . . . . . Yes X No U. Will project 'affect the existing community by directly causing a growth in permanent popula- tion of more than 5 percent over a one-year period or have a major negative effect on the character of the community sr neighborhood? . Yes X No 15. Is there public controversy/concerning the project? Yes No C PREPARER'S SIGNATURE: ��._Ll1+�S W C Hr-_&, TITLE: REPRESENTING: DATE: Z 9/117a A^ay YO&E. STATE, DrPA3:T:�T OF FI'VIR017I iTTAL CONSERVATIO' Regulatory Affairs Unit DldF. 40, SUI'Y--I:oon 219 Stony Brook, RY 11794 (516) 751-7900 I �cmgS w. Cf�AmF!2 ycr'�+ew.6r.2 � 17e5 3 Ci; +tl,�i `( PoP-T ,��=Gsrtsc J t �(. 107b RL: SCTn , (uro� il �' . OS1• 0 -I Dear MC- cp..A Yhz-2 A greview has been made of your proposal to: Q-A- O-a-04 n {'�.4-L't:�t_ _ _ rJ_�...A � c.St_w�1:.��...�•�,, o..0 far.-t ,�.Q^:-:U� VT.w. C•�c.f.,.e,Z' �'fl2�t�es p Location: N c"gi t�e. kwGZ-c-�. Cwe1 Ea�'.a. .( Yhwtt: .,cl� 'CW"' New York State Denartment of Environmental Conservation has found the parcel _ project to be: Greater than 300' from inventoried tidal wetlands. _ Landward of a substantial man-made structure. greater than 100' in length constructed prior to September 20, 1977. 4zLandward of 10' contour elevation above mean sea level on a gradual, nazurai slope. 4ALESPivrd of topographical crest of bluff. cliff or dune in excess of 10' in elevation above mean sea level. Therefore, no pernit under Article 25 (Tidal I:'etlands of the Environmental Conservation Lau) is required at this time since the current proposal is beyond State mandated jurisdiction pursuant to this act. 'ia:+ever, any additional work or modifications to the project may require a permit. It is your responsibility to notify this office, in writing, if such additional work or modifications are contemplated. Very truly yours, Alternate Permit Administrator CTII:D?!R:co's (Today ' s Date) To: Southold Town Board of Appeals Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Appeal Application of Location f Property: MFn.� .. k-AtAE MATCI JGJ` pZ c�F M4�ITl�G.I� EST4Trc5 Dear Sirs : In reference to the New York State Tidal Wetlands Land-Use Regulations , 6 NYCRR, Part 661, and Article 25 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law, please be advised that the subject property in the within appeal application: (please check one box) r [ ] May be located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands; however, constructed along the water-lying edge of this property is a bulkhead in very good condition and at least 100 feet in length. * [ ] May be located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands; however, constructed along the water-lying edge of this property is a bulkhead in need of (minor) (major) repairs, and approximately feet in length. [ ] May be located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands; however, constructed along the water-lying edge of this property is a bulkhead less than 100 feet in length. [�l May be located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands; and there is no bulkhead or concrete wall existing on the premises. - [ 1 Is not located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands to the best of my knowledge. * [Starred items (*) indicate your property does not appear to fall within the jurisdiction of the N .Y.S . D.E.C. ] Sincerely your i nature please) NOTE: If proposed project falls within D.E.C. jurisdiction, approval must be received and submitted to our office before your application can be scheduled for a public hearing. CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants P.o.Box 622 Miller Place,New York 11764 (516)473-6302 Thomas W. Cramer, LA Charles J. VoorhisJ! December 2, 1985 Gerald Goehringer, Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Southold 53095 Main Road Southold, N. Y. 11971 Re: Wetlands Application #312 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Meadow Lane Residence Dear Mr. Goehringer: As per our conversation, enclosed please find a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the above referenced project. Application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals and we are awaiting completion of the Town Trustees' process. I am submitting the enclosed and ask that it be made part of the record on my application. In addition, also find enclosed correspondence I recently received from New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation requesting that the proposed structure be moved back to above the 10' contour" line as, is shown in my application to the Town of Southold. Very tru yo omas W. Cramer, R.L.A. TWC:rk encl. CC: Ben Herzweig, Esq. Henry P. Smith, President, Board of Trustees 1 ~ CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants P.O.Box 622 Miller Place.New t ork 11764 (516)473-6302 Thomas W. Cramer, LA Charles J. Voorhis December 2, 1985 Henry P. Smith, President Board of Trustees Town of Southold Main Road Southold, N.Y. 11971 Re: Wetlands Application #312 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Meadow Lane Residence Dear Mr. Smith: Please find enclosed ten (10) copies of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the above referenced project, as per the positive declaration issued on October 30, 1985. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement has been prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations of SEQR. In addition, also find enclosed correspondence I recently received from New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation requesting that the proposed structure be moved back to above the 10' contour line as is shown in my application to the Town of Southold. If there is any additional information that you feel i ces please feel free to contact me. Very tr omas W.-Cramer, R.L.A. TWC:rk encl. CC: Ben Herzweig, Esq. Jerry Goehringer, Chairman ZBA New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Regulatory Affairs Bldg. 40, SUNY, Room 219 _ N"rs Stony Brook, New York 11794 o, rreserve Henry G.Williams Centennial (516) 751-7900 Commissioner November 25th, 1985 Mr. Thomas W. Cramer 63 Clifton Place Port Jefferson Station, New York 11776 RE: 10-85-1063 Dear Mr. Cramer: The Department's technical staff has reviewed your project to construct a single- family dwelling, 14' landward of the tidal wetland boundary. They have requested that you relocate the proposed structure totally above the ten ft. contour. Please provide a survey (3 copies) exhibiting the dwelling entirely above the ten ft. contour. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Very trulyyours (-90 Charles T. Hamilton Alternate Regional Permit Administrator CTH/1 • . ..Ili.. "�ram�.�����.'��-�s � r q•, .. � �,11 .1 :::: :'.''�,r���� 141A1•� � .r. � � t 11 � , -•M-���=:fir ••.�w,!I-f��w+��� ` `�Yw.�W�.•wy I.r'l�:��!.� dF •K W111� :� _ +�� �� ;w(I� I nNI�IANNINAII����BR�� I =- ��_ >.•;�_�i��:,.�►. . -- �_Y-'-'�� .: ::, • 1 . 1 • . 1 : ' DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ' Single Family Residence Meadow Lane ' Mattituck Town of Southold, New York ' LEAD AGENCY: Board of Town Trustees ' Town of Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P. 0. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 ' Contact: Henry P. Smith, President (516) 765-1892 PREPARED BY: ' Cramer and Voorhis AE.sociates P. 0. Box 622 Miller Place, New York 11764 ' Contact: Thomas W. Cramer, R.L.A. (516) 473-6302 ' DATE OF ACCEPTANCE: ' COMMENT PERIOD DEADLINE: CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Envircnniental and Planning Consultants ' SUMMARY ' The proposed action is for the construction of a single family residence of approximately 1,550 square feet. The site is located ' in Mattituck, Town of Southold, on the east side of Meadow Lane. The site is further defined as Lot #42 of "Mattituck Estates, Inc.", ' File Number 4453. The architectural design has been chosen to fit into and compliment the existing character of the community. Clearing and site grading has been planned so as to compliment the existing conditions. This will result in minimal disturbance to soils and ' vegetation. Wetlands, a buffer zone adjoining said wetlands, and areas of steep slopes, will not be disturbed. A covenant will be filed to assure continued protection of these sensitive areas of the site, if it is deemed appropriate. ' The subject parcel is unique from most other lots along the east side of Meadow Lane. Elevations are higher and the uplands ' extend further to the east before sloping to the wetlands. The Board of Town Trustees for the Town of Southold established ' itself as Lead Agency, identified the action as Type I, and issued a Positive Declaration on October 30, 1985 ;see Appendix) . This ' document has been prepared in response to ,.hat Declaration and in accordance with the rules and regulations of the State ' Environmental Quality Review Act. The reasons stated by the Lead Agency as supporting the ' Positive Declaration were: 1. Close proximity of an intertidal marsh to the action; 2. Variety of nesting waterfowl within the wetlands; and, 3. Neighborhood controversy in the development of the lot. In addition, concern was expressed over the potential impacts associated with the treatment of sanitary wastes on site. CRAMER h VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consuitanis This Draft Environmental Impact Statement has been prepared and ' provides detailed investigation of the environmental setting of the site and documents potential impacts of the proposed action. ' Significant attention has been paid to the concerns of the Lead Agency, the neighborhood and the applicant's goals in the development ' of the proposed action. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the proposed ' action to reduce or negate potential impacts and to address the concerns of the above persons. A summary of the mitigation measures are as follows: * No disturbance of wetlands; * No disturbance of natural buffer, between 10' contour and ' wetland boundary; * "Step" proposed residence into existing topography; * No disturbance of steep slope areas; * Siting of residence into existing vegetation; * Preservation of as much vegetation as possible; * Minimal grading and site work; * Erosion control devices to be used during construction; ' fencing of buffer areas; * All stormwater to be recharged on site; no over land flow from impervious surfaces; ' * Use of low fertilization requiring natural plant species for landscaping; ' * Minimization of turf areas; * Use of crane for excavations; * Transporting of excavated material of site to approved ' disposal area; * Architectural design of structure compatible with texisting neighborhood. The alternatives discussed illustrates changes in the siting of ' the structure on the parcel; use of conventional construction and home design; methods of handling sewage effluent and no action. Matters to be decided include; Southold Town Wetlands Permit, variance from Southold Zoning Board of Appeals and Building Permit 1 ' CRA%fER 6 VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants from Town of Southold Building Department. A letter of No ' Jurisdiction has been received from New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and a permit has been received from ' Suffolk County Department of Health Services for the proposed action. 1 1 1 1 ' CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 ' DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 ' LOCATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 DESIGN AND LAYOUT . . . . . . . . . . . 4 APPROVALS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 ' GEOLOGY . 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Soilsls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . g Topography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 ' WATER RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Groundwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 ' Surface Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 ' Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 HUMAN RESOURCESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Land Use and Zoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 ' MITIGATION MEASURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 .,EOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 WATER RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY 35 LAND USE AND ZONING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 CULTURAL RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED . . . . . . . . 38 ALTERNATIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 ALTERNATIVE DESIGN AND TECHNOLOGY. . 40 Alternative Designs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Alternative Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 ' NO ACTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES. . . . . . . . 48 t CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOC:ATFS Environmental and Planning Consultants ' APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50 SEQRA DECLARATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52 ' SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPT. OF HEALTH SERVICES APPROVAL . . . . .54 N. Y. S. DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION . . . . . . . . .55 ' Letter of No Jurisdiction NESTING PATTERNS . .56 ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES 58 1 CRAMER k VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants LIST OF FIGURES 1 - Location Map 2 2 - Filed Map - Mattituck Estates, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . 3 3 - Sketch Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 ' 4 - Sketch of House. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5 - Topography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 ' 6 - Area Topography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7 - Existing Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 8 = Real Property Tax Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 9 Alternative Sketch Plan "A.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 10 - Alternative Sketch Plan "B.. 43 ' 11 - Alternative Sketch Plan "C.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 1 LIST OF TABLES ' 1 - Site Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2 - Approvals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 ' 3 - Soil Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4 - Chemical Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5 - Pesticide Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 6 Vegetation Species . • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 7 - Wildlife Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 8 Zoning Requirements . 24 9 - Potential Environmental Impacts , . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSO-IATES Environmental and Planning Consultant, DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION ' LOCATION: The proposed action is located in the Hamlet of Mattituck, ' Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, New York (see Figure 1) . The parcel is Lot #42 of "Mattituck Estates, Inc.", a subdivision map filed on September 8, 1965 with the file #4453. The lot is situated on the east side of Meadow Lane, approximately 323 feet north of New Suffolk Avenue (see Figure 2) . ' Access to the proposed use will be off of Meadow Lane. The existing zoning for the parcel is "A" Residential. 1 1 CRAMER h VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental tnd Planning Con:iultantr • .' - e nF 7.9r-mxRPri r'�'• r �..ay .51 °�i .r- � "',�� Duck Portd Pf_'�•t `s ir., ri w�`if 7 edira r ss ¢ LA el rf$ i�3Y ep�M •l � P {p 57 Q ' OIF..• \ Y SL S 01 U T aP .P cuT.wucut ' sr.. cy d 91 t� i EAST MATTITUCK .41 v fI/�s� os C K zs 'P �- n '•' r.t a .`ice _ i r w MA7Tl JUCN 'g F III AIRPORT nj n3ALI0 DC\ Marratooka PIL '»,"' ''`••.. `..�Q. 4 ✓e.. Swa rix.d,t �4d % .1' �J'«y d's e f 7,. Rk 'irt109tr�K O 0 � ��-. l tt•It11P'� 1s lt'n� a��*'rt ��� .d♦ �Ilri'.c1;i� '� , � .,.a�lNtrriU M.Afu.k TC ''i*IiEW SUFFOL rI;URE 1 LOCATION MAP ' Draft Environmental Impact Statement Scale : 1"=3000 ' MEADOW LANE RESIDENCE Mattituck, New York November 1985 - 2 - CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environ.-nentai and Planning Consultants ' � I r or., . .,. r d gip' Yup°w LAN,, � i I I i. a - • .aN YAII I.C. [91w CS ..C. fCiLC ,CC FIGURE 2 FILED SUBDIVISION MAP OF "MATTITUCK ESTATES, Inc. , #4453 Draft Environmental Impact Stateme Not to scale MEADOW LANE RESIDENCE, Mattituck , New York November 1985 rrm,1 M-F.R k VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants . 1 DESIGN AND LAYOUT: ' The total area of the parcel is 22,357 square feet or 0.51 acres. Table 1, below, illustrates the present and proposed land use ' conditions. TABLE 1 SITE AREAS (ACRES) Presently Completion ' Forested 0.23 0.14 Wetlands 0.28 0.28 Impervious Surfaces 0 0.04 ' Landscaping 0 0.05 Total 0.51 0.51 ' Figure 3 illustrates the proposed layout of the structure on the parcel. The proposed action is the construction of a two story frame, single family dwelling. Total area is approximately 1,550 square feet ' which includes an attached garage, deck, septic system and well. The structure is located at the 35 foot setback line from Meadow Lane, which ' is the minimal distance allowed under Town Zoning Codes. This permits for the maximum setback from the existing wetlands to the east. The dwelling will be constructed within a wooded setting. This ' is to say that minimal disturbance to the wooded site will be accomplished through various. techniques designed into the proposed action. The tfollowing is a summary of the major design features which have been incorporated into the proposed project: * Establishment of Natural Buffer Area: This would entail creation by covenant of an area ' where no activities would take place. The area would include all lands below the 10 foot contour line. Wetlands and areas of steep slope will not be,developed. Snow fencing or other means will be used to protect this area during construction phases to prevent unintentional ' disturbance. * "Stepping" of Structure: The structure has been designed so as to have an 8 foot foundation wall in the front (west) and a 4 foot ' CRAMER k VOORHIS ASSOCIATES 4 Environmental and Planning Consultants UUe a� TTt�E Gt.�aRWc� i 16R1 .4 OF ^� 2z9.r1' Kli(IMN- CTADI •• � � ' I ,I (( illl Il�ffn�lll II / y�,VEWAy I I �;:: .. y":. OL'rlY II (l11 / N(EYWJDS I IIII WATirC II Illll "gll)1f11 I IIC �' � ��b>, b �` :;��.• III�l�(l�n`I r r vu •; � qll II III a Ir .i . � :: ...�`� �:.'� (�I' I III 4111 VI Ilirll I1� N�1114��I1 aIIIQU(l� �i i(�llll IIIII �( uuU rnnl I UIII�f y ` , Illogl wff(�II{ V NvAR tlll I1 I�I(I ll v, � Ilil� Weruwos MI III � (1 I t 5ANrtat . 111114,4111 111111r lll( l ..� cr�o �Ill/lUln I ul lhllll I „d(4n . l 4 OF P. of logs t o J - P�l[`1lMAL FIGURE 3 PROPOSED SITE PLAN Draft Environmental Impact Stateme. 0 Not to scale MEADOW LANE RESIDENCE, ( approx . 1"=321 ) Mattituck, New York November 1985 CRAMER k VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants foundation wall in the rear (east) . Such a design feature allows for the minimization of excavation, reduction of fill material and the preservation of existing vegetation. Erosion potential is reduced and preservation of visual qualities are a direct result of this method of construction. * Use of Crane for Excavation: A crane is intended to be used to perform all ' excavations; i.e. , foundations and sanitary systems. Such a technique allows for the preservation of more existing vegetation and less disturbance than more traditional means as bulldozing. Surplus material ' will be trucked off site. * Storm Water Control: All storm water will be controlled on site. All ' impervious areas; i.e. , roofs and driveway, are designed so that all water will be directed into ' catch basins for subsurface recharge. During and immediately after construction, various erosion ' control methods will be utilized. Such methods will include but not be limited to the use of hay bales, ' fiber mats, grass seed and/or sod on all disturbed areas. FigurF•4 is a sketch of the proposed house as it will appear from Meadow Lana and from the south, which illustrates how the structure will be "stepped" into the existing slope. The construction period will be timed so as to be during the late summer, fall and winter months to avoid the sensitive breeding ' period during the spring. 1 CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES - 6 - Env;ronmental and Planning Consultants t` tl V�.. rtl 1 ./wi✓ "�+wMr����-wtiw�►__ _ �r�'�"4' 1. t 4I _� r ��\w��r�w�rrt•�. !��s1 �Mw� �wr+n..ww.aa. ilir - it t. w11p1I�gI81iANAI11Nw. 1 ' �� 'r' �� _ N 'I t� +Miif F�w11`y `:W.�V• �, IIA o . ' APPROVALS: The following table summarizes the approvals necessary from the various governmental agencies: TABLE 2 ' APPROVALS AGENCY TYPE OF APPROVAL STATUS ' TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Trustees Wetlands Permit Pending Building Department Single Family Res. Pending Zoning Bd. Appeals Variance Pending COUNTY OF SUFFOLK Dept. of Health Services* Sanitary System Approved #85-50-164 ' STATE OF NEW YORK Dept. of Environ. Cont.* No Permit Necessary Sept. 4, 1985 ' *Copies are included with Appendix. 1 1 ' CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES - 8 - Envircnmental and Planning Consultants tENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ' GEOLOGY SOILS: The site is identified in the "Soil Survey of Suffolk County, New York" prepared by the U. S. Department of Agriculture as having two ' soil types. These soils are: Plymouth Loamy Sand, found on the upland portion; and, Tidal Marsh, found in the area of wetlands, below the 2 foot contour. The values associated with Tidal Marsh are discussed under "WETLANDS" of this section of the document and will therefore not be 1 addressed here. The following is taken from the above referred Soil Survey and ' is typical for the upland portion of the site: "The Plymouth series consists of deep, excessively drained, coarse-textured soils that formed in a mantle of loamy sand or sand over thick layers of stratified coarse sand and gravel. These nearly level to steep soils are throughout the county on ' broad, gently sloping to level outwash plains and on undulating to steep moraines. Native vegetation consists of white oak, black oak, pitch pine, and scrub oak. ' In a representative profile the surface layer is very dark grayish-brown loamy sand, about 4 inches thick, in-wooded areas. .— cultivated areas the surface ' layer is mixed with material formerly in the upper part of the subsoil, and there is a brown to dark- brown plow layer of loam about 10 inches thick. ' The subsoil is yellowish-brown and brown, very friable and loose loamy sand to a depth of about 27 inches. The substratum, to a depth of about ' 58 inches, is yellowish-brown, loose gravelly coarse sand. Plymouth soils have low to very low available ' moisture capacity. Natural fertility is low. The response of crops to lime and fertilizer is fair. Reaction is strongly acid to very strongly acid ' throughout the profile of most of these soils, but it is strongly acid to medium acid in the lower sub- stratum of soils in the silty substratum phase. The root zone is confined mainly to the upper 25 to 35 inches. Internal drainage is good. Permeability is moderate in the silty layer of soils in the silty substratum phase." - 9 - CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants Table 3, below, summarizes the soil limitations associated twith construction of a single family dwelling on the soil types found on site. ' TABLE 3 SOIL LIMITATIONS ' Sewage Disposal Street and Lawns and Paths and Soil Fields Home Sites Parking Lots Landscaping Trails ' Plymouth Loamy Sand 3-8% Slight Slight Moderate:l Severe:2 Moderate:2 ' Plymouth Loamy Sand 8-15% Moderate:l Moderate:l Severe:2 Severe:2 Moderate:2 Tidal Marsh Severe:3 Severe:3 Severe:3 Severe:3 Severe:3 1 1. Slopes ' 2. Sandy Surface Layer 3. High Water ' * Source: "Soil Survey of Suffolk County, New York", USDA Soil Conservation Service, April 1975 tIt should be noted that the proposed action takes into account ' the limitations identified in the above table. Both the dwelling and sanitary disposal field are located in area of slight limitations. Lawns and landscaping will be kept to a minima nd where landscaping will be ' required, natural plant species will be used. No activities will take place in areas of steep slope or on the tidal marsh. ' TOPOGRAPHY: The topography for the site can be broken down into two major catagories: ' Areas with slopes 0-10% - 85% of site Areas with slopes 15% or greater - 15% of site ' Figure 5 illustrates the topography found on site. Information was taken from a survey prepared by Young & Young, Land Surveyors, ' 400 Ostrander Avenue, Riverhead, New York. The wetlands area is considered ' - 10 - CRAMER k VOOP.HiS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants ua' z24.(3 r J ISE y •• Imo' �ti 101 w NeiyS..Froc.< qve. FIGURE 5 SITE TOPOGRAPHY Draft Environmental Impact Statement Not to scale MEADOW LANE RESIDENCE, ( approx . 1"=321 ) Mattituck , New York November 19�5 CRAMER k VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants 1 as having no slope. The area adjacent to Meadow Lane has a gentle slope of 7% to the east. The section between the above two areas has the most significant grades found on the site, with slopes between 18 and 40 ' per cent. The topography of the general area surrounding "Mattituck ' Estates Inc." is shown in Figure 6. The figure is a copy of the pertinent section of Suffolk County's Department of Public Works "Five ' Eastern Towns - Suffolk County" 200 scale topographical maps IAA-34 and #AA-35, 1974. The site and proposed action has been superimposed. ' In reviewing this figure, it is evident that the location of this proposed action has the widest high elevations of the undeveloped ' lots along the east side of Meadow Lane. On this lot, #42, the 10 foot contour is the furthest from the existing roadway allowing for setback ' of activities above this elevation. It is also relevant to note that several existing residences in this area are located at or below the ' elevation of the proposed action. t 1 1 ' - 12 - CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATE'S Environmental and Planning Consultants Pv 1 Pti o i O 14.56 ice• 25 1 , C,9� •� 3.5 irn . . o s� 21.0 rL— AL AA DS O 0 \ LJ \ 1 31.03.5 24.5 1 N" bti .• `�°� • SITE 1 , \o 1 3.D \ \ \ m 0 NEW \\l 1 AVE, zo 5 L'73 L m 1 i i aPaa� ��l m 1 FIGURE 6 1 AREA TOPOGRAPHY 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Scale : 111=200 ' -0" MEADOW LANE RESIDENCE, 1 1.1attituck, New York November 1985 1 - 13 - CRAMER & VOORHIS ArSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants ' WATER RESOURCES ' GROUNDWATER: The fresh groundwater resources in the Mattituck area, are ' exclusively contained under water table conditions in the upper Pleistocene deposits (Crandell, 1963) . These subsurface soils are ' comprised of undifferentiated outwash deposits associated with the Harbor Hills Terminal Moraine. The saturated thickness of this stratigraphic ' unit is referred to as the Upper Glacial Aquifer (Jensen, Soren, 1974) . Groundwater on Long Island is derived entirely from t precipitation. The long term precipitation average in the Southold vicinity is approximately 45 inches per year (Cohen, et al, 1968) . Of this amount, it is estimated that 22 to 28 inches is lost to evapotranspiration in the Southold area. This value tends to be higher on the North Fork due to agriculture irrigation. Groundwater recharge ' is the available precipitation after deducting losses due to evapo- transpiration and direct runoff. Direct runoff is estimated to be 5%, t therefore recharge is approximately 20.75 inches or 46.1% of average annual precipitation. ' East of Mattituck Creek, the groundwater reservoir consists of irregularly shaped lenses of fresh water "floating" atop salty groundwater. The configuration of this mound, and the hydrologic ' properties of the aquifer determine the direction and rate of movement .,f groundwater. The subject property is south of the regional groundwater divide, and in an area where groundwater elevation is approximately 2 to 2.5 feet (Baier, Robbins, 1982) . Topographic elevations on the subject site range from 2 to 16 feet resulting in a depth to ' groundwater of 0 to 14 feet. The direction of groundwater flow is south-southeast toward ' Deep Hole Creek or perpendicular to the contour lines of the water table. The rate of flow depends upon the hydraulic gradient and the hydraulic conductivity and is predicted using Darcy's Law. ' Horizontal flow rates in the Upper Glacial Aquifer of the North Fork are estimated to average 0.5 feet per day (Woodward-Clyde, 1977) . 1 ' - 14 - CRAMER k VOORHIS ASSOCL*&TES Environmental and Planning Consultants The depth of the fresh water reservoir is proportional to the ' elevation of the water table above sea-level, and is dependent on the specific gravities of the two medias. This value can be estimated using the Ghyben-Herzberg principal which shows that fresh water would extend 40 feet below sea-level for each foot it extends above sea-level. Therefore, it is expected that the freshwater/saltwater interface would lie between 80 and 100 feet beneath the subject site. Ambient water quality in the vicinity of the subject site ' has been impacted, primarily as a result of farming activities. A summary of nearby Upper Glacial Aquifer water quality data is as follows: TABLE 4 CHEMICAL DATA (SCDHS, 1985) ' SAMPLED ON 1-10-84 MEADOW LANE, MATTITUCK ' Total Coliform < 1 cell so 62. mg/l. PH 5.0 mg/l. Fe < 0.10 ' Spec. Conductance 390. Mn 0.27 NH3 < 0.04 Cu < 0.10 ' NO 15.10 Zn < 0.40 CL 35.0 Na 21.8 TABLE 5 ' PESTICIDE DATA (SCDHS, 1985) SAMPLED ON 8-27-84 ' MEADOW LANE, MATTITUCK Alsicarb < 1.0 mg/l. Hydroxy Carbo < 1.0 mg/l. ' Ald Sulfoxide 4.0 Oxamyl - < 1.0 Ald Sulfone 2.0 Carbaryl < 1.0 ' Carbofuran 6.0 Methomyl < 1.0 . No organics or hydrocarbon contamination has been detected tin the vicinity of the subject site, in samplings conducted by SCDHS. The above data indicates that local groundwater has been degradated ' - 15 - CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants ' by extensive farming occurring up gradient of the subject site. The ' chemical analysis shows presence of two conservative agricultural chemicals used in farmland fertilization; nitrate and (potossium) ' chloride. Specific conductance is elevated due to chloride ions in groundwater. Sodium is also slightly elevated; however, other parameters are reflective of ambient conditions. Pesticide analysis ' indicates that two potato field pesticides are travelling with groundwater from an up gradient source. Nearby well samples are ' presently below the New York State drinking water guideline of 7 mg/l. Recent water resources investigations have found that Aldicarb ' contamination is presently limited to the upper 30 to 40 feet of the aquifer in this area of the North Fork (Baier, Robbins, 1982) . ' SURFACE WATER: The subject parcel has approximately 3,600 square feet of ' surface water within its boundaries. Salt water from Deep Hole Creek flows inland through a road culvert at New Suffolk Avenue and ' infiltrates the site during tidal cycles. Periodic inundation by the tide has allowed high marsh (Spartina patens) to exist, comprising a ' good portion of the site. Inflowing sea water is diluted by ground- water which discharges to surface water as a result of hydraulic flow ' potential. Groundwater sustains a base stream flow in areas where it intersects surface topography and the southward slope of the streambed effectively dewy, -s the aquifer. Such discharge zones also ' allow for groundwater underflow into the stream bed. Physical and chemical mixing of saline and fresh waters create the estuarine conditions observed at the subject site. Wetland dominated estuaries provide a nutrient rich environment due to decomposition of organic matter, and stream and tidal flow carry the nutrients to the bay. Ecological value and biological productivity in estuaries is high. 1 ' - 16 - CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants 1 TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY VEGETATION: The vegetative communities found on the site can be divided into two catagories: Mixed Uplands Forest and Intertidal Marsh. The ' latter has a narrow fringe of freshwater wetland emergent species, which can withstand brackish conditions. These species are present because of ' groundwater seepage from the surrounding uplands and the limited tidal influence from Deep Hole Creek under the culvert at New Suffolk Avenue. The following is a list of the vegetation found on site. This list is not meant to be all inclusive but is to give a detailed representation of the species. TABLE 6 VEGETATION SPECIES Red Oak Quercus rubra Black Oak Quercus velutina ' Black Cherry Prunus serotina Choke Cherry Prunus virginiana Sassafras Sassafras albidum ' Red Cedar Juniperus virginiana Black Locust Robinia pseudo-acacia Mapleleaf Viburnum Viburnum acerifolium Arrow wood Viburnum recognitum ' Green Briar Smilax rotundifolia Pitch Pine Pious rigida Poison Ivy Rhus radicans ' ;potted Wintergreen English Ivy Hedera helix Virginia Creeper Parthenocissus quinquefolia ' * Cattails Typha spp. * Bulrush Scirpus spp. * Salt Hay Spartina patens ' * Species found within intertidal marsh area. No threatened or endangered species were found on site. WILDLIFE: Since approximately one half of the site is intertidal marsh, numerous species utilize this area for foraging activities. While questions have been raised that this area is also a prime location for ' nesting purposes of shore birds and water fowl, numerous site inspections, - 17 - CRAMER h VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Conrultanta consultations with ornithologists and review of relevant publications, do ' not support such statements. Contained within the Appendix is a summary of the nesting patterns of the larger birds which could nest on the site ' and field observations. A common misconception is that birds which frequent a site also use that same site for nesting purposes. While the wetland ' is used extensively for foraging of various types of birds, it is not a predominate nesting area. These headwaters may, at one time, have been t utilized by nesting waterfowl but conditions now do not make it as attractive as other sites. This is predominately due to the existing human activity and the associated presence of domestic animals, such as ' dogs and cats. Periodic nesting of waterfowl may occur and the proposed action will not impact this activity because of the proposed No ' Disturbance Buffer. The following is a list of wildlife species which do or are ' likely to utilize the site. This list is not intended to be all inclusive but to give a representation of the animal life. TABLE 7 ' WILDLIFE SPECIES BIRDS ' Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias Snowy Egret Leucophoyx thula Green Heron Butorides vlrescens Black Crown Night Heron Nycticorax riyc�-icorax ' American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus Mute Swan Cygnus olor Canada Goose Branta canadensis ' Mallard Duck Anas platyrhynchos Black Duck Anas rubripes Pintail Anas acuta ' Green Winged Teal Anas carolinensis Clapper Rail Rallus longirostris Seagull Larus spp. Tern Sterna hirundo Kingfisher Megaceryle alcyon Flicker Colaptes auratus Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata ' Black Capped Chickadee Parus atricapillus Tufted Titmouse Parus bicolor Wren Troglodytes spp. ' CRAMER& VOORHIS ASSOCIATES - 18 Environmental and Planning Consultants BIRDS (continued) ' Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos Catbird Dumetella carolinensis ' Robin Turdus migratorius Starling Sturnus vugaris Warbler Dendroica spp. ' MAMMALS ' Opossum Didelphis marsupialus Raccoon Procyon lotor Eastern Chipmunk Tamias striatus Gray Squirrel Sciurus carolinensis ' White Foot Mouse Peromyscus leucopus Meadow Mouse Microtus pennsylvanicus House Mouse Mus musculus ' OTHER Box Turtle Clemmys guttata ' Garter Snake Thamnophis sirtalis Killifish Fundulus spp. Mummichog WETLANDS: ' As discussed previously, the principle wetland vegetation species is Spartina pe.tens. This type of marsh is commonly referred to as a "High Marsh", or, one which is flooded only periodically. This flooding occurs app::oximately once a month or during storm events. Although productive, it is less productive than the "Intertidal Marsh" ' which is flooded twice a day. The latter, having -a greater diversity of animal and plant life. In addition, on the site, also classified as ' wetlands, is open water. Wetlands, particularly the vegetated portions, have the ability ' to utilize significant amounts of nutrients. Wetland species utilize these nutrients in the production of plant material and "fix" many pollutants in their tissue. 1 CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES En vitonn.ental and Planning Consultants In addition, the presence of fine materials, silts and decomposing organic, tend to trap many heavy metals and other pollutants keeping them from entering the food web of water animals. ' While wetlands function as excellent natural filters for the marine environment, extreme care must be taken so as not to 'overload" ' the natural system and degrade its values. The action with the proposed mitigation measures will not create a situation where ' existing conditions or inputs are exceeded which will alter the values of the adjoining wetlands. 1 1 1 1 - 20 - CRAMER h VOORHIS ASSOCIATE;; Environmental aad Planning Consultants HUMAN RESOURCES LAND USE AND ZONING: The existing land use pattern was established on September 8, 1965 with the filing of Map #4458 with Suffolk County under the name of "Mattituck Estates, Inc." This map created 59 lots, each approximately one half acre in size, (see Figure 2) of which Lot 42 is approximately in the center. Most of the lots have had one and two story single family ' residences constructed on them since the filing of the map' a few adjoining lots are owned by the same tenant, thus creating larger properties. The ' County of Suffolk also holds title to land, apparently acquired by default as a result of non-payment of property tax. The remaining lots are owned by individuals, in many cases, since the original subdivision of the land, with, it is assumed, to develop the land according to the present allowable land use under existing zoning. Figure 7 illustrates the existing land use for the surrounding area. The area around "Mattituck Estates" is in a mix of residential and agricultural uses. The predominate land use is agricultural, found west, north and east of the site. Single family residences fringe ' Main Road (NYS Route 25) to the north. To the south is predominately in single family residential use at a density of approximately two dwelling units per acre, as "Mattituck Estates". Figure 8 is the pertinent section of the Suffolk County Real Property Tax Map and illustrates the present ownership configurations in the area. The current zoning of the parcel is identified as "A" Residential and Agricultural District. Under Chapter 100, Article III of the Code of the Town of Southold, the allowable uses are defined. One family detached dwellings, not to exceed one dwelling on each lot is allowed in this district. Table 8 summarizes the requirements for this ' district and the proposed Action's fulfilling of same. ' - 21 - CRAb'En & VOORHIS A&SOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants Y • t ®t P. " • I 111L - z r z —«I z r 't"• z Po. a.• uukl 6PEEN POPi •" _— xJ M i•I.1 �IO,kI i.]Mel •,I _ i>> i•0.41 e « f O,Y PO. uv -!1' p„ u; � 11x1 ,✓l; • „v d J SP 4� :n •.i t 1 a.lel E soon , t" Ev ' \A •+ © 1 �> u.a]a •at 8� E�. tP w tf ll• al _ O..MeI \- • W O ! 1J • a . •• • J,iui s•- )•• n, 1 ♦ 6 OKA t .t• •,. JD t ••,1• E •' a•Mal 1 f•al � r• e e „j' ^ ' N a U alD u.l i Nkl n a0 k i n � Ix n •• " • to t• n, ✓ auk] a iiln c � •mow xv].1 uowl 1t , « ., .,.� N: � n . nib '• se a.w •.a In.kl 12 ✓ s - 13'w• .�-O� .�n - ,•i•la I „ I • n: rN •a.Y 4 u• 01 Y1 1 • .. . I I ,• - q w .N t tt t e x vn E I1 1.41M1 la J • 1• 1. FIGURE 8 REAL PROPERTY TAX MAP, #115 Not to scale DEIS MEADOW LANE REOIDE14CE November 1985 CRAMER t VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants 1 ' TABLE 8 ' ZONING REQUIREMENTS Proposed Minimum Requirement Action ' Total Lot Area (sq. ft.) ------ 22,357 Lot Width (ft.) ------ 115 ' Lot Depth (ft.) ------ 215 (average) Front Yard (ft.) 35 35 ' One Side Yard (ft.) 10 10 Both Side Yards (ft.) 25 51 Rear Yard (ft.) 35 146 Livable Floor Area (sq.Ft.) per Dwelling Unit 850 1,545 t ' Off Street Parking Spaces 2 Maximum ' Lot Coverage (percent) 20 6.9 Building Height: ' Number of Stories 2� 2�1 Feet 35 28' rear ' In addition to Article III, Article XI of Chapter 100, General Regulations, is also relevant to tlis parcel. Section 100- 119.2B states that all building adjacent to tidal- water bodies must be located not less than 75 feet from the landward edge of the tidal ' wetland. Practical difficulty does not allow compliance with this regulation and the owner/applicant intends to seek relief from the ' Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals. Applications have been submitted and that Board is awaiting completion of the SEQRA requirements. The location of the wetland boundary on the site would ' necessitate positioning the rear of the proposed structure 11 feet from the front property line to meet this requirement. This is not only within the required front yard setback but would result in the proposed structure being located 12 feet into Meadow Lane. ' The Town of Southold Master Plan has been incorporated in the development of the above regulations. ' - 24 - CRAFIER&VOORHIS PS€:OC!ATES Environments: and Planning Consultants The site is located within the coastal zone. The Town of Southold is in the process of preparing the Local Waterfront ' Revitalization Program for the area. In discussions with the consultant, no significant impact to the program is expected with the proposed action (Richard Ward, Personal Communications 1985) . The action conforms to the relevant policies of which there are a total ' of 44 established by the New York State Department of State. These Coastal Zone Management Policies must be addressed and incorporated ' in any Local Waterfront Management Program. The proposed action meets or exceeds the requirements and ' rules , and, as such, the land use plans of both New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and Suffolk County Department of Health ' Services. Permission has been received from both these agencies for the action as proposed. ' When the Map of Mattituck Estates was filed, a set of 14 ' covenants were also filed to ride with each lot for a period of 25 years. All covenants can and will be adhered to. However, two are deemed as impractical and/or invalid. Covenant #9 states that "No ' structure shall be erected, altered, or placed, or permitted to remain. . ." unless written approval is obtained from declarant, Mattituck Estates, Inc. The corporation is no longer in exit;Caai e and contact with individuals having knowledge of same has been to ' no avail. It is the opinion of counsel and the Title Insurance Company that this covenant is no longer relevant. In addition, the ' proposed architectual style has been chosen to match existing development constructed at the time of filing of the covenant. ' The second covenant in question, #4, refers to setbacks associated with locating a structure on a parcel. The covenant states ' that no dwelling may be nearer than 50 feet to any front lot line, nearer than 35 feet from any side street; within 10 feet to any side lot line, nor less than a total of 25 feet on both side lot lines. All sections of this covenant can be adhered to with the exception of ' the 50 foot front setback. This setback is in direct conflict with ' CRAME3 & 7OCIRHIR ASSOC.IATEF - 25 - Environmental and Planning Consultants what is filed on the Map of Mattituck Estates, Inc. (see figure 2) ' which clearly shows a 35 foot building setback. Also, as with covenant #9, efforts to contact the Declarant for clarification were ' to no avail. It is the opinion of counsel and the Tital Insurance Company ' that such a covenant is no longer enforceable. This is particularly true in light of the fact that the covenant predates both ordinances ' of the Town of Southold and the relevant sections of the Environmental Conservation. The strict literal adherance by the owner/applicant ' to the covenant, can not be accomplished without placing himself in direct violation of the various Town and State regulations as well as with causing a significant impact on the environment. (See Alternatives ' section) . The mitigation measure proposed for the parcel are intended to accomplish the assumed desire intent of the delcarant. In addition, given the fact that Meadow Lane is a 50 foot wide road with only a 20 foot paved surface, the 15 foot unpaved strip, in front of the parcel, ' will provide a physical 50 foot setback from the road surface. ' CULTURAL RESOURCES: The visual qualities associated with the site and the ' surrounding community is a significant asset. The homes constructed in Mattituck Esta.' . ,. are, for the most part, of what is generally ' referred to as "capes". Ail are well maintained and attractively landscaped. ' The site of the proposed action does .not provide any scenic vistas or views over the wetlands and pond because of its wooded uplands. However, the wooded nature of the site does provide certain ' scenic qualities to the neighborhood. The proposed project is intended to compliment and incorporate the existing conditions on the site. The preparer of this document recognizes that a previous ' application was filed for development of this parcel by other parties. During that review process, several concerns were brought forth by local ' residents. Among these concerns was the setback of the structure, 1 - 26 - CRAMER&VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants the visual compatibility and the protection of the wetlands. These ' concerns have been taken into account in the selection of the architectual design. the site planning, mitigation measures and development strategies. 1 ' - 27 - CRAMER#VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants ' SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The intent of this section is to address those aspects of the environmental setting that may be adversely or beneficially affected by ' the proposed action. The Southold Town Trustees, acting as Lead Agency, issued a Positive Declaration with three reasons supporting their determination. These are as follows: "l. The Intertidal Marsh is extremely close to this property. ' 2. Within the marsh there are a variety of species of nesting fowl. ' 3. Controversy over the development of this lot within the neighborhood itself." The project has been designed to address and mitigate these potential impacts. These mitigation measures have been discussed previously and are also contained within subsequent sections of this ' document. If proper mitigation measures are not required, potential impacts, from indiscriminate development of this parcel, could be ' significant. However, with the proper design and protective mitigation measures, the site could be developed with the minimum of disturbance to both the lot and the environment of the area. The proposed project, with the various mitigation measures, would have a beneficial impact in that it would be example of sound ' environmental planning and development in areas adjacent to sensitive environments. Given the proper environmental setting, as is found on ' the proposed site, the use of various development and land use strategies could be used on future development to reduce or negate ' significant impacts on an area. The Table below eitpands upon the 3 impacts discussed above and compares potential impacts both with and without the proposed mitigation measures. ' TABLE 9 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ' ADVERSE BENEFICIAL WITYOUT MITIGATION WITH PROPOSED MITIGATION Impact to - Clearing to shore, - Area to remain in natural ' Wetlands removal of natural state. vegetation. tCRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES - 28 Environmental and Planning Consultants 1 ADVERSE BENEFICIAL WITHOUT MITIGATION WITH PROPOSED MITIGATION - Potential of siltation. - Provide habitat. ' - Entrophication caused - Preserve scenic qualities. by fertilization of turf area adjacent to waterway. ' - Disruption of sensitive transition zone between uplands and wetlands. ' Groundwater Increase in nitrogen - Reduction of nitrogen loading from turf areas. loading through reduction of turf areas. - Minimization of disturbance for sanitary system. ' - Maximum separation. Soils - Potential of erosion. - Minimal disturbance. - Significant regrading - Provide erosion and filling required. protection. Slopes - Activities on steep - Preservation of natural slopes-high erosion slopes with existing potential. vegetation. ' - Disturbance of natural - Minimal disturbance. grades and vegetation. Vegetation - Indiscriminate clearing. - Preservation of natural vegetation. - Selective clearing. - Relandscaping with natural vegetation. ' Wildlife - Disruption of natural - Preservation of natural habitat. habitat. - Provide buffers between ' natural area and all activities. Land Use - Potential for indis- - Provide example and criminate & detrimental develop policies toward development. sensitive land use methods. ' Cultural Resources - Incompatible housing. - Compatible housing. - Removal of existing - Fit into existing ' vegetation. vegetation. 1 - 29 CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants ADVERSE BENEFICIAL ' WITHOUT MITIGATION WITH PROPOSED MITIGATION - Creation of objectional - Preserve existing scenic ' views from across wetlands quality. and from road. tSpecific concern has been raised by the Lead Agency with ' regard to potential impacts relating to the proposed "septic system, components and leachate". ' The following is a detailed discussion of the potential environmental effect of same. The primary concern of residential development, and its affect on groundwater is nitrogen loading due to sanitary disposal and lawn fertilization. The environmental impact of proposed development can be estimated by. calculating the total nitrogen input diluted by total volume of water to determine the expected nitrate concentration of ' recharge water. Total nitrogen due to sanitary disposal is determined below. ' The basis for this simulation is from the Cornell Study for the Southold Demonstration Site (Trautmanni Porter, Hughes, 1983) . ' 2.54 residents x 10 lbs./capita/yr. = 25.4 lbs. N (Avg. residents ..ner house in Southold) (N per resident) (Total N) ' 25.4 lbs. N x 50% redurtiioa = 12.7 lbs. N/yr. Total nitrogen resulting from fertilization of lawn areas is ' also determined using assumptions and format from the above cited reference, as follows: 1,800 sq. ft. x 75% = 1,350 sq. ft. (max. turfed area) (% fertilized) (area fertilized) 1,350 sq. ft. x 2.5 lbs. N/1,000 sq. ft. = 3.375 lbs. N (area fertilized) (application rate) (N applied) ' 3.375 lbs. N x 50% = 1.6875 lbs. N (N applied) (leaching rate) (Total N) ' Therefore, the total amount of nitrogen released on the subject site per year is 14.3875 lbs. ' - 3U - CRAMER& VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Plcnning Consultants The total volume of recharge water is determined as follows: ' Precipitation 20.75 inches / yr. - 12 inches = 1.7292 feet (recharge) (conversion) (recharge) 1.7292 feet x 15,000 sq. ft. = 25,938 cu. ft. / yr. ' (recharge) (area upgradient of surface water) (site recharge) ' Effluent Volume 2.54 residents x 40 gal./day = 101.6 gal./day ' 101.6 gal./day x 365 days/year = 37,084 gal./year 37,084 gal./yr x 1.337 x 10-1 = 4,958.1 cu.ft./year Irrigation 1,800 sq. ft. x 0.3167 ft. = 570.06 cu.ft./year ' (turfed area) (annual irrigation) (irrigation volume) ' Therefore, total recharge is equal to, precipitation plus effluent plus irrigation, totalling 31,466.16 cu. ft./yr. Conversion of nitrogen and water volume to the appropriate ' units for comparison finds a weight : volume ratio of : 7.32 mg/l. This concentration is less than the 10 mg/l. drinking water ' standard for nitrogen. The Cornell Study estimates that there is an 80% probability that the nitrogen sta 'ard will not be exceeded. It should also be noted that the estimated nitrogen concentration in site recharge is significantly less than the nitrate concentration of ' 15 mg/l. for local groundwater. In addition, no private wells exist down gradient of the site. Nitrate in groundwater discharging to ' surface water will be further reduced by ion exchange in silt and clay particles comprising the streambed. Surface waters on site are already characterized by a nutrient-rich environment. No significant impact ' is anticipated from sanitary disposal or lawn fertilization. Groundwater will, in no way, be degraded as a result of this project. The discharge of bacteria in sanitary effluent may also be of concern in terms of environmental impact. Bacteria from sanitary ' systems is trapped and removed from effluent in the interstices of soils 1 ' - 31 - CRAMER k VOOMIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants 1 in the unsaturated and saturated zone. The Suffolk County Sanitary ' Code requires a separation distance of 100 feet between the disposal point and surface water or a well, to allow adequate distance for filtration of bacteria in soils. On the subject site, the water supply well is located up gradient of the leaching pools ensuring that ' no cross contamination will occur. In addition, the well will be screened 45 feet deeper into the aquifer than is normally required. Sanitary discharge will not affect the well. The nearest surface ' water is located 85 feet northeast of the sanitary leaching pools. As documented in the Environmental Setting section, groundwater flow is in a south-southeastwardly direction. The nearest surface water in the direction of groundwater flow is nearly 400 feet away. ' This separation distance is more than adequate to allow for soil filtration of bacteria. No bacteriological loading to surface water will occur as a result of this project. Stormwater runoff will be generated from impervious roofs, walks and the driveway on site. All runoff will be recharged to groundwater through dry wells. The National Urban Runoff Protection Study (NURPS) finds that recharge of stormwater to groundwater is the best management. Runoff contaminants expected in street runoff ' are considered to be negligible due to the short length and low intensity of use of the driveway. ' All runoff generated as a result o, development will be contained on site. Therefore, no direct discharge of contaminants or suspended solids will occur. Site development will be controlled to . ' eliminate potential erosion or sedimentation to surface water. ' Due to the hydrologic connection of ground and surface waters, groundwater discharge could impact surface water. The above discussion on groundwater impacts finds that groundwater will not be impaired; therefore, no surface water impact will occur. 1 ' - 32 - CRAMER 6 VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Enviroamental and Planning Consultants 1 ' MITIGATION MEASURES The following is a detailed discussion of the mitigation ' measures proposed as part of the project. These are intended to be incorporated into the construction and ultimate development of the ' proposed action. The discussions below have been separated into the relevant environmental settings; however, many of the mitigation ' measures overlap and affect other categories. GEOLOGY: Prior to any activity taking place on the site, a snow fence or other appropriate fencing will be installed at the 10 foot ' contour line to assure that inadvertent activities do not infringe upon the area to remain natural. Only trees and understory vegetation where construction activities are to take place will be removed. ' House location, driveway and septic systems will be staked in the field and construction limits identified. It is intended to use a ' crane for all excavations. Such an excavation method reduces the necessity to clear large areas around the outside of the proposed ' house foundation. Topsoil will be stockpiled in strategic locations on the site to facilitate back filling of foundation and reduce the need ' for excessive earthmoving operations on site. All stockpiled material will be suitably contained si as to prevent erosion of the earth into natural areas. .During construction phase, all exposed earth surfaces ' will be monitored to assure erosion is not occuring. If erosion is evident, appropriate erosion control techniques will be used. These ' will include, but not be limited to: hay bales; fiber mats, berming; planting of vegetation; and, loose straw. ' Once final grading is complete, all disturbed areas will be immediately seeded with rapid germinating rye grass to provide quick t cover. Landscaping will be installed using natural, low nitrogen demanding plant material. ' The foundation plan and house have also been designed to minimize the amount of filling and regrading on the site. The existing topography has been utilized by "stepping" the house into a natural - 33 - CRAMER& VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Eavlrcnmsatal and Planning Consultants 1 setting. An 8 foot foundation wall is proposed for the west (parallel to Meadow Lane) and a 4 foot wall to the east. This feature reduces ' the amount of excavated material and also reduces the amount of grading between the structure and the wetlands. ' All areas of steep slope will be avoided during construction phases and convenants will be placed on the property to preclude ' future development of these areas. WATER RESOURCES: ' A septic system has been approved for construction by Suffolk County Department of Health Services. The design of the system provides for a higher quality effluent than the use of a conventional cesspool. ' The approved system will consist of four units; i.e. , one septic tank and three leaching pools. The waste water is first discharged into ' the septic tank where heavier solids settle to the bottom of this water-tight tank. Digestion by bacteria and liquification of solid ' material occurs in this anaerobic environment. Liquids then discharge from the septic tank into the three small leaching pools. The use of three leaching pools allows for a greater distance (height) above the groundwater elevation. This unsaturated zone allows for aerobic biological degradation and chemical conversion. ' The use of three small leaching pools is more desirable than one large pool in that the necessary volume is obtained by ' spreading the pools over a larger surface area and thereby increasing the uv^aturated zone to the groundwater elevation. The use o.'. a ' "tile field" would further increase the distance to groundwater because of its shallow design, but in order to obtain the necessary volume ' capacity, the field must be spread over a much greater surface area.. The use of a tile field is inappropriate at this site because it would locate the system too close to the surface waters and wetlands to the ' east. Additional discussion on sanitary waste disposal can be found in this document under the section entitled "Alternatives". Among these are discussed water saving methods, such as the design of the fixtures. These are intended to be incorporated into the construction ' of the home. Using these types of mitigation measures, the amount of effluent will be reduced and thereby reduces the threat of pollution. ' CRAMER 6 VOORHIS ASSOCIATES - 34 Environmental and Planning Consultants ' Once the proposed action is completed, the potential for ' erosion from stormwater runoff would still be present because of the existing grades, if mitigation measures are not installed. In order ' to avoid such conditions, it is proposed to contain all stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces and convey it to drywells for recharge to the ground. All roofs will have gutters and leaders installed which ' will discharge into drywells. In addition, the low point in the driveway will have a drywell to capture runoff from that area. The ' driveway will be designed so that a high point will be at the west end to keep water from Meadow Lane from entering the site and overloading ' the system. The Nationwide Urban Runoff Protection Study (NURPS) finds that recharge of stormwater to groundwater is the best management. ' Runoff contaminants expected in street runoff are expected to be negligible due to the short length and low intensity of use of the driveway. The surface waters and wetlands on the site will be protected by the above and the natural buffer areas. The use of natural land- scaping, low fertilization and the soil types will assure that recharge will take place rapidly with no runoff even during major storm events. TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY: ' The use of the above mitigation measures will have a direct beneficial effect on the terrestrial and aquatic ecology of the site, and was one of the prime reas�.is for incorporating same into the design of the project. Since these have been discussed previously, it is not necessary for detailed reiteration here. Minimization of clearing and the various construction ' techniques will assure maximization of retention of the large trees found on site and retention of understory. Installation of natural plant materials will provide food and habitat for wildlife species. ' The area to be covenanted, below the 10 foot contour, will assure that no future development or activities will take place in or ' adjacent to the most sensitive areas on the site. This major mitigation measure will protect the interface of marsh and uplands as ' well as the steep upland slope adjoining it. If waterfowl were to use 1 ' - 33 - CRAMER 6 VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants ' this wetland area for nesting, the marsh/upland interface is the most sensitive. The natural buffer would provide a separation, both physically and visually, from the wetlands and proposed activity. ' The scheduling of the proposed action will be such to avoid the sensitive breeding patterns of wildlife. While no breeding or evidence of nesting was observed on site, it can be assumed that certain species may periodically utilize the area for such purposes. Therefore, major construction activities, particularly site preparation, ' excavation and framing will take place during the period from summer to winter. The sensitive spring period will be avoided. tLAND USE AND ZONING: ' The site is a single and separately owned lot, part of the l:ap of Mattituck Estates, and the owner/applicant has no other lands adjacent. The parcel has been previously zoned for "A" Residential ' use by the Town of Southold. In order to provide for the maximum setback from the wetlands, the house has been located at the minimum tfront and side yard setbacks according to Southold Town Zoning Codes. The use of all of the mitigation measures incorporated into ' the proposed action could be considered as a mitigation measure in it self. The use of innovative and environmentally sound design ' features would set the framework and guide future development adjoining sensitive areas Numerous locations exist within Southold Town, and the immediate area where such techniques would be beneficial ' in protecting the environment. While this site has certain conditions more favorable to development (see section on Topography) , there are ' several lots still undeveloped within Mattituck Estates where similar land use strategies could be used. ' CULTURAL RESOURCES: ' The cultural resource which requires protective mitigation measures during the development of this site is the visual ' resources. If uncontrolled use of this land is allowed to take place, visual qualities could be impaired. ' The visual qualities of an area are extremely important to residents 1 ' - CRAMER &VOORHIS ASSOCIATES - 36 Environmental and Planning Consultants ' of a community. This is particularly true where neighborhoods have been long established with minor modification to the visual setting. ' Many of the previously discussed mitigation measures allow the opportunity for the proposed action to be blended into the community. The two major design features which will protect the existing visual qualities of the site are: the preservation of as many existing ' trees and shrubs as possible, on site, during construction; and, the establishment of a natural buffer on and adjacent to the wetlands. ' The architectual design and construction materials intended to be used compliment the existing developed character of the ' community. The'architectual style of the submitted plans are that of a "cape" in the traditional mode. Siding, as shown on the plans, is to be horizontal cedar clapboards, ' The overall appearance, once constructed, will blend with the existing neighborhood character. The retention of vegetation and the ' house style will present from Meadow Lane, the appearance that the structure has been there for some time. This is particularly true when ' one considers past building practices, which was to clear all vegetation from a site rather than working around it. The visual impact of the ' proposed action will be that the home has been constructed in the past and sufficient time has elapsed to allow for growth of major trees ' around the structure. With the use of a covenant on the eastern portion of the site, the structure will be visually ant physically screened from views across the pond. The views and setbacks of activities are considered important to protect and for maintaining the existing ' environmental qualities of the site. 37 - CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES L'nv+*onmental and Planning Consultanta 1 ' ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED As per the guidelines for the preparation of a Draft ' Environmental Impact Statement, this section has been included. As discussed in the sections on Environmental Setting and Significant Environmental Impacts, the action as proposed, will not have a significant adverse environmental effect. ' Concerns have been raised on the part of the Lead Agency and community as to the potential effects of the action. The following is a summary of the findings of this document. ' The major source of concern in the construction of a single family residence is possible groundwater contamination from the ' sanitary leaching pools and lawn fertilization practices. It has been demonstrated under previous sections that the nitrate loading ' would be approximately 7 MG/L. This value is below the drinking water standard of 10 MG/L and substantially below the existing ground- water conditions of 15 MG/L. Since groundwater conditions are more than twice as high as the anticipated loading from the proposed action, ' the present quality will not be impaired. Furthermore, since ground- water will not be impaired, and since the groundwater and surface waters are hydrographically connected, the surface waters and associated wetlands will not b(: altered because of the proposed project. ' While local resideits have enjoyed certain benefits in the past because of the undeveloped character of the site, the proposed project seeks to achieve the allowable land use under zoning while maintaining the area's visual qualities. Selective clearing, house ' design, site development and natural buffers will maintain desirable features and protect sensitive areas. The configuration of the lot and ' the existing setting requires that the structure be located at the minimal setback line from the front lot line according to Town Zoning Code to provide maximum protection to the sensitive areas. 1 ' - 38 - CRAMER VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants While the implementation of the proposed project will ' locate the structure near an existing tidal wetlands, the development techniques and the area to be covenanted for no development activities ' will protect the natural values. The most sensitive areas on the site will be protected from future development; these areas are the steep ' slopes, wetlands and the uplands/wetland interface. Such a method removes human activities from the sensitive areas and perpetuates their wildlife values. 1 1 - 39 - CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Coneu!tanta ALTERNATIVES ' ALTERNATIVE DESIGN AND TECHNOLOGY tALTERNATIVE DESIGNS: Three alternative designs have been prepared for the ' proposed action on the site. Two alternative designs vary the front yard setback and one changes the design of the proposed structure. ' The following are detailed discussions on each. ' Alternative Design "A" relocates the house structure to a 50 foot setback from the. front property line. (See figure 9) . This setback has been chosen because of the reference to the covenants as ' explained in the Environmental Setting Section. It should be noted that application was made to New York ' State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) on this alternative. During discussions and inspection by D.E.C. staff it ' was determined that the most environmental suitable action would be the project as proposed with 35 foot setbacks. The Department would have ' significant objections to the project if proposed as in this alternative and requested the setback from the wetlands be landward of the 10 foot contour. (personal communication, Hamilton 1985) . ' The relocation to the 50 foot front yard setback places the corner of the house approximately 13 feet from the ex Ong wetlands. ' This furthermore locates the action within the area of steep slupes for the parcel. The structure would still be "stepped" into the ' topography, but with the rapid change in elevations it has become necessary to also design a retaining wall between the foundation ' wall and wetlands. Given the increased activity adjacent to the wetlands; ' reduction/removal of buffer zone; steep slopes; and, limitations of soil, this alternative is not considered as environmentally sound nor sensitive. ' Treatment of sanitary waste would be the same as with the proposed project. Since the setback to the wetlands is less than 75 feet, a variance from the Town Zoning Codes would also have to be sought. ' CRAMER h VOORHIS ASSOCIATES - 40 Environmental and Planning Consultants � Ltly� of i AYZ dl,41, V- t21.U' IIIIfiI it u III(Iij jll(Il (Il / �'` IIIII uutJl'tig(llll p2rVE 7' \ ) � IIIII�IiI(III WEf1.0.NDS l \ t �NIIIIl6Ulll �ulllllll(I��I�ill• �. IIIIIIII�IIIUIt. '`'IIIII III i% 50 llit till, • � / il�ll�I iI Ii IDI III I�I'II ilfllll illl Illil I�I�III'ulu II���II�:a n���IIIIIII�I�IIII�q IIII(IIII ,III Quit, nII1IIIII Illll�'l� V d �� Wr=naaab m(u Ifl��bllu IIV�i����I i�lll(I IIII II Hferw^ivy �I(IIIVI lit M(NtMA�- 4 -- + Ill�ll���}IIII(IIII I IlI1IIlIIIIIIriiIII'lotIIIIIt�t141 tllIf -[✓ts / _� � Illlll �IIIIII iIlll�llllllllli d � . . tyo�D s'turt�l�-� FIGURE 9 ALTERNATIVE SKETCH PLAN "A" Draft Environmental Impact State;nent Not to scale MEADOW LANE RESIDENCE ( approx. 1"=321 ) Mattituck, New York November 19$5 CRAMER 4 VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants Alternative Design "B" locates the proposed structure at a ' 25 foot setback from the front property line. (See Figure 10) . This alternative moves the structure ten additional feet from the wetlands ' or a total of 38 feet. While moving the structure to the west will increase wetland setbacks, the potential impacts to the neighborhood will be increased. The setback will allow only minimal retention of existing vegetation in ' the front yard and the structure would appear to be set almost directly on the roadway. This would not be in conformance with the existing community character. The desirability of "stepping" the structure into the existing topography, has been reduced and as such grading is necessary ' to the east, or adjacent to the wetlands. The proposed area of No Disturbance will remain below the 10 foot contour line as with the ' proposed action. Treatment of sanitary wastes would be the same as with the ' proposed action, which has been demonstrated as having no significant impacts. ' Under Town Zoning Codes, variances would have to be sought for the 75 foot setbacks from wetlands, as with the proposed action and Alternative "A", as well as the front yard setback of 35 feet. Given the above, this alternative is not considered as appropriate as it does not significantly increase etmironmental benefits of the proposed action. It would also create situation of impacting the community character. Community concern was one of the ' three reasons supporting the Positive Declaratioll. A previous application,by a different applicant, for this parcel incorporated this ' alternative setback as part of its proposal. A review of that file reflects community opposition to locating the structure close to the front property line. Alternative Design "C" maintains the structure at the 35 foot setback line as with the proposed action, but changes the design of the ' house. This alternative shows site grading necessary without "stepping" 1 1 ' - 42 - CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants 1 � \ -t •� IIIIIIIIIIIII �rllillllllflllllll � •V IIII� uwll'lugl(II vEaa� I I Illlllrlllll vlenarips II(ll . . �,� u°�a*� 4i'i�IlllVlllll �ullllllll��l�il' i4� .PQoµ�SED � � III Iy,IIIIII � lllI IIIII III RES�OEN� kl nl Illilp II Fa_Et.l�o' � IIIVIt�gl asp � � I I II IIIIII�I � Illll��lil�lllluu a i / � I °II J1I u I II 'll uf�4111 tlll14q I'IIIIIWlIIj'I tll a / Illlllllilpi �f gllllilllldllll�((Illull nllil��ll Illlll IIIIIIIII' I ,III II I IIIV III �� drl(�III �� W�v I lullu f IqV OI Ilf i M�e1LMA.t— Ill�lll �I k�(II(I Illlllli(IIIUIIiIIIIIgullIPIIIIf IIIUI .rl ����� �r �' lllll�lllllll iIII��IIIIUIII� �I �i /�✓ 'L b ly0 �LS'Cv� -. FIGURE 10 ALTERNATIVE SKETCH PLAN "B" Draft Environmental Impact Statement Not to scale MEADOW LANE RESIDENCE, ( approx. 1"=321 ) Mattituck, New York November 1985 CRAMER 6 VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planntng Consultants a• L.IKt= of "Orr `S .. � � / ��� � � �� 411111111 11�� �j(�llllll � ` flll� uudllti4l(Ip DRIVEWAY 11 OF�N IQI�IIIIIII W a+�S � � �pllllldllgl �nlllllllll��i'lil' I � Wad � c � I l � IIIIII114111141 II1141 1���..���RRTyyy s� / �calo�`JCE NI���IIIII(I ll IIII r-� ry l III IIIIIIIh)�Illlp" h i � � �'` � 11I�IIIIII II IiJIIII II iI Ill u��411(Iltlll�lllll I'��!III�'gp d� r afl`IIII �IIIIIIIIiI �I IIIII IIII IdIIIQ��llll(4 swill 11 i Illlll�� II ��ll . I � ,z " W°�� II,IuIllililla uuf�l���lj'�41I�G — 2xula�Y / o snurt�Y '/� °IIIII1 pllI WAtoNtx- IIdIIVI �I lIJ/ KIELP I IIIII` Il IIIIIII01I�IIIII�IjII�Il11wo, dlll(IIIIIUIIIIhNII'I (tit it llllll Mu�llrM,t_ •• � , a/46 b IaEb R r->TZ7 I owt 3 SLoPE— AREA. GF No A�STURP�C� FIGURE 11 ALTERNATIVE SKETCH PLAN "C" Draft Environmental Impact Statement Not to scale MEADOW LANE RESIDENCE ( approx . 1"=321 ) Mattituck, New York November 1985 CRAMER k VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultant the structure into the existing topography. The foundation would either ' be a slab or full basement. If a slab was utilized, additional fill would have to be brought in from an upland site. ' Under this alternative, grading would be necessary to raise the existing grade up to approximately one foot below the first floor ' elevation. A one on three slope, maximum, would be required from this elevation to the existing grade. As is illustrated in Figure 11, such a regrading would bring fill activities to the wetland boundary. This ' would remove over one half of the proposed natural buffer. In addition, a situation would be created for significant erosion into the ' wetlands. In order to control the potential erosion situation and to revegetate disturbed areas, an increase in turf installation will be ' necessary, thereby increasing potential nitrogen loading of the ground and surface waters. t Visual impacts would increase from views across the wetlands as well as impairment of wildlife values would also attribute to this alternative as being unacceptable. Alternative Plan "D" is not illustrated. The alternative was discussed previously under the Land Use and Zoning Section. This alternative would be to adhere to the strict compliance of the Local Law mandating a minimal 75 foot setback of structures from the wetlands boundary. Locating a structure at this setback would place the rear of the house at 11 feet from the front property line. The front of the house would therefore ba 12 feet into Meadow Lane. This obviously is an unacceptable alternative. 1 ' ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES: As discussed previously under Mitigation Measures, a septic ' system will be utilized for sanitary waste disposal. Several alternative means of disposal of sanitary effluent will be discussed below and detailed descriptions can be found in the Appendix. However, Suffolk ' County Department of Health Services has reviewed an application and has approved the method of waste disposal as included in the proposed ' action (SCDHS Permit #85-SO-164) . ' Measures to conserve water and reduce sewage generation is perhaps the most basic in reducing potential pollution. This can be accomplished through the installation of water saving fixtures and CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES - 45 - Envirnnxr.ental and Planning Consultants ' changes in personal habits. While personal habits are uncontrollable, ' an effective measure to reduce water usage is through water saving devices. The Suffolk County Department of Health Service use a ' design flow of 300 gallons per day/single family residence. A major portion of which can be attributed to the conventional toilets which utilizes 5+ gallons/ flush. The use of a small tank, which are ' commercially available, reduces water usage to 2� - 3' gallons/flush. Such fixtures, as well as flow reduces on showers, can significantly ' reduce the effluent flow. When used on such as showers, there is also a reduction in hot water usage, thereby saving fuel. ' It is the intention to include such methods, where appropriate, in the construction of the proposed action. ' The use of sanitary waste disposal systems that do not rely on water as a transportation medium have been developed and are in use ' in various sections of the country. These can be broken down into three main types: composting, incinerating and chemical. ' The composting toilet is a recent improvement on the old- fashioned "privy" or out-house. The composting toilet has been ' designed for use within the house and relies on aerobic bacterial decomposition, as does the "privy". This system uses an enclosed ' chamber or bin with an inclined slope located beneath the house. This is vented to provide the aerobic conditions. Some units have fans ' and heating coils to in3ure proper ventilation and optimum temperatures for decomposition. The decomposed wastes are periodically ' removed. It is odor-free, easy to handle and is•an. excellent fertilizer. Kitchen wastes (organic) can also be disposed in this system. In an incinerating toilet, wastes are incinerated (gas or electric) after each use. Installations must be vented properly and ashes removed weekly. These systems require regular maintenance, are ' energy consuming, and are not as trouble-free as composting systems. Chemical toilets are used predominately for recreational vehicles, building sites, campgrounds, and other temporary installations. In effect, they are simply a holding tank which must be emptied ' periodically. Chemicals are used for odor control and disinfection. ' - 46 - CRAMER k VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environruental knd Planning Consultants In general, all three systems will handle small quantities ' of liquid wastes; i.e. , urine. "Gray water" must be handled in a separate disposal system, most commonly a leaching pool. The systems ' also require various degrees of maintenance and there are also no assurances that a home owner will properly operate or dispose of the ' wastes. Residential structures must have subsurface disposal for "gray water". Suffolk County Department of Health Services will not approve installation of such systems as the sole means of disposal of human wastes; septic systems are required. These systems are not considered as acceptable alternative ' technology for the proposed action. ' The cesspool system is similar in construction to the leaching pool unit of the proposed septic system. However, anaerobic decomposition is not provided for in a watertight chamber as with the septic system. The cesspool receives raw sewage from the household drain; solids settle ' to the bottom of the cesspool while the liquids seep out the openings in the sides and bottom. The groundwater contamination potential from cesspools is higher than septic systems. The cesspool system was used extensively prior to 1962 on Long Island. Since cesspools provide a less desirable effluent, recharged ' into the ground, this sytem is not considered as an acceptable alternative. ' Several other sanitary waste disposal technologies are available. Many are beyond the price frame, or require volumes greater than that of a single family residence, such as a "package sewage ' treatment plant." These, therefore, will not be discussed in this document. However, there are technologies which have been designed to ' recharge the liquid coming from the septic tank which are applicable to single family use. These systems have numerous names depending on the design characteristics: absorption fields, seepage beds, dual drain- fields, seepage pits, sand filter trench and others. ' The major common characteristic of these systems is that the ultimate recharge of effluent takes place over a large surface area. The spreading out of the leaching field allows for a greater separation ' between the bottom of the discharge structure and the groundwater surface. 1 ' - 47 - CRAMER k VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants Given the characteristics of the site, the proximity to ' surface water and the desire to preserve existing vegetation, the use of these technologies are inappropriate. ' NO ACTION: ' The No Action alternative would leave the site in its current natural state. The parcel and surrounding land is zoned for the ' intended purpose of the proposed action. Mitigation measures have been designed into the project which will negate significant environmental ' impacts, as discussed in this document. Since the owner/applicant intends to seek the zoned use of the parcel, with proper and sound development, the No Action alternative ' is not appropriate. If a No Action alternative is required of the owner/applicant, ' it would be considered as confiscation and appropriate compensation would be sought. ' IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES ' Of the 0.51 acres which constitutes the site, only 0.09 acres will be committed to impervious surfaces and landscaping. Wooded lands will be reduced from 0.23 acres to 0.14 acre. Wetlands will not be disturbed and are to remain unimpacted. Water conservation fixtures will be used to reduce the water ' usage. All waste water will be recharged on site according to best conservation methods. ' Electricity and fuel oil will be used in the ultimate proposed use. Energy conservation methods will be used for construction. These will include but not be limited to: insulation, thermopane windows and if practical, solar. The project is not expected to be growth inducing. ' - - CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES 48 Environmental and Planning Consultants 1 1 1 APPENDIX tCRAMER h VOORHIS ASSOCIATES - 49 Environmental and Planning Cons iltants ' REFERENCES Baier, Joseph H. , and Sy F. Robbins, 1982, Report on the Occurance ' and Movement of Agricultural Chemicals in Groundwater: North Fork of Suffolk County, Suffolk County Department of Health Services, Bureau of Water Resources, Hauppauge, New York. ' Cohen, Philip; O.L. Frinke and B. L. Foxworthy, 1968, An Atlas of Long Island's Water Resources, New York State Water Resources Commission Bulletin 62. ' Crandell, H. C. , 1963, Geology of Groundwater Resources of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1619-GG, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Fowler and Palmer, 1975, Fieldbook of Natural History, McGraw Hill, ' New York, New York. t Jensen, H. M. , and Julian Soren, 1974, Hydrogeology of Suffolk County, Long Island, New York, Hydrologic Investigations Atlas, U. S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. Koppelman, Lee E. , 1978, 208 Areawide Waste Treatment Management, Summary Plan-Interim Report Series: 7, Nassau-Suffolk ' Regional Planning Board, Hauppauge, New York. ' Koppelman, Lee,E. , 1982, The Long Island Segment of the iAa aonwide Urban Runoff Program, Long Island Regional Planning Board, Hauppauge, New York. ' Koppelman, Lee E. , 1984, Nonpoint Source Management Handbook, Long Island Regional Planning Board, Hauppauge, New York. ' New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, State Environmental Quality Review Act - The SEQR Handbook, Division of Regulatory Affairs, Albany, New York. Reid & Wood, 1976, Ecology of Inland Waters and Estuaries, D. Van Nostrand Company, New York, New York. ' - 50 - 1 CRAMER k VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants ' Suffolk County Department of Health Services, 1982, Standards for Sub-Surface Sewage Disposal Facilities for Other Than Single Family Residences, Division of Environmental Health Services, Hauppauge, New York. Suffolk County Department of Health Services, 1985, Location of ' Contaminated Drinking Water Wells, Town of Southold, Bureau of Water Resources, Hauppauge, New York. ' Tourbier, J. Toby and Richard Westmacott, 1981, Water Resources Protection Technology, The Urban Land Institute, Washington, D.C. Woodward - Clyde Consultants, 1977, Assessment of Geohydrologic Conditions, North Fork and Shelter Island, Long Island, New York, Woodward-Clyde, Denver, Colorado. ' PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS: Hamilton, Charles, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Spalding, Roger, U. S. Fish and Wildlife, Wertheim National Wildlife. Ward, Richard, Ward Associates. 1 1 t 1 1 CRAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIATES - 51 - Envuonireatal and Planning Consalt"ts 1 Ln ;. TELEPHONE BOARD OF TORN TRUSTEES (516)765-1892 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 November 1, 1985 Mr. Thomas W. Cramer 63 Clifton Place Port Jefferson Station, New York 11776 Re: Wetland Application No. 312 Dear Mr. Cramer: The Southold Town Trustees by resolution adopted on October 30, 1985 determined that your application would be a Type 1 action and have a significant effect on the environment. The proposed project site is at the headwaters of the creek. Please address in the draft impact statement the impacts of the septic system, components r:nd leachate. Please give an accurate measure of what is going into the ground and if there are impacts, the nature of same on the intertidal marsh. Alternatives to a standard conventional cesspool sanitary system should be addressed also. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate contacting this office at the telephone number listed above. Very truly yours, Henry P. Smith, President Board of Town Trustees 1 / Ilene Pfifferling Secretary to Board HPS: ip cc: Trustees Conservation Advisory File - 52 - TELEPHONE ' BOARD OF TOW N TRUSTEES (516) 765-1892 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ' Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 ' S.E.Q.R.A. SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION ' NOTICE OF SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT ' APPLICATION NO. 312 NAME: Thomas W. Cramer ' This notice is issued pursuant to the provisions of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, Part 617 of Title 6 of the New York State Codes, Rules and Regulations, and Chapter 44 of the ' Southold Town Code, the Southold Town Trustees, as lead agency, does hereby determine that the action described below is a Type 1 action and is likely to have a significant effect on the environment and that a Draft Environmental Impace Statement is requested to be prepared. TYPE OF ACTION: Type 1 ' DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Construction of a 1545 sq. ft. two story frame single family residence with attached garage, deck, well and sanitary system. ' LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: Meadow Lane, Mattituck, Lot No. 42 of Mattituck Estates, County Tax Map No. 1000-115-5-7 ' REASONS SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: 1 . The intertidal marsh is extremely close to this property. 2. Within the marsh there are a variety of species of nesting t fowl. 3. Controversy over the development of this lot within the neighborhood itself. ' FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Contact: Henry P. Smith, President, Board of Town Trustees ' Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P. 0. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Copies to: Charles T. Hamilton, DEC, Stony Brook ' Commissioner Henry G. Williams Aram Terchunian, Coastal Management Program Stephen Mars, Corps of Engineers, N. Y. District ' Thomas W. Cramer Trustees Town Clerk' s Bulletin Board Conservation Advisory - 53 - Sall•�.z�.`•tp nib '�-�.._+q..:.M�+�a.`»m".: '."-"--.'�1 y�II �,aoq M3N VO~ \w4Mlfl —.`� 1ax� M.w» 1Auw»w �+Ma 1 :sue•'""'Q»".r ,-Mem+M TFo,I WM �ir�ROrwl � _ �414Wy�'M CV»�1 ,�y ' w11 wrT��• � :AA ®«rfK W� ».w.'G`�"���»�.'�E+.+n �1 T•�1- I 4+w'"�'�n 3 A 'rnw�F.4�aaF h ..a�•.a G',oHltiog�o WMny, 1tx\1111VW +wM omucM.o�u d.\+"ne•�'w� y,I/ — aMO� Mmr� �a..a•.r ..wwaa..,...w.,... :��F f IDIA ,welma'rHMac aw hv+na totv+ aNi � :<•W-..�.• M 1dIWvSN h9 'rea1�c- -nxyy .�rloAv\ �c'l -'d�311 �..y ,.w..w LGC•T`-yV J.el �y,�•J U � -vR,•.,n ems.+t r�xw3r ane`ccyyy tw•`.�« 'ti0 • TaIs1W.3 tiM YlWWI. �e J'Iy .J.I/y^-- 'OAN'Y.M�..•�`v.+�•rc -•'Wy TIT, •".:�� to us.w,..na ui.>•sa oar ci in��`a.na ! �1�I 1 o3Maav w. .. .,� 9Ab �3dS 11,','Of15,1t"dp N oz.I. OC/f1'MLn9 MllM 69111`YIO) � ' 1Y01 yMMW InOMM1�]IG ll. _ , o, F,�VvJ.ly •ol a » IF WA ++ cM=+o�l•�/ / 8 I // / �� / / G••+N.a+M+uu ~A.+awy s Iw e- FT.1 YOM' STATE A^.PAP,T:M T Or FPVI_nOiTIM"TTAL CONSERVATIO? . Regulatory Affairs Unit Bldg. 40, SU;Pf--Loom 219 ' Stony Brook, 81Y 11794 (516) 751-7900 Cl;� ( � �o�r �CPr-ers.,J a• lC7-7 � ' P.E: SCT'r�-% (a-Co, ws,-" CS)' 07 Dear MC- C c-,4 r, ' A review has been made of your proposal to; C,,._ f 3 s w-Fro-T� yvW-c<',l,c�.: c �, `' .a. 1�a� ..Crcilc• 0- 9 cil�...�t.�'..�.:.r.�. 0 0 p.Q t �Z iw, Q ce n,e^ elz� l8s U p Location: Y� 3�3� A7c`•k1� W.J New York State P.enartrent of Environmental Conservation has found the parcel _ project to be: Greater than 300' from inventoried tidal wetlands. Landward of a substantial man-made structure, greater than 100' in length constructed prior to September 20, 1977. ' ,zLandward of 10' contour elevation above mean sea level on a gradual, 44en al slope. C'•T;� Lan ward of topooranhical crest of bluff, cliff or dune in excess of 10' in elevation above mean sea level. Therefore, no permit under Article 25 (Tidal ! etlands of the Environmental ' Conservation Law) is required at this time since the current proposal is beyond State mandated jurisdiction pursuant to this act. ':01.7ever, any additional work or modifications to the project may require a permit. It ' is your responsibility to notify this office, in writing, if such additional %-York or modifications are contemplated. ' Very truly yours, C -�L,...�):_, 4.0,, Alternate Permit Administrator CTP:DT)R:co's ' - 55 - NESTING PATTERNS Excerpted From "Fieldbook of Natural History" Palmer and Fowler, 1975 Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodies) Breeds: Nova Scotia to southeastern British Columbia to Nebraska, South Carolina and Bermuda. Nests 1 and roosts in colonies either in rushes or in trees. Solitary except during breeding season. Colonies may include more than 150 nests. Nest: Nest is a platform of sticks, which may be used many years. Nests are large and very pronounced, especially during winter months when leaves are off trees. Large amounts of litter and debris associated with rookeries. Field Notes: No nesting, solitary specimen foraging on occasion. Snowy Egret (f7eucophoyx thula) Breeds: Along coast from North Carolina to Texas. Field Notes: Species foraging on occasion. Black Crown Night Heron (Nycticorax nycticorax) Breeds: From northern Oregon to Nova Scotia south to Patagonia, Argentina. Nest: Nests in great colonies. Nests are platform of sticks (sometimes eight nests to a single tree) , poorly lin A. with fine material. Large amounts of litter and debris associated with rookeries. Field Notes: No nesting, species foraging on occasion. ' Canada Goose (Branta canadensis) Breeds: Labrador to Mackenzie, south to Gulf of St. Lawrence. ' Field Notes: Species foraging on occasion. Mute Swan (Cyanus olor) Breeds: Probably mate for life. Introduced from Europe. Nest: Large nest on wetlands surrounded by water. ' Females increase size of nests as eggs are incubating until it may be 2 feet high by 6 feet across. Field Notes: Species foraging on occasion. - 56 - CRAMER do VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants 1 Other Notes: Do not get along well with other birds, cause significant reduction in populations of other wild species. ' Mallard Duck (Anas platyrhynchos) Breeds: Around Artic Circle south through United States ' to Virginia, more commonly in the west. Nest: Nests hidden in vegetation relatively near water. ' Field Notes: No nesting, species foraging on occasion. Black Duck (Anas rubripes) ' Similar habits to Mallard (above) . Numbers have been significantly reduced. Almost all breeding now takes place in the New England states. Wood Duck (Aix sponsa) ' Breeds: _ Most of United States. Nest: Usually in hollow trees, 3 to 50 feet above ground or water. ' Field Notes: No nesting or suitable nesting site on project location. ' Other Ducks Similar habits to Mallard (above) but less common. Several duck species would be expected to utilize ' the wetlands for foraging because of shallow water, protected from storms and hunting preserves. - 57 - CRAMER k VOORHIS ASSOCIATES Environmental and Planning Consultants - 58M All 5 To - ' GROUP R Y WASTEWATERPOLL NT M WATER RESOURCES F MEA SURE S TO CONSERVE WATER AND REDUCE SEWAGE PROTECTION MEASURES GENERATION TECHNOLOGY WATER SAVING PRACTICES/DEVICES, REUSE OF GREY WATER PURPOSE SITE CHARACTERISTICS&APPLICATION Measures to conserve water used in Applicable to all sites but particularly to those in areas subject to ' households will also reduce pollu- drought. The reuse of grey water for irrigation of open space can be tion from overloaded septic tanks valuable in drought-prone areas. In all areas, these measures will reduce and reduce loads on treatment both pollution from malfunctioning septic tanks and the cost of sewage works. Some of these measures treatment. _ involve changes in personal habits but developers can assist by installing equipment necessary for these changes to take place. ' ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES 1. Reducing water usage has the dual benefit of saving 1. Some of these measures require small changes in water and reducing treatment costs or the size of personal habits which may be resisted. septic tanks and drainage fields required. 2. Many of the measures here are frequently not permit- 2. These measures do not require lowering of personal ted under local building codes, which are often hygiene standards, nor are they more inconvenient inflexible and do not encourage innovation. than conventional systems. 3. Water has come to be regarded as an almost limitless 3. Some of these measures reduce hot water usage, resource. Before conservation measures can be ' thereby saving fuel. effective a concerted effort has to be made at all levels to change this attitude. REFERENCES& SUGGESTED READING ' (1) Konen, T.P. "European Plumbing Practices: Incentives for Change" (from Urban Water Conservation Conference, Sacramento, Calif. , January 16 and 17, 1976). (2) Warshall, P. Septic Tank Practices: A Guide to the Conservation and Re-Use of Household Wastewater. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books, 1979. (3) Madison County (NY) Planning Department. Alternative On-Site Systems Handbook. Wampsville, NY: (author), ' 1978. (4) ECOS, Inc. "Watershed." Boston, MA 02134. (5) Cohen, S. and Wallman, H. Demonstration of Waste Flow Reductions from Households. Washington: NTIS, undated. #PB 236 904/AS. (6) Konen, T.P. Plumbing Drainage Systems: Unnecessary Complexity of American Systems. Hoboken, NJ: Davidson Lab, Stevens Institute of Technology, 1976. (7) Kohler Co. "Showerheads and Water Closets." Kohler, WI 53044. (8) Colt Industries. "Water and Waste Management." Beloit, WI 53511. (9) Milne, M. Residential Water Conservation. Davis, CA: California Water Resources Center, University of ' California, 1976. (10) Water Resources Scientific Information Center. Water Conservation Devices--Residential Water Conservation. Washington: USDI, OWRT, 1977. ' DESIGN CRITERIA&OUTLINE SPECIFICATIONS The per capita water use in the U.S. is probably higher types which use 1 gal./flush instead of 2-4 gals./ than in any other counfyry in the world. It is 60% flush in conventional types. higher than the average for European countries (1). 1:5 There are now toilets available which use only The high usage puts a heavy lo,d on both water supply 1-3 quarts of water per flush, aided by a vacuum ' systems and on sewage treatment and disposal systems. system (Figure 1). This requires a 'special sewage In the case of on-lot sewage disposal, the large volume system. (Further data available from (8) and (9).) of wastewater frequently causes failure of septic tanks 1:6 Bathing in tubs uses considerably more water and drainage fields with consequent pollution problems. than taking a shower. In efficiency units developers Many of the measures on this sheet involve small changes can install only showers and for units with more in personal domestic habits which may seem inappropriate than 1 bathroom, only 1 of these should have a tub. for inclusion in this handbook, but changes in habits 1:7 Showerheads have highly variable delivery can be made much easier through ,installation of modified rates, from as high as 10 gals./min. to as low as plumbing fixtures, by changes in building codes to 0.5 gals./min. Developers should use low delivery allow innovative devices, and by effective public showerheads whenever possible. information programs. There are 3 major groups to whom 1:8 Flow controls cost from $.75 to $20 (some these recommendations apply. utility companies give the plastic version free of Developers and Architects. charge) and can be installed ahead of a fixture. A 1:1 Install only small capacity tanks on conven- variable flow control unit can maintain any flow tional toilets. These use only 2'-3= gals./flush ro��r compared with 5+ gals./flush for conventional tanks, or they utilize a pressurized flush toilet WaT4R Figure 1 that combines gravity and air pressure propulsion rvMIE1lrr01/ using about two quarts of water per flush (a 90% vp".Akl" A�Rpt saving over the conventional).1:2 In rehabilitation work, install tank "dams" %1cuum (available from plumber's suppliers) to hold back ►wr 1-2 gals./flush in the tank of existing toilets. 1:3 In powder rooms, etc. , install toilets with adual flush system, enabling only 4 flush to be used eo elflaa for urine. T"'�K 7e�rmeAr i 1:4 Consider the wider use of urinals it private W"v vwrw households. These ,urinals should be water-saving VALUGM Tzxt,E7 '5yVMAK W.LUDM TAtET ' DESIGN CRITERIA& OUTLINE SPECIFICATIONS 1continued) rate in spite of changes in line pressure. These rapidly effected. The last role is to require utility units are particularly useful in showerheads to companies to install meters for all consumers rather maintain water delivery rates under varying temper- than charging at a flat rate. Water saving practices ' atures (9). which can be included in a public awareness campaign 1:9 Aerators on taps will reduce the use of water include: considerably, for rinsing particularly. (1) Point out such obvious practices as plugging the 1:10 Developers should also consider the wider use sink while washing and not allowing the tap to run of small (6-8 gal.) extra fast recovery water while brushing teeth. ' heaters in appropriate locations where high volume (2) Impress upon consumers the large volumes of water delivery of hot water is not required (washing wasted by dripping faucets. machine, dishwasher, tub). This would result in (3) Consider sponsoring a free plumbing inspection savings of both water and fuel. program (in cooperation with groups of local plumbers) ' 1:11 Developers should not install garbage grin- to detect leaky systems and to identify modifications ders as standard equipment. These increase water which could result in significant savings. consumption considerably and the loading of solids (4) Show people how they can cut down water use by on septic tank and treatment systems. reducing the capacity of the toilet tank (using pebble- ' 1:12 Where washers are installed by the developer filled plastic bottles in the tank, for instance). as standard equipment, select machines with water level control to match the volume of water to size 3. The Public. Clearly all the above recommendations of wash. In large households a holding tank device directly or indirectly require the support and coopera- to allow water from the final rinse to be used for Lion of everybody and the awareness that clean water is ' refilling the tub where more than 1 load is to be not a free and limitless resource. - washed can save about 20 gals. per load. 4, Separation of Grey Water and Black Water. Lightly 1:13 Architects and developers will usually take polluted ' gre'—y waterer from the dishwasher, clothes ' care to minimize runs of pipe to reduce plumbing washer, tub, etc. , if separated from "black water" costs. Minimizing the length of hot water runs is (toilet wastewater) can theoretically be used safely especially important as large volumes of water run for irrigating the garden and even for reuse to flush to waste while waiting for it to run hot. toilets, etc. This reQuires a separate collection, 2. Local Government. Local government has 4 principal storage, and distribution system that has generally roles. The first is a public awareness program to show made reuse unattractive in view of the general low the public how to save water. The second is to make pricing of water. In addition there is undoubtedly a local building codes flexible enough to permit the psychological barrier to the reuse of grey water. utilization of innovative water saving devices (some of However, with the increasing scarcity and cost of ' which are listed under heading 1), composting systems water, local authorities should make sure that their (see Fact Sheet 6:2), etc. The third is to pass ordi- building codes are sufficiently flexible to permit the nances allowing emergency water use restrictions to be introduction of innovative and alternative systems. EXAMPLES 1. South Seas Plantation, near Fort Myers, Fla. Colt Industries, Water Management Operations (8). The Colt system installed at South Seas Plantation uses a community vacuum collection system serving 33 residences. Black water and grey water is collected within residences in separate waste systems, which then are com- bined. The vacuum system led to substantial savings in water use. The resultant BOD levels of wastewater are consequently higher (371 mg./1.) than wastewater from conventional systems. 2. The worth of water conservation devices can already be judged by their ability to give an adequate economic return on the investment made. Benefits from sample installations were reported by OWRT in ' 1977 (10). (See table '),.low.) COST GUIDELINES& MAINTENANCE ' The cost of installing water place/Or anization Device Cost Est. Benefits saving plumbing fixtures in new peon State Unrv. Shower Flow Control $15,-- $100,000 ear residences is not significantly Gettysburg College Shower Flow Control $ 5,000 $ 13,000/year more than for standard fixtures. Y ' Conversion of existing plumbing EPA study of eight Shower Flow Control $ 1 $2.62/ ear/home systems and fixtures will vary Y widely. As the cost of water San Diego homes Toilet Inserts $ 4 $6.30/year/home rises, particularly in drought- Dual Flush Cycle $ 5 $7.65/year/home prone regions, water saving Gettysburg, PA Shower Flow Control ' systems may become more compe- and Toilet Inserts -- _ $2,920,000 titive. Fed. Energy Admin. Shower Flow Control $ 1 $16.00/year IMPLEMENTATION & LEGAL IMPLICATIONS ' Few local ordinances actually require the use of water for showerheads is limited to 5 gals./min. Information saving plumbing fixtures in new developments, indeed, Source: 1980 phone conversation, Water Research Insti- many contain provisions which effectively ban their tute of the University of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC. use. North Carolina, in March 1979, amended the state- The plumbing code of the Washington Suburban Sanitation ' wide plumbing code to require water conserving water Commission was changed in 1972 making water conserving closets and showerheads in all new installations after fixtures mandatory in new buildings and as permanent April 1980. The maximum permissible flush volume for equipment (9). toilets is limited to 3.5 gals. and the delivery rate GROUP MEASURES TO MINIMIZE POLLUTION FROM SEWAGE AND TO RECYCLE WASTEWATER AND EFFLUEN"i A HANDBOOK OF MEASURES ' MEASURES TO CONSERVE WATER AND REDUCE SEWAGE TO PROTECT WATER RESOURCES :MEASURES GENERATION IN LAND DEVELOPMENT ED WATER SAVING PRACTICES/DEVICES REUSE OF GREY WATER =n — 60 — ��GROUP MEASURES TO MINIMIZE POLLUTION FROM SEWAGE AND TO RECYCLE WASTEWATER F WATER RESOURCES 6 SINGLE-FAMILY COMPOSTING TOILET AND ORGANIC KITCHEN PROTECTION MEASURES WASTE SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY INCINERATING AND CHEMICAL TOILETS PURPOSE SITE CHARACTERISTICS&APPLICATION Composting systems are simple in Especially applicable to sites where soil drainage is poor and septic tank concept and highly effective, drainage fields are ineffective, where rocky conditions or steep terrain relying on aerobic composting, as make the installation of a drainage field unfeasible or very expensive, or does the old-fashioned privy or in regions where water is very scarce. pit latrine, but adapted for modern domestic use within the residence. ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES 1. Water use is greatly reduced by both eliminating 1. Incinerating toilets have high energy requirements. water as a carrier of sewage and avoiding contami- 2. There are psychological objections from many who nation of grey water which can be used for garden feel that these systems are unhygienic, attract irrigation. flies, etc. 2. Compost produced in these systems is a valuable 3. The larger units are expensive, and the bulky soil additive and conditioner. nature of the composting bin and locational con- 3. Handles both human excreta and organic kitchen straints for the bin and lavatory pedestal make � waste. them difficult to fit into existing homes.4. Composting units are simple in concept and encourage 9 j greater self-reliance among homeowners and reduce 4• State and local building codes frequently do not dependence on centralized systems. permit the use of these systems. REFERENCES& SUGGESTED READING (1) Carr, Anna. "Alternative On-Site Waste Management," Journal of Waste Recycling, March 1979. (2) New Hampshire Supply & Pollution Control Commission. The Composting Alternative: Waste Disposal in Remote Locations. Concord, NH: (author), September 1978. ' (3) Ecos, Inc. "The Soltran Toilet." Boston, MA 02134. (4) Clivus Multrum USA, Inc. , 142 Eliot St. , Cambridge, MA 02138. (5) Environscope Inc. , P.O. Box 752, Corona Del Mar, CA 92625. (6) Humus Toilets Corp. , 8156 Jean Brillon St. , LaSalle, Quebec, Canada. (7) Recreation Ecology Conservation of U.S. , Inc. , 9800 W. Bluemound Road, Milwaukee, WI 53226. (8) The Farallones Institute, 15290 Coleman Valley Road, Occidental, CA 95465. (9) Warshall, P. Septic Tank Practices. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1979. DESIGN CRITERIA& OUTLINE SPECIFICATIONS ' 1. Composting Systems. The old-fashioned privy or pit moisture content of waste should be 45-75% (by weight). latrine was a composting toilet. Wastes were deposited The system is therefore a dry one and only small quan- in 1 of 2 pits where aerobic bacteria caused decomposition. tities of water and urine pass into the bin. Depending Decomposed waste or "night soil" from the other pit was on the capacity of the bin, composted material must be removed and usually spread on the garden. Vegetable removed periodically. It is odor-free and easy to and other organic household wastes were usually fed to handle and an excellent fertilizer that is quite safe chickens or pigs, and grey water simply was discharged to use on the garden. into a ditch or soak-away or was used to water the By avoiding contamination of wash water with excreta garden. In thi, way human excreta were kept separate and kitchen wastes, the "grey water" can either be used from other domestic waste and composted separately. In for watering the yard or it may be.discharged into a this system all waste could be easily recycled, there disposal system, which should include a grease trap and was extremely low water use, and it was cheap and a drainage field, simiiar but less extensive than the effective. But of course it was inconvenient, smelly, drainage field for a standard septic tank. Generally ' and attracted flies. As soon as the bathroom moved the larger composting units have been found to give indoors, a system was required to transport waste well trouble free operation without odor or fly problems. away from the house. This was most conveniently achieved 1:1 Large Capacity Composting Systems. The Clivus using water to carry waste in a pipe system, into which Multrum (4) and the Toa-Throne (5) are examples of ' kitchen and bathroom wastes were also discharged. This large capacity composting systems, designed to meant that all waste was contaminated with excreta, the receive human and organic kitchen wastes and capable volume was much larger, and domestic water use suddenly of handling overloads. These systems operate skyrocketed. Modern composting systems attempt to effectively without any mechanical parts but both ' realize the advantages of old-fashioned systems but to include ventilation fans which insure proper venti- make these acceptable by modern standards of hygiene. lation (low wattage-46w-110v). Both systems use an In effect the modern composting toilet uses an enclosed inclined bin in which wastes gradually move downwards chamber or bin located beneath the house to replace the as composting progresses. A door at the lower end pit. This is vented to provide the aerobic conditions enables homeowners to remove compost, usually once ' necessary for efficient composting and to avoid odor a year. Further details are shown in Table 1, or and fly problems. Most models on the market include a contact the manufacturer if further information is fan to insure the effectiveness of the ventilation desired. system. Bacterial activity in the composting process The Soltran toilet is also a large capacity, inclined- usually generates sufficient heat for the process to be bin composting system similar to the Clivus Multrum self-sustaining but cold weather will slow down the or Toa-Throne, but constant composting temperatures, process (optimum temperature is 200 C-550 C, 680 F-1310 excellent ventilation, and evaporation of excess F) and therefore, in order to maintain the compost bin moisture is provided by a solar panel, a heat ' at this temperature range several models include a storage space, and a system of vents (3). This thermostatically controlled heating coil. A small loss system is ideally suited for use in remote areas. of efficiency in the rate of composting during cold 1:2 Small Capacity Composting Toilets. These weather is not serious provided the compost bin is of systems are not designed to handle organic kitchen large enough capacity, and larger systems, therefore, waste. Because of the small capacity of tho compost ' do not usually use a heating coil. The larger systems bin, optimum conditions for composting must be are also designed to receive vegetable or organic maintained to insure rapid decomposition. •ion•:e kitchen waste. For ideal composting conditions, the the systems include a heating coil to maintain a 4 DESIGN CRITERIA& OUTLINE SPECIFICATIONS(continued) constant temperature in the bin and an electric fan to insure good ventilation and aerobic conditions. nnu „af u,rm urtn¢n An example of this type of composting toilet is the ' Ecolet shown in Figure 2. A layer of peat is r, «"' `"'°' „,".K ^,,,, •,,,;„,m,„ ^.••;• ,•,�;�„ti,« spread over the heating coils. The heating coil ••°•••° « «• °..• .,. nr.,,,•[ u,wo-n,us can„••«, auw,[,..also reduces the moisture content of the compost :;I.� " ,,,...,o,,...„,". .,,.,•,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,„ ,,,,,,,,,,,,,, which is powder dry on completion of composting. "' "•«°"•• °'•'• The collection tray must be emptied at least once ' per year. For additional information see Table 1. '•" -` "` '«'""' `"•'« :.'«;�"""' '• ,.� „. . « 2. Incinerating Toilets. Wastes are incinerated (gas or electric —�-after each use. Installations must be ���••�"••u ,.,"...:,...,:,". �,„,« �"",,,. ,,,,,., • vented properly and ash removed weekly. These systems ,wm: M,.rl,l,yl,p,y f[•,IM..„f.rl•,y, y,y„ ,,, «,�,.r,p•[ ' require regular maintenance, are energy consuming, and are not as trouble free as composting systems. 3. Chemical Toilets. Chemical toilets are used for recreational vehicles, building sites, campgrounds, and ' other temporary installations. In effect they are simply a holding tank which must be emptied periodical- ly. Chemicals are used for odor control and disinfection. ' Ypnl;AaGk. Ve„hilatirq f«^a+•a a CJ d'naucl-y{slrm b napoaa2 ogvW uw9e a,w ro Qerriar moez DnbtihAoe be �aeave.g,npt ' LIAR y PAn¢ Toilet Fbom It+mvwbH.,"h I�b,YrnisM�E i �` spaa 1 H(ia,($�q Caaelully InSUIGI[ whin (-0,lechtA TV, In vdyd, Figure 1. Typical Soltran contmrr,empmF bin `wCO„' "�(�-aaY) Hr&tN N wim lhs„,oslut. ' Source: ECOL Sy_tpmfto aim`3ah'te al fta Wm es w.x,2olt,pa+r a installation. diSP to runts b,l tarkema r'v. P.O. Box 261 Figure 2. Ecolet composting �„a,,.,NnyrOW05ih,,,r„QPAW Eagleville, PA 19408 toilet. foe cDrTo"p¢crs6 COST GUIDELINES& MAINTENANCE ' The 1977 cost of four types of composting units are capacity systems will not eliminate the problem of shown above. Installed costs will be very much higher separating organic kitchen wastes from wastewater, and for existing dwellings. Running and maintenance costs their overall cost effectiveness may be reduced because will be small for all models, particularly for the of this. large capacity composting systems. The smaller IMPLEMENTATION & LEGAL IMPLICATIONS At present, state regulations in Maine, Vermont, Califor- state codes was to prevent septic tank systems from nia, and New Hampshire permit the use of composting becoming a health hazard and to protect the consumer toilet systems. Massachusetts, Virginia, Oregon, and from contractors who might install badly designed or Georgia are considering changes in legislation to poorly located systems. Unfortunately most of the ' permit their use (1977) (3). In other states they may codes have not been updated. They need to address presently only be used in addition to a conventional themselves to all kinds of home-site sewage systems. system. Local building codes may also restrict the use They need to be written with built-in flexibility (9). of these systems. The original purpose of county and ' GROUP MEASURES TO MINIMIZE POLLUTION FROM SEWAGE AND TO RECYCLE WASTEWATER AND EFFLUENT A HANDBOOK OF MEASURES 6 ' SINGLE-FAMILY COMPOSTING TOILET AND ORGANIC KITCHEN TO PROTECT WATER RESOURCES MEASURES WASTE SYSTEMS IN LAND DEVELOPMENT INCINERATING AND CHEMICAL TOILETS Al - bt GROUP MEASURES TO MINIMIZE POLLUTION FROM SEWAGE AND TO ❑ RECYCLE WASTEWATER ANO EFF ENT WATER RESOURCES 6 FANAE7RPTIC Y ON-SITE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS PROTECTION MEASURES TANKS TECHNOLOGY 3 PURPOSE SITE CHARACTERISTICS&APPLICATION The purpose of a septic tank is to The absorptive characteristics of soil and subsoil are the major constrain- impound household wastewater for a ing factors affecting the use, siting, and performance of conventional sufficient period for solids to septic tanks. Even in ideal conditions septic tanks should generally not settle and for digestion by anaer- be used where lot sizes are less than 1 acre, and if domestic water obic bacteria to take place. supply is from private wells a 5- to 10-acre minimum is more appropriate. Clarified wastewater then passes Soils with a high or seasonably high water table * low permeability ' into a drainage field where it (usually indicative of a high clay content but sometimes due to a hard- percolates into the soil. Clarifi- pan or other impermeable stratum) are unsuitable for septic tanks, but cation reduces the problem of rapidly draining soils (coarse sands, for instance) may result in con- clogging. taminated wastewater polluting groundwater. ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES 1. Septic tanks are the most common form of on-lot 1. If the drainage field is overloaded due to under- sewage disposal and there is considerable expertise sizing, poor soil percolation, a fluctuating water ' available for installing, operating, and maintaining table, etc. , the septic tank will not function and these facilities. may be a serious health hazard. 2. Wastewater percolates into the ground rather than 2. If the soil is excessively permeable its filtering being piped downstream to a regional treatment effect may not be sufficient to protect the quality ' plant. Local groundwater, for supplying springs of groundwater. and seeps contributing to dry weather flow of 3. Drainage fields require large areas (2,000-3,000 streams, is replenished. sq.ft.) which may be difficult to accomodate, 3. The cost of installation and maintenance is borne particularly on steep or mainly wooded sites. directly by the consumer and is not a drain on 4. Some chemicals and strong disinfectants can reduce ' public funds. bacterial activity and harm the efficiency of a 4. Septic tanks properly installed require little septic tank. maintenance, have no moving parts, and are not 5. Anaerobic digestion results in an effluent of lower energy consumptive. quality than that with aerobic digestion. REFERENCES& SUGGESTED READING ' (1) Warshall, P. Septic Tank Practices. New York, NY: Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1979. (2) Northeast Michigan Council of Governments. Lakeland Report No. 14. Gaylord, MI: (author), 1976. ' (3) Home Sewage Disposal. Special Circular 212. University Park, PA: College of Agric. Coop. Ext. Service, Penn State University, May 1976. (4) Pollution Probe. Keep It Clean--A Manual for the Preservation of the Cottage Environment. Toronto: University of Toronto, undated. (5) New Castle County (DE) Dept. of Public Works. New Castle County Septic Tank Regulations. Newark, DE: ' (author), 1973. (6) Alternative Wastewater Management Association, P.O. Box 32240, Calvert Street Station, Washington, DC 20007. (7) Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. Evaluation of Wastewater Treatment Alternatives for Small Communities. Washington: National Utilit Contractors Assoc. , 1979. ' (8) The Chester Engineers. Alternative Structural and Non-Structural Tactics. Saginaw, MI: East Central Michigan Planning Development Commission, 1977. (9) National Water Well Assoc. Everything You Wanted to Know About Septic Tanks. Worthington, OH: (author), undated. ' DESIGN CRITERIA& OUTLINE SPECIFICATIONS The development of the modern septic tank is attributed (see Fact Sheet 6:5).) However, guidance on the suit- to two Frenchmen in the late 19th century. Until that ability of a site for disposal of septic tank effluent time, human excreta were usually deposited in a pit can be obtained by consulting USDA Soil Conservation ' latrine, where composting occurred. Consequently Service soil surveys for the county. It should be wastewater from washing, bathing, etc. was not contami- noted that soils which have a very high percolation nated with fecal matter and was usually discharged into rate will have a minimal filtering action on the ef- a pit, ditch, or onto open ground. With the introduc- fluent and may sometimes result in groundwater contami- tion of the water closet and combined household waste nation. Therefore, the maximum rate specified by many systems, the problem of disposing of large volumes of state and local ordinances is 5 min./in. Poor soil wastewater, contaminated with organisms hazardous to drainage characteristics and inadequate drainage fields human health, arose. The "cesspool" was simply a pit are major causes of failure of on-lot disposal systems. into which wastewater was discharged and filtered into Over 85% of on-lot disposal systems in the United ' the soil. It was inefficient for 3 main reasons. States are anaerobic septic tanks. Firstly, the soil around the cesspool became rapidly Nlawkuk Cayce alteerake ckra"cWk clogged with organic solids. Secondly, the area over which the wastewater could percolate was small. ' Thirdly, the cesspool often overflowed during wet IN C weather conditions when rainwater infiltrated and reduced the absorption caoacity of soil. --Y OuTtor Voy- The septic tank is a watertight tank in which solids - _ - — — - - A4= NOXW can settle and undergo digestion by anaerobic bacteria — -_ .r�Mi _ - 3•�mN INLET ' into soluble organic compounds and gases. The clarified wastewater is then passed into a drainage field which — is designed to spread water over a wide area. The — "p¢cWli actual extent of the drainage field depetids upon the lwas. permeability of the soil and subsoil. (Most state or5� ' ' ' local ordinances require a minimum percolation rate of 60 min./in. determined by an on-site percolation test Figure 1 Precast reinforced septic tank. DESIGN CRITERIA& OUTLINE SPECIFICATIONS(continued) The septic tank itself consists of one or more chambers. if the tank is manhandled into position, vehicular The tank must have sufficient capacity to insure a access to within 25 ft. of the tank is required by the detention time of at least 24 hours. This requirement tanker truck to permit sludge removal. usually results in a tank of 900-1,200 gals. for most State or local ordinances normally specify minimum new homes (standards of 300 gals. per bedroom or 150 distances from septic tank and drainage field to resi- gals. per person are also frequently used). Solids in dences, property boundaries, wells, and surface water. the tank either settle to the bottom or form a surface See (1) for a list of some minimum setbacks. Local ' crust. The action of anaerobic bacteria on these variations in the drainage characteristics of the soil solids results in their conversion into soluble organic on a site may be an important locational factor in compounds or gases. The sludge which remains builds up siting the drainage field, septic tank, and house site. slowly and removal every 2 to 3 years is normally Other factors may be slope characteristics and depth of recommended. soil to bedrock of water table (see Fact Sheet 6:5). ' The simplest form of precast concrete septic tank is -�mc�.o. / shown in Figure 1. Most tanks, however, contain at Figure 2 least 2 chambers which are usually arranged to maximize MPTICTA K v distance of flow between inlet and outlet. This mean- GREASE TZWG ' dering flow results in improved removal of solids. The longer the period of detention of sewage in the septic tank, the better its performance in removing solids from the sewage. Hence for a given septic tank capa- ci ty, reducing household water usage will significantly increase the detention time and therefore the efficiencyof the septic tank.The average quality of septic tank effluent is shownbelow: Septic Tank Raw Waste Effluent ivrbSWey . Biochemical oxygen demand 350 mg. 1. 150 mg. 1. Total suspended solids 400 mg./1. 140 mg./1. c,+mxT„y Total nitrogen 80 mg./1. 50 mg./I. ' Total phosphorous 20 mg./l. add add wcrr^ Fecal coliform bacteria 1 2DO 000/100 Mi. Source: 9) t Most septic tanks are constructed of reinforced concrete ',, , - - with a minimum thickness of 3 in. They are usually , „ transported to the site and lowered into a prepared excavation by a truck with a special lifting frame, and R+b.r+ra we vehicular access to the actual septic tank site must be 1 = bet~ ' ' possible. Where vehicular access is limited and manhand- �,y1d9pvo, 9„"p"a�u ling is necessary, fiberglass and plastic tanks are csnw R &Wm ¢Y available but are considerably more expensive than concrete tanks. It must also be remembered that even SEM(TANK b OWA$E TZAP DIMINO HITAU.Ka4 �'• � n,::. COST GUIDELINES&MAINTENANCE The delivered cost 1 7 of precast concrete septic scum can be measured using a piece of narrow board 4 tanks can be calculated using the formula: C = $125 + ft. x 1 in. x 4 in. with a piece of 6 in. x 6 in. x h, $0.15 (v-500) where: C = cost of equipment and delivery, in. ply hinged on the end. This can be pushed through ' -V = capacity of tank in gallons. The formula is reliable the crust of scum, the "flap" will drop into the hori- for tanks with a capacity of up to 1,800 gals. (not zontal position and when raised, will contact the including the absorption field) (8). 4 bottom of the scum layer, the depth of which can then In 1979 the septic tank/soil absorption system remains be estimated by marking the level on the board. The as the most cost effective system for small communities. same technique can be used to locate the bottom of the Its annual per capita cost has been estimated at $60 as effluent pipe baffle. If the distance between the compared to other systems that can have a cost as high bottom of the scum and the bottom of the effluent as $400 per capita per year (7). baffle is less than 3 in. the tank needs cleaning. The Though it is not possible to set a precise interval for consequence of not cleaning the system is solids washout, ' pumping accumulated sludge from septic tanks, once causing clogging of the disposal system. Septic tanks every 2 years is usual. A homeowner can test whether do not require additives for effective operation. the tank requires cleaning using a long pole with old Various products (enzymes, etc.) are marketed but white toweling wrapped around the end (for about 3 generally do not improve the performance of the septic ft.), as a "dip-stick" to measure the depth of the tank nor reduce the maintenance requirement. Care sludge. The pole should be pushed into the sludge near should be taken to minimize discharges of chemicals the outlet, held in position for 3 minutes, then with- (particularly darkroom and workshop wastes) and powerful drawn. If the level of the sludge, which will show up disinfectants into the tank. A slug of toxics that ' on the toweling, is less than 18 in. below the outlet, kills anaerobic bacteria can cause partial or complete the tank requires immediate cleaning. The depth of loss of treatment for up to 3 weeks. IMPLEMENTATION& LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Nearly all states and local building codes include well common might consider various measures to encourage ' established regulations for carrying out percolation homeowners to pay more attention to maintenance of tests, for calculating the required size of septic tank septic tanks. Keeping records of cleanouts and sending and drainage field, and for installing the facility. reminders when a clean-out is overdue is one such Local ordinances rarely cover maintenance but local measure. ' authorities in districts where septic tank failures are CROUP MEASURES TO MINIMIZE POLLUTION FROM SEWAGE AND TO RECYCLE WASTEWATERAND EFFLUENT A HANDBOOK OF MEASURES [:6D TO PROTECT WATER RESOURCES ' MEASURES SINGLE-FAMILY ON-SITE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS IN LANs DEVELOPMENT ANAEROBIC SEPTIC TANKS 3 - 63 - - 64 — GROUP MEASURES TO MINIMIZE POLLUTION FROM SEWAG A RECYCLE To ANO EFFLUENT WATER RESOURCES MEASURES SINGLE-FAMILY ON-SITE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS PROTECTION 6 ' AEROBIC SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY 4 PURPOSE SITE CHARACTERISTICS&APPLICATION 4 Aerobic digestion of sewage results Applicable to sites similar to those for se tic tanks in )i htl in an effluent of higher quality P 9 Y Populated ' Y areas. Soil percolation requirements are the same for both systems but than that from anaerobic systems anaerobic systems do not require as extensive a field disposal system. The for a given detention time. higher quality of effluent makes aerobic systems more appropriate However, open Pond aerobic s stems Ytableulthan Y conventional septic tanks on sites where a shallow .water table could result are impractical for on-lot disposal in groundwater pollution due to the percolation of effluent of inferior t l and a completely enclosed system quality. Aerobic systems are generally more suitable for cluster housing is required. This means that than for single dwelling units (see Fact Sheet 6:10). oxygen must be introduced into the wastewater by mechanical means. ' ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES 1. The quality of effluent from aerobic systems is 1. The need to introduce air into the tank requires erobic mechanical aeration equipment. higher than effluent from conventional ana This not only septic tanks, increases the cost, but also requires regular 2. A slightly smaller drainage field is required for maintenance and reduces the reliability of the aerobic systems than for anaerobic systems, due to system. the lower susceptibility of the field to clogging 2. Like conventional septic tanks, aerobic systems by suspended solids. require a drainage field. Constraints, ' 3. Like septic tanks, water from aerobic systems particularly soil drainage characteristics, affecting the loca- percolates into the ground helping to maintain thin of the drainage field may prevent the use of groundwater supply to springs and seeps. this system. 4. On-lot disposal of wastewater causes less disrup- 3. Aerobic systems have not been as well proven as tion to the local hydrologic balance than regional conventional septic tanks and many local ordinances sewerage and treatment. do not Dermit their use. ' REFERENCES&SUGGESTED READING (1) The Chester Engineers. Alternative Structural and Non-Structural Tactics. Saginaw, MI: East Central Planning and Development Region, 1977. (2) National Water Well Association. Everything You Wanted to Know About Septic Tanks. Worthington, OH: (author), undated. (3) Home Sewage Disposal. Special Circular 212. University Park, PA: College of Agric. Coop. Ext. Service, Penn State University, 1976. (4) Multi-Flow, Inc. , Multi-Flow Water Recycling System, RS-1, Dayton, OH 44309. '. (5) Cromoglass Corp. , P.O. Box 3215, Williamsport, PA 17701. DESIGN CRITERIA&OUTLINE SPECIFICATIONS The simplest form of aerobic treatment is the shallow oxidation pond or ditch, where sewage is impounded and Yam/' Figure 1. Two-chamber subjected to bacterial decomposition in the presence of aeration tank with sludg -oxygen (see Fact Sheets 6:8 and 6:9). The shallowness return. and the large surface area of the pond result r ?era- ' tion of the wastewater. However, although such a wet system may be appropriate for a small community I , open, • � sewage-filled ponds or ditches on individual lots would J! clearly be a health hazard. Hence the need to confine - ' the sewage in a completely endiosed tank which must &V^kZ also be watertight to prevent infiltration of ground- water. This, however, eliminates natural aeration and _�- hence air must be introduced into the tank artificially using various aeration devices. These, of course, ' require energy and maintenance. These factors all tend to reduce the dependability of small aerobic systems. Like a conventional septic tank, the most basic aerobic N 2 Fs a variation of the tank shown in Figure 1 � Rr. system consists of one chamber with an aerator and a Figure 2 is a ' baffled outlet to the drainage field. However, in in that it contains 3 chambers, a settling chamber practice, tanks using at least 2 chambers are used for where large solids settle out and an aeration and improved performance. A simple, prefabricated rein- clarifying chamber. Figure 2. Three-chamber forced concrete aeration tank is shown in Figure 1. 1. ATTWK4,:Ns SEP. .9 aeration tank. ' Aeration is achieved by means of a simple mixing rotor. 2.AE7aTior+ _ Successful experiments have been carried out using 3 CUIUFYlN[, " Q © 0 windmills and other Power sources to drive these rotors, but a small electric motor is most commonly used. This - • �� - is usually controlled by a time switch allowing inter- mittent operation. Of course, mechanical parts must be located for easy access for maintenance. Most of the _ digestion occurs in the main "aeration" chamber. - Effluent then passes into a "settling" or "clarification" ' . Figure 3 shows a variation of the aeration system in chamber before discharging into the drainage field. Sludqe which settles out in the settling chamber is Figure 2. In this system, a compressor is used to returned to the aeration chamber where further digestion inject air into the sewage, causing both mixing and occurs. Due to the more complete oxidation and digestion aeration. As in Figure 2, both an aeration and clari- ' of sludge, the rate of accumulation is slower than in a fication chamber are used but these are arranged concen- conventional anaerobic tank, and, consequently, sludge trically. Raw sewage is introduced into the central removal is necessary only once every 2-3 years. aeration chamber. The entire unit is constructed of fiberglass. ' DESIGN CRITERIA& OUTLINE SPECIFICATIONS (continued) .�..�. -- standards, and unless the problem is corrected im- mediately, the capacity of the drainage field will quickly be exceeded. Occasionally there may be problems, for instance, rags wrapping around the rotor causing —+ overheating and failure, the buildup of sludge, or excessive foaming due to detergents. In some areas a :d 0 high frequency of power cuts or failures may be a problem. The State of Pennsylvania Standards for Sewage Disposal Facilities indicate that the minimum liquid capacity of an aerobic treatment tank for a ,n J�, 'o.oN.rorie single-family residence should be either 100 gallons per bedroom or 400 gallons, whichever is larger. An aerobic system can also be used as a water-saving device by recycling flushing water. One particular unit that is on the market (Figure 4) relies on a Figure 3. Aerobic tank , _H r,aw`�y"' combined technique of aerobic digestion and filtration ' using concentric chambers. before effluents are passed through a charcoal filter and chlorination system prior to being reused as clear, Authorities which permit aerobic systems usually base odorless toilet-flushing water (4). Transport from the the required effluent quality on standards set by the filter unit to the toilet tank is facilitated through a American Public Health Association. Effluent should pressure-actuated pump. , The standard unit has a 500 ' have an average 5-day BOD not exceeding 35 mg./l. and gpd capacity to serve a 6-person household. suspended solids should not exceed 100 mg./1. (The equivalent quality of septic tank effluent is 135 mg./I. and 140 mg./I. respectively). ' In certain circumstances (for instance, when soil drainage characteristics prevent the use of individual Figure 4. drainage fields for effluent disposal), it may be Wastewater recycling system. feasible to install individual aerobic systems for each dwelling unit in a cluster and use a sewerage system to collect partially treated effluent for final treatment in a polishing pond or disposal by land application 7hm (see Fact Sheets 6:8 and 6:11). This system would tend _', �--- ' to buffer the impact of individual failures but the L4^ need for a collection system would increase costs considerably. In addition, "hybrid" systems such as these are likely to cause delays in obtaining the necessary permits. When aeration mechanisms fail to AMAA"V ' operate, an aerobic tank will behave more or less like n"'r an undersized septic tank. The detention period will a �a Fuaz not be sufficient for effluent to meet the required ,g1pR sc "�0N('ram EXAMPLES ' Field tests by the Jet Aeration Company of Cleveland, Ohio, found individual household aerobic sewage systems Jet Aeration Septic Tank particularly useful in the reduction of the biological Bio. oxygen demand 10-40 ppm 120-140 ppm oxygen demand and suspended solids of units using Dissolved oxygen 4-6 ppm None ' garbage grinders, which are not usually recommended for Suspended solids 9-60 ppm 150-350 ppm use with septic tanks. The following table compares Coliform count Usually less than More than the performance of aerobic units and anaerobic septic 50,000/100 ml. 400,000/100 ml. tanks when garbage grinders were in use. ' COST GUIDELINES & MAINTENANCE Depending on various factors (proximity of power supply, Regular maintenance is abolutely essential as failure type of system, etc.) aerobic units will probably cost of aeration devices will rapidly lead to an overload of between $500-$2,500 more than a conventional septic the system and a serious health hazard. Hence some ' tank, including installation costs. To this must be states will only approve these systems after homeowners added the utility costs for running the compressor have signed a maintenance agreement with a local company. and/or aerator and the cost of maintenance of mechan- Most units sold are equipped with automatic warning ical parts. There will be some savings in the cost of devices to notify the homeowner when the system is ' the drainage field and in the frequency of clean-outs malfunctioning. Homeowners should keep replacement required but these are not very significant. parts on hand or ensure that their dealer or mainte- nance company carries them in stock. IMPLEMENTATION & LEGAL IMPLICATIONS The State of Pennsylvania Standards for Sewage Disposal DER will provide local agencies with a current list of Facilities reads, Aerobic sewage treatment tanks shall acceptable aerobic tanks. It also states, "Every not be approved unless said tank has been found by the aerobic sewage treatment tank shall be equipped with a Department (of Environmental Resources) to be in con- visual or audible alarm system which shall be designed formance with the National Sanitation Standard No. 40, to respond to any electrical or mechanical failure or dated November 13, 1970." The standards indicate that malfunction of the tank or any component thereof." ' GROUP MEASURES TO MINIMIZE POLLUTION FROM SEWAGE AND TO RECYCLE WASTEWATER AND EFFLUENT A HANDBOOK OF MEASURES 6 ' SINGLE-FAMILY ON-SITE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS TO PROTECT WATER RESOURCES MEASURES AEROBIC WASTEWATER AND EFFLUENT IN LAND DEVELOPMENT r — 65 — ' GROUP MESURES TO MINIMIZE POLLUTION FROM SEWAGE AND TO RECAYCLE WASTEWATER AND EFFLU ENT WATER RESOURCES MEASURES SINGLE-FAMILY ABSORPTION FIELDS, SEEPAGE BEGS, DUAL PROTECTION 6 ' DRAINFIELDS, SEEPAGE PITS TECHNOLOGY 5 PURPOSE SITE CHARACTERISTICS&APPLICATION After anaerobic digestion in a The absorptive characteristics of soil and subsoil will determine the ' septic tank or aerobic digestion effectiveness of any soil absorption system. Consequently they constitute 1 in an aerobic system, clarified the major constraining factor affecting the use, the siting, and the per- effluent must be infiltrated into formance of septic tanks. Even in ideal conditions, septic tanks should jthe soil. The filtering effect not be used on sites of less than 1 acre and if water is drawn from a and the microbial activity in the private well a 5- to 10-acre minimum is most desirable. Soils with a soil also result in an improvement seasonably high water table or low permeability (usually indicative of a in effluent quality, reducing the high clay content but sometimes due to "hard pan" or other impermeable danger of groundwater pollution, strata) are unsuitable for septic tanks, and rapidly draining soils (coarse ' sands for instance) may result in contaminated wastewater reaching the groundwater. ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES 1. All soil absorption systems result in an improve- 1. Absorption fields installed in soils with an inade- ment of effluent quality and are an integral part quate percolation rate or a fluctuating water table of an on-lot disposal system. On-lot absorption will always give trouble. results in minimum disturbance of local hydrologic 2. Even absorption fields correctly sited and installed conditions. are subject to clogging by organic sediment. 2. Modified absorption systems can be used to improve 3. Absorption fields (particularly those of agricultural ' the long-term performance of the absorption field. clay tile drains) are subject to damage by heavy 3. Dual drainfields can be used to improve the long-term machinery and clogging by tree roots. performance of the absorption field. 4. There is considerable local expertise in most areas ' for installation of conventional absorption fields. REFERENC G ES& SUGGESTED READING (1) Warshall, P. Septic Tank Practices. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1979. (2) Alternate Methods of Effluent Disposal, Special Circular 214. University Park, PA: College of Agric. Coop. ' Ext. Service, Penn State University, 1975. (3) Madison County (NY) Planning Department. Alternative On-Site Svstems Handbook. Wampsville, NY: (author), 1978. (4) Hancor, Inc. "Dual Drainfields," 1978. ' (5) "Individual Onsite Wastewater Systems," National Sanitation Foundation Conference Proceedings. • Ann Arbor, MI: Ann Arbor Science, 1978. (6) Home Sewage Disposal. Special Circular 212. University Park, PA: College of Agric. Coop. Ext. Service, Penn State University, 1976. DESIGN CRITERIA& OUTLINE SPECIFICATIONS On-lot sewage disposal systems consist of 2 main components.' The first is the tank in which raw sewage is collected and undergoes digestion (which may be anaerobic - Fact Sheet 6:3, or aerobic - Fact Sheet 6:4) and clarification. The second is an absorption system via which the wastewater percolates through the soil and ' subsoil, eventually to the groundwater. This system has 2 main functions: to insure effective distribu'.ion and percolation of wastewater into the soil and to act as a filter, absorbing some pollutants and microbial action which further improves the quality of the wastewater and prevents groundwater pollution. Hence the drainage characteristics of the soil and .subsoil are of vital importance and are the principal factors in sizing the system. Size is usually based eomewhat arbitrarily on number of bedrooms or per capita and on a soil percolation ' test. The method used by almost all regulatory authorities for determining the Table 1 suitability of the soil for on-lot sewage disposal is the percolation test. Procedures for administering and the standards which are imposed as a result Perc. Rate ' will vary from state to state. The test should be performed during the (min./in. ) Max. Loading wettest season of the year. A minimum of 3 holes are normally used, 13-14 1 gals /sq ft /dav in. in diameter to varying depths. Place 2 in. of coarse sand in the bottom 2 2.5 of the hole and presoak with up-to 8 in. of clean water. When this has 3 2.0 ' soaked away, pour clean water into the hole to exactly 6 in, deep. Record 4 1.6 the time it takes for the level to drop 1 in. , top up, and repeat. This 5 1.4 reading in minutes per inch is used to determine the loading rate of the 10 1.0 absorption field. Use the loading rates in Table 1 only as a guide and make 20 0. 72 sure to check the testing procedure and the permissible rates in your state. 30 .48 ' Slow draining soils will result in slow percolation of 40 0. 2 wastewater. Excessively rapid percolation will reduce 60 0.36 the filtering effect and microbial activity in the soil : and may result in groundwater pollution. Generally Source: (1) on-lot sewage disposal systems are not very effective e, in removing nitrogen from wastewater and nitrogen also �"(°P^O✓�`*IP'�PR-i tends to be quite mobile in the soil, sometimes caus'so I high levels of nitrogen in shallow aquifers. ' ng The following minimum distances from absorption fields are a requirement of most state or local codes: water supply wells ft. , springs or perennial streams D (upslope) 50 ft.t. , downs lope 100 ft. , buildings 20 ft. , ' water mains 10-25 ft. , property boundary 10 ft. (com- munity water supply) or 25 ft. (individual water supply). Figure 1. Absorption or tile field. ' DESIGN CRITERIA& OUTLINE SPECIFICATIONS(contlnued) 1. Conventional Absorption or Tfle Fields. These are Sealed joints connect different levels, as shown in the most frequently used absorption systems. The site Figure 3. The construction details for the gravel-filled should have a slope of less than 10% and the percolation trenches are the same as for conventional absorption rate should not be less than 60 min./in. (Most states fields. and/or local ordinances specify percolation tests as a r condition for septic tank approval.) A "continuous distribution" system is the most frequently used. ' Effluent from the septic tank flows into distribution box (usually via a 4 in. sewer pipe) from m which it lul flows into the absorption field. This consists of several lines of agricultural tile drains (4 in. diameter) or perforated plastic pipe. These are set in gravel or ' crushed stone in trenches 24-36 in. deep at a minimum spacing of 6 ft. Grade stakes should be set in the �=.• � ,.. pi12 middle of each trench and driven to establish a 2 in. Figure 3 SERIAL M1113evTIM- KWO U, wn"c�w+nmr+ra. fall per 50 ft. (see Figure 2). A grade board should be set on edge and nailed to the stakes and crushed 3. Seepage Beds (Figure 4). Many local authorities stone (�-2h in.) placed over and around the pipe to a permit the use of seepage beds. These take up less minimum depth of 12 in. The gravel should be covered area than a standard absorption field. By setting the in asphalt paper (or 2 in. straw) and the rest of the tile field in a continuous gravel bed rather than ditch backfilled with soil. The extent of the absorp- ditches, the effective absorption surface is increased. ' tion field will depend upon the percolation rate and However, the percolation rate of the soil should be - requirements will also vary from state to state. The good and the ground slope should not exceed 8%. Seepage - beds are useful on sites where there is a limited flat - or gently sloping area suitable for absorption. ' - 4. Seepage Pits (Figure 5). Most drainage regulations do not permit the use of seepage pits for disposal of sewage effluent containing fecal matter. Where drainage systems separate sullage• (grey water) from sewage ('I+^iwts] lunvorte (black water), it may be permissible to dispose of sullage by way of a seepage pit which is effective in Figure 2 --= �,'; Edz_ deep, well-drained soils. Sewage Facilities Act as amended (Act T" ""' -� l' mortse ' 537) is the basic law governing home Cam wtlhviceus pwe hul sewage disposal in Pennsylvania: 175 90M M lil"pe— PoQlafhdPvCzR ganAIt" sq.ft. bedroom of absorption area is ac2'l0A*If hkswRAcpmyp, �' required when the percolation rate is L na,Ialnc rs i between 6-15 min./in. ; 330 sq.ft./ lank _ r• ,M t �• ! / bedroom when the percolation rate is from 46-60 min./in. (divide sq.ft. to , determine length of trench required) i- ' 2. Absorption Fields on Steep Slopes. m ""�"'xrl T c:: The "continuous distribution system ,I already described is not suitable for use on slopes greater than 10%. When N %�'/ .. o�'� Figure 5 xrr.6c rR a""^a».el "serial distribution" should be used W ; ,I --- ---,6;;-,.;sym--- -'1 (on slopes up to 20%) shallow bedrock � = may be a constraining factor to the ' use of absorption fields on steep slopes - so beware. The serial Figure 4 $E®A(,�BED.ndio..rwe distribution field is laid out along g the contour with sections of pipe. Rijr°9'' ' COST GUIDELINES& MAINTENANCE The cost of a conventional field is between $6 and $9 sediments, damage to pipes from heavy machinery, and ' per foot of trench in good conditions (steeply sloping clogging of the pipes by tree roots can all cause sites will be more costly). Thus, for a total of 500 failure. Little can be done about clogging causing ft. of drainage line the field will cost $3,750 reduction of percolation other than extending the (3-bedroom house) and 700 ft. will cost $5,250 field, preferably with provision for alternate dosing ' (5-bedroom house) (estimated using (6)). (see Dual Drainfields, Fact Sheet 6:7). Make sure to Failure of absorption fields is usually due to instal- keep heavy vehicles from crossing the absorption fields lation on soils with inadequate percolation rate or and avoid planting trees within 25 ft. of drain lines. shallow or fluctuating groundwater. Maintenance cannot Make sure to keep a plan of the location of your absorp- cure these problems. However, even on soils with tion field. adequate percolation, clogging of the soil by organic IMPLEMENTATION& LEGAL IMPLICATIONS State and local ordinances generally specify precise office of the Soil Conservation Service (USDA) who will ' requirements concerning the siting and construction of be able to advise on the percolation characteristics of septic tanks and absorption fields. Development proposals the soil type in the area. The purchase of a lot may for sites not suitable for on-lot sewage disposal may also be made conditional upon achieving a satisfactory not be granted a building permit. If you are considering percolation test result, as administered by the state purchasing land for home construction consult the local agency. �GROUP _1I MEASURES TO MINIMIZE POLLUTION FROM SEWAGE AND TO _J RECYCLE WASTEWATER AND EFFLUENT A HANDBOOK OF MEASURES 6 TO PROTECT WATER RESOURCES ' MEASURES 'SINGLE-FAMILY ABSORPTION FIELDS, SEEPAGE BEDS, DUAL IN LAND DEVELOPMENT DRAINFIELDS, SEEPAGE PITS 5 - 67 - _ MEASURES TO MINIMIZE POLLUTION FROM SEWAGE AND TO — 68 ' GROUP RECYCLE WASTEWATER AND EFFLUENT WATER RESOURCES 6 SINGLE-FAMILY ALTERNATIVE EFFLUENT DISPOSAL SYSTEMS PROTECTION ' MEASURES - ELEVATED SAND MOUNDS TECHNOLOGY SAND FILTER TRENCH - EVAPOTRANSPIRATION BED G PURPOSE SITE CHARACTERISTICS&APPLICATION To dispose of septic tank or These systems may be permissible for the disposal of effluent from septic ' aerobic tank effluent, utilizing tanks or aerobic tanks when soil is either (1) too shallow due to shallow 1 the filtering action of the soil bedrock or a fluctuating water table or (2) has an insufficient percolation but on sites where the natural rate for a conventional absorption system. An elevated filter bed using soil conditions limit the use of trench distribution can be used on slopes of up to 12%. ' conventional absorption systems. ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES 1. These systems continue to make use of the filtering 1. Many state and local ordinances only permit these action of the soil, which is a simple and effective systems under special circumstances (if at all). ' low-cost system of improving quality. 2. Filter trenches rely on some discharge into surface 2. Small on-lot disposal systems have the least impact water. Regulations may prohibit this practice. on the local hydrologic balance and these alterna- 3. Elevated sand mounds occasionally freeze during the tive systems make their use possible on sites winter, restricting their use. ' unsuitable for conventional absorption fields. 4. Systems which rely on evapotranspiration will not 3. Systems which rely largely on evapotranspiration function during the winter dormant season and are can often be used where site conditions preclude thus suitable only in southern states. any percolation of effluent into the ground. 5. All these systems require monitoring to ensure ' their performance does not deteriorate and sand filters will require periodic replacement. REFERENCES& SUGGESTED READING ' (1) Warshall, P. Septic Tank Practices. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1979. (2) Alternate Methods of Effluent Disposal. Special Circular 214. University Park, PA: College of Agric. , Coop. Ext. 5erv. , Penn State University, 1975. (3) Madison County (NY) Planning Department. Alternative On-Site Systems Handbook. Wampsville, NY: (author), 1978. ' (4) Bernhart, Alfred P. Treatment and Disposal of Waste Water from Homes by Soil Infiltration and Evapo- transpiration. Toronto: University of Toronto, 1973. (5) Alternative Wastewater Management Association, P.O. Box 32240, Calvert St. Station, Washington, OC 20007. (6) For more information call the EPA National Clearinghouse for Innovative and Alternative Technology involving ' small wastewater flows (toll free 800-624-8301), Centennial House, West Virginia University,. Morgantown, WV 26506. (7) Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. Evaluation of Wastewater Treatment Alternatives for Small Communities. Washington: National Utility Contractors Assoc. , 1979. ' (8) EPA Technology Transfer, Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater. Washington: (author), 1977. EPA 625/1-77-008. (9) Otis, R.J. and Stewart, D.E. Alternative Wastewater Facilities for Small Unsewered Communities in Rural America. Madison, WI: Small-Scale Waste Management Project, University of Wisconsin, July 1976. (10) Bouma, J. , et al. "An Experimental MOr system for Disposal of Septic Tank Effluent in Shallow Soils Over ' Crevised Bedrock" from Proceedings of the International Conference on Land for Waste Management, Ottawa, Canada, October 1973. DESIGN CRITERIA& OUTLINE SPECIFICATIONS In the event of soil or site conditions being unsuitable fall of 2 in. per 50 ft. (Figure 1); or the distribution ' for a conventional absorption field or one of the lines may be set with a minimum spacing of 5 ft. on a modifications described on Fact Sheet 6:5, there are 3 continuous bed of sandy loam with a minimum depth of 24 alternatives which may be feasible. It should be noted in. over which is spread a 12-in. layer of gravel or that most state and local regulations allow the use of crushed stone (Figure 1). The configuration of either ' these systems only in special circumstances and are system is normally a closed loop or a series of closed conditional upon varying specifications. Some do not loops like those for the seepage bed described on Fact permit their use at all. Sheet 6:5. The effective size of the mound on the All systems described on this sheet are for use only absorption area covered by the sand should be calculated ' where soil or other conditions make the use of moregU, ^uaww d�ia7PwQ conventional systems impossible. These systems are �� 1,V41*„11 more costly and generally have a lower performance than %tv-AC, conventional systems. Consequently any measures which can be taken to decrease the load will considerably improve the system's performance. Water saving devices described on Fact Sheet 6:1 should be used whenever feasible and the use of a "dry" composting toilet system such as the Clivus Multrum could further reduce ,..w "' ,�, �' ``� - •.:• \�� ' the quantity of sewage effluent. 1. Elevated Sand Mounds. The elevated filter bed ''t continues to rely upon percolation of wastewater into 0y10"" ' r ;;;'-:1 �����• Draw the soil but to a far lesser extent than conventional s; ,J;.� ' systems. The system consists of perforated plastic or b ",.,�- IE"+�"m�..�2a'm .a agricultural tile distribution lines, as in a conven- fw --i tional system, but these are set into a raised bed of EtEVArED 5 ANO MOLm0. 51pg94 "diceme .,� p12 well drained sandy loam soil. The clay content of this Figure 1 ' material should be between 5 and 15% (by weight). on the basis of 330 sq.ft. per bedroom or 1.65 sq.ft. Lines may be in 24-in.-wide trenches, with 24 in. of per gallon of effluent per day. If an aerobic tank is sand in the bottom, then 12 in. of crushed stone on used, the basis is 220 sq.ft. per bedroom or 1.10 which the distribution line is laid with a longitudinal sq.ft. per gallon per day. ' DESIGN CRITERIA&OUTLINE SPECIFICATIONS(continued) Sand mounds filter wastewater, absorbing some of the minutes per inch (as compared to up to 60 minutes nutrient, and improve the quality of effluent which permitted for conventional methods). reaches the original soil. They also reduce the volume 3. The Evapotranspiration Bed. This system relies to ' of wastewater by encouraging the evapotranspiration of a minimal extent on percolation of effluent into the water from the grass which grows on the mound. ground. Indeed this may be prevented by an impervious This system is most appropriate where the soil has membrane. Instead it relies on evaporation and trans- adequate drainage properties but an insufficient depth piration of water by plants growing on the bed, and for installation of a conventional absorption field. consequently it is only suitable in areas where evapo- ' 2. Sand Filter Trench. The effluent is distributed transpiration is not interrupted by a winter dormant via a perforated plastic distribution line set in season. The system is thus particularly suitable for gravel or crushed stone 12 in. below the ground. The sections of California, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, distribution line is set on a 6-in. gravel bed with at and Texas where the potential evapotranspiration is 50 ' least a 12-in. gravel cover. The trench below the in. more than mean annual precipitation (8). distribution line should have a minimum depth of 2 ft. The plants growing on the bed will also utilize much of below the pipe to contain sandy fill. Figure 2 shows a the nutrient in the effluent, and to ensure most effec- hypothetical installation of a sand filter trench for tive utilization, plant growth should be periodically ' poorly drained soils. Effluent filters through at harvested. The system will give improved performance least 2 ft. 6 in. of coarse sand and then 9 in. of if it is kept well aerated. This can be done by venting crushed stone. An underdrain, preferably 4-in. agri- the system as shown in Figure 4. - cultural tile, collects the leachate and conducts it to '� VP�etahon' a chlorination chamber where disinfection takes place ' prior to discharge into a surface water system or into a trench drain. Local health authorities usually place stringent conditions on the use of these systems, particularly on the discharge of any effluent into i ' surface water, usually by special exception only. The / • sand filter will need replacing every 7-12 years. ThisY (` system may be used sites with excessively well - _.loom / •::'. drained soil where the percolation rate is less than 6 • � � RMRFd� R•�ayxasro�e Figure 3. Evapotranspiration (during growing season). sRlo','a�ppe 4Nvlilm TopwL Sar Crun'e1 IWnt 6�Cnrshed � TapwL oRGw,el y .�iyp� :.. .. son¢ae Gcavn, I Rt ropY� 1,�mr mn q 9��uivmivn — � film ae paRwc. �—_ y III I 6 B i•�.�— '� rd bsale. Figure 2. Sand filter trench. 5ed , Figure 4 'EXAMPLES 1. Small Scale Waste Management Project, University of Influent Effluent Wisconsin (9). BOO mg. 1. 90 0 The soil mound system was designed to be dosed at 5 Total Nitrogen mg./1. 62 56 ' cm./day (2 in.) but this was reduced to 16.3 cm./ Total Phosphorus mg./1. 15 8 week (6.4 in.). Dosing was carried out through a Fecal coliforms/ml. 2 500 5 network of 1 ft. PVC pipes. The performance of the Source: (10) system in reducing pollutants is given opposite. 'COST GUIDELIRTS& MAINTENANCE These systems are for use only in exceptional circum- evapotranspiration systems has been estimated as $276.87 stances and each will require individual design. The per person (7). average 1979 capital cost of a mound system is approx- imately $4,500. Sand filters require an annual re- 1979 Cost Effectiveness placement of the top 4 in. of sand to prevent clogging. lb. BOO Removed Cost of installation has been estimated at $143 per Septic Tank Sand filter $4.35 person per year with an additional maintenance and Septic Tank/Mound $5.74 operations cost (including electricity for dosing pump) Septic Tank/Evapotranspiration $7 80 of $57.14 per capita. The yearly capital cost for Source: (7) IMPLEMENTATION& LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Stringent conditions for the installation, use, and mendations for the use of alternative absorption field ' management of alternative on-lot effluent disposal systems developed by the Technical Advisory Committee systems are likely to be imposed by local or state of the Triangle J Council of Governments. State health authorities where such systems are permissible. Evapo- organizations should develop guidelines for the use of transpiration beds are illegal in many states. In alternative systems so as to promote more consistency North Carolina, County Boards of Health can use recom- among local regulations. ' GROUP MEASURES TO MINIMIZE POLLUTION FROM SEWAGE AND TO RECYCLE WASTEWATER AND EFFLUENT A HANDBOOK OF MEASURES SINGLE-FAMILY ALTERNATIVE EFFLUENT DISPOSAL SYSTEMS TO PROTECT WATER RESOURCES 'ESURES - ELEVATED SAND MOUNDS IN LAND DEVELOPMENT SAND FILTER TRENCH-EVAPOTRANSPIRATION BED Fn _ - 70 — ' GROUP RECYCRESWAOSTEWATER2AND0EFFLUENTFROM SEWAGE AND TO WATER RESOURCES DOSING SYSTEMS TO IMPROVE PERFORMANCE IN PROTECTION 6 t MEASURES ABSORPTION FIELDS TECHNOLOGY DUAL DRAINFIELDS, INTERMITTENT DOSING 7 PURPOSE SITE CHARACTERISTICS&APPLICATION The performance of absorption The problem of deteriorating percolation is particularly serious in cases fields tends to deteriorate as where percolation rates were low in the first place. Generally these soil pores become clogged with systems should be installed as preventive measures rather than to correct a organic sediment. This problem malfunctioning system. Ideally these systems should be used in conjunction can be significantly reduced by with water conservation measures (Fact Sheet 6:1). to reduce loading on the ' alternately wetting and drying the absorption field. absorption field by using dual fields or dosing systems. ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES 1. This is essentially a management technique and 1. These systems do not correct problems such as: requires only small modifications to a conventional (a) a low percolation rate of the receiving soil; absorption field for a significant increase in or (b) excessive loading. efficiency. 2. Observant management of the system is required. ' 2. These systems may make on-lot disposal feasible on 3. Pump systems are susceptible to mechanical failure sites where low percolation rates do not permit the and require regular servicing. use of conventional systems. 3. These systems can be used in conjunction with measures to reduce water use, composting toilets, etc. , thereby reducing the load on the absorption field. REFERENCES& SUGGESTED READING (1) New Castle County (DE) Dept. of Public Works. New Castle County Septic Tank Regulations. Newark, DE: ' (author), 1973. (2) Warshall, P. Septic Tank Practices. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1979. (3) Pollution Probe. Keep It Clean--A Manual for the Preservation of the Cottage Environment. Toronto: University of Toronto, undated. (4) Boaz, J.N. , editor. Architectural Graphic Standards, 1973. (5) USDI, Design Guides. Denver, CO: National Park Service, 1973. (6) 1980 Correspondence, Triangle J Council of Governments, P.O. Box 12276, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. DESIGN CRITERIA& OUTLINE SPECIFICATIONS ' The performance of an absorption field will be gradually the same way as for conventional absorption fields. reduced as soil pores become clogged with organic These are 24-36 in. deep at a minimum spacing of 6 ft. sediment. This problem can be minimized, and the and with a longitudinal fall of 2 in. per 50 ft. The long-term performance of the absorption field improved distribution pipe, which is either perforated plastic ' if the water level in the system fluctuates, which or 4-in. agricultural tile, is set in a minimum depth allows the soil to dry out partially and improves of 12 in. of gravel or crushed stone, which is covered aeration. (It is for this reason that the sides of with a layer of building paper before backfilling the absorption trenches are less susceptible to clogging remainder of the trencF with topsoil (see Fact Sheet ' than the bo.;o;. .) There are 2 approaches to regulating 6:5). In order to save space the 2 fields are usually the dosing of the absorption field to permit alternate arranged to interlock asshown in the example in Figure wetting and drying of the soil. 1. However, this is not essential and either "continuous" 1. Dual Drainfields. The simplest system is to install or "serial" distribution layouts may be used. Figure 1 2 separate drainfields and ty dose with alternating also shows the use of "breezers" which ventilate the ' siphons. Distribution lines are laid in trenches in system and result in higher aerobic bacterial activity. Figure 1 These vents may be used in conventional absorption Sold P8Rfo8 W Fe fields also. Ppe The simplicity of dual drainfields makes them appropriate ' FlELD I. inlm. for use on single lots. The total extent of the dis- jn�RolFlwtribution lines should be the same as for a conventional system. However, they are also appropriate for uses with larger sewage generation (institutions, schools, ' museums, etc.) in areas with no access to main sewerage. 2. Intermittent Dosing Systeins to a Single Absorption Field. The second approach is to collect clarified S effluent discharging from the septic tank in a separate T tank. When the effluent reaches a certain level it ' activates a pump which discharges it into the absorption field. The period of resting, therefore, depends on both the sewage generation and on the capacity of the U dosing tank. Effluent may also be siphoned to the ® FIELD 2 fie-hr9 absorption field if levels permit. V�fdt Figure 2 shows a dosing tank fitted with a pump and Figures 3 and 4 show a plan and section of a dosing tank with a siphon. ' I Dosing tanks will vary in size but usually pumped systems have a 500-750 gal. capacity. Generally a dosing tank will not have a capacity of more than 1/3 �To aNeRnate YbEfn XAIP of the capacity of the septic tank. Distribution by dRginfield9. siphon systems is usually through 4-in. diameter PVC FLOW CONTROL pipes but pressure distribution lines used with a pump SWITCH. Source: (2) system are lh-i». perforated PVC (1/e in. holes at Figure 1. Diagrammatic layout of dual drainfield. 1-ft. spacing) which should be set within a 4-in. ESIGN CRITERIA& OUTLINE SPECIFICATIONS (continued) MAYmF--� Q Iflaftmleeuyflde. .mode. L 4L6. tepHz-rankNphanTank PP" ' I - tahli I I � WDferAlopri I I 15' Talm � I i R Figure 3. Septic tank with attached siphon chamber. Pm,p. - - - — — VerbMAOveRflow - -- �kMnhole Carelr61xk. Figure 2. Dosing tank fitted with pump. diameter drainfield pipe to prevent clogging of the pressure pipe. SOX Generally these systems are used for institutions, Tyyc. hotels, etc. , and are located in areas remote from main sewers where on-lot disposal is necessary. However, a simple siphon dosing chamber can increase the efficiency of single home disposal systems and may be useful where soil conditions are only marginally adequate for on-lot effluent disposal. Figure 4. Dosing chamber detail. EXAMPLES 1. Wilson Mills Sc.iocl, Johnston County, N.C. (6). 2. The Triangle J Council of Governments has endorsed Table 1 the low-pressure ground absorption system as an alternative septic system in North Carolina. The Daily wasteflow 450 gpd purpose of low-pressure dosing is to provide uniform 00 gal. distribution of septic tank effluent over the Pumping tank size Septic tank size 1,200 gal. entire soil absorption system. At the Wilson Mills Effluent loading rate 0.25 qpd/s ft. School, this system serves the 185 students and the Total absorption area 1,800 sq.ft. staff, which generate 8,000 gals. in total of Total linear feet 360 ft. 14 in. effluent per day. The effluent passes through a Hole size 1/8 in. sand filter and is collected in a holding tank Hole spacing :i ft. before being pumped by two 5-horsepower pumps to a Total number of holes 72 27,000 sq.ft. absorption field. The distribution Pressure head 4 ft. lines consist of 14-in. PVC pipe perforated with Flow per hole 0.37 gpm 1/8-in. holes at 5-ft. spacing set in trenches 18 Storage volume in pipes 39.2 gal. in. deep x 6 in. wide. The field is dosed at an Dosing volume 150 gal. approximate rate of 400 gal./min. which means that Depth of water pumped dosing occurs 20 min./day. This total dosing per dose 8 in. from 900 gal. tank period is divided between 2 or 3 periods per day. Source: (6) Therefore, the period between dosings is normally 8-12 hours. OST GUIDELINES& MAINTENANCE Dual drainfields of the same extent as single fields will not increase the cost of the absorption field. are likely to cost between 10-25% more than a conven- Design costs and securing approval may increase the tional absorption field. Dosing systems are likely to cost of larger systems. add between 50-10C% on the cost of the septic tank but IMPLEMENTATION& LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Systems are likely to be reviewed by health authorities dosing tank shall be used when the total length of on a case-by-case basis. Some local authorities may laterals exceeds 500 linear ft. When the total length permit smaller absorption fields or a lower permeable of the laterals exceeds 1,000 linear ft. , the dosing percolation rate if dual drainfields or intermittent tank shall be provided with 2 siphons or pumps dosing dosing are used. alternately and each serving one-half of the leaching The Pennsylvania Sewage Facilities Act requires that a system. GROUP MEASURES TO MINIMIZE POLLUTION FROM SEWAGE AND TO RECYCLE WASTEWATER AND EFFLUENT A HANDBOOK OF MEASURES [:]6 DOSING SYSTEMS TO IMPROVE PERFORMANCE INS i TO PROTECT WATER RESOURCES k!EASURES ABSORPTION FIELDS IN LAND DEVELOPMENT DUAL DRAINFIELOS, INTERMITTENT DOSING 71 _ I 1 PAMER & VOORHIS ASSOCIfES Environmental and Planning Consultants P.O.BOX 145 Miller Place.New York 11764 n (516)473-6302 �P v Thomas Cramer, LA / Charles J..Voorhis p p December 13, 1985 Mr. Charles T. Hamilton Alternate Permit Administrator New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Regulatory Affairs Unit Building 40 S U N Y Stony Brook, New York 11794 Re: 10-85-1063 Meadow Lane, Mattituck Suffolk County Tax #1000-115-5-7 Dear Mr. Hamilton: As per our recent conversation, I wish to withdraw the above referenced application. As directed in your letter dated November 25 , 1985, the house has been relocated above the 10 foot contour line. This is the location at which applications are now pending before the Town of Southold and also the location at which I have received a letter of "No Permit" necessary, dated September 4, 1985 . The location above the 10 foot contour is also the same location for which a Draft Environmental Impact Statement has been prepared. I would appreciate it, if at all possible, you would be able to refund the application fee which was submitted to you for the above referenced permit. Thank you for your assistance in this regard Very TWC: lf s W. Cramer, R.L.A. cc: Mr. Henry P. Smith, President Town of Southold, Board of Trustees Mr. Gerald Goehringer, Chairman Town of Southold, Zoning Board of Appeals Benjamin Herzweig, Esq. Attorney at Law z13,1) gy��rQ1,Yr Agenda Item for �Z 7 Chairman/7,4embers oopieaY ( ) s . ( ) J< ( ) - TELEPHONE ( oT -_s Agent (516)765-1892) �` '-.' BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES ( ) (.:. u_ _ a, — ��_ TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FDA file Town Hall, 53095 Main Road b� Commeit3 or Reply Requested Southold, NeBw York11971 NOTICE OF RECEIPT OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Date: December 9, 1985 APPLICANT: Thomas W. Cramer, 63 Clifton Place, Port Jefferson Station, New York 11776 Prepared by: Cramer and Voorhis Associates P. 0. Box 622, Miller Place, New York 11764 PERMIT APPLIED FOR: Wetlands Permit PROJECT DESCRIPTION: To construct a 1545 sq. ft. two story frame single family residence with attached garage, deck, well and sanitary system. PROJECT LOCATION: Meadow Lane, Mattituck, New York 11952 more particularly known as Lot no. 42 of Mattituck Estates, Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-115-5-7, east of LILCO Pole No. 5; 322 . 95 ' north of New Suffolk Avenue, tributary north of Deep Hole Creek. SEQRA LEAD AGENCY: Southold Town Trustees AVAILABILITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT: The draft environmental impact statement may be reviewed at the address listed below. Comments on the project must be submitted to the Contact Person indicated below no later than January 3, 1986 . CONTACT PERSON: Henry P. Smith, President Board of Town Trustees Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 PLEASE PUBLISH THE ATTACHED NOTICE ON DECEMBER 12, 1985 and FORWARD ONE (1) AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO HENRY P. SMITH, PRESIDENT, BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES, SOUTHOLD TOWN HALL, MAIN ROAD, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971. Copies to the Following: The Suffolk Times The Long Island Traveler-Watchman Southold Town Board Southold Town Trustees Southold Town Building Dept. Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council Town Clerk' s Bulletin Board Charles T. Hamilton, DEC, Stony Brook Commissioner Williams, DEC, Albany Aram Terchunian, Coastal Management Program Thomas W. Cramer /i r ly J OFFICE OF T , E PERVISOR TOW vDS OLD FRANCIS J. MURPHY TELEPHONE SUPERVISOR (516) 765 1800 MAIN ROAD (516) 765-1939 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971 AGENDA SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD DECEMBER 17, 1985 Call to Order Pledge of Allegiance Approval of the Audit of Bills of December 17, 1985 Approval of the Minutes of the December 3 , 1985 Meeting Next Meeting: December 27 , 1985 at 3 : 00 p.m. I. REPORTS: l (a) Justice Court Monthly Report - Edwards - October, 1985. (b) Justice Court Monthly Report - Edwards - November, 1985 2. Justice Court Monthly Report - Tedeschi - November, 1985 . 3 . Southold Recreation Department Monthly Report - November, 1985. 4 . Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council - November, 1985 . 5. Highway Department Monthly Report - November, 1985. 6. Fishers Island Monthly Report - November, 1985 . 7. Justice Court Monthly Report - Price - November, 1985 . 8 . Police Department Monthly Report - November, 1985 . 9. Councilmen' s Reports. 10. Supervisor' s Report. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD ; AGENDA - DECEMBER 17, 1985 PAGE 2 II. PUBLIC NOTICES: 1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District Notice of Application by Dolores Holman To place riprap and construct, fill, and maintain two 30 foot stone groins. Southold. Written comments by: January 6 , 1985. 2. NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, Notice of Complete Application of Anthony Forosich to dredge below mean water. Remove spoil upland. Install hinged ramp and float secured by two pilings. Southold. 3 . NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, Notice of Complete Application of Ludwig Becker to construct catwalk, ramp, float and dredge adjacent to dock. Jockey Creek, Southold. Written comments by: January 3 , 1985. 4 . U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District Notice of Application by Arthur J. Bujnowski to construct a timber groin and fill; Hogs Neck Creek, Southold. Written Comments by January 13 , 1985. 5. Southold Town Highway Department - LEAF PICK-UP WEEK Dec. 23 - Orient, East Marion to Moore ' s La. , Greenport Dec. 24 - Moore' s La. , Greenport to South Harbor La. , Southold Dec. 26 - South Harbor La. , Southold to New Suffolk to Alvah' La. , Cutchogue. Dec. 27 - Alvah' s La. , Cutchogue to Laurel La. , Laurel III. COMMUNICATIONS: 1 . New York State Department of Transportation Re: Final inspection made at Elizabeth Field, Fishers Island. Finding of acceptable work to date. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS : ti SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD AGENDA - DECEMBER 17 , 1985 PAGE 3 V. RESOLUTIONS : 1 . Authorize Supervisor Murphy to enter into an agreement for Preliminary Engineering on the Sound Avenue, Bergen Avenue to Coxneck Road Project. 2. The Southold Town Board requests the State Legislature to pass a special law: "AN ACT authorizing the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, to establish a land acquisition fund and also authorizing said Town to impose a real property transfer tax with revenues from said tax to be deposited in the land acquisition fund. " 3 . Appoint Barbara A. Rudder as Clerk-typist in the Office of the Board of Assessors; rescind said resolution. 4. Appoint Barbara A. Rudder as Clerk-typist in the Office of the Board of Assessors ; for a period of ninety days. 5. Appoint Dorothy Midgley as a Clerk-typist in the Office of the Building Department; for a period of ninety days. 6. The Southold Town Board authorizes the Planning Board to consider the development of "Breezy Shores" in the Cluster Concept. 7. Authorize the repair and recovering of two billiard tables at the Senior/Youth Recreation Center. 8. Allocate funds for the "Overtones" uniforms. 9. Authorize Supervisor Murphy to execute an agreement with NYS Dept. of Transportation for the seal and repair of runways of Elizabeth Field, Fishers Island. 10. Transfer of Funds : General Fund Whole Town 01Direct the Town Planner to review the Draft EIS for the wetlands application of Mr. Thomas Cramer for the construction of a single family dwelling at Mattituck. 12. Appoint Samuel Strickland as a part-time Police Officer and authorize him to attend the Police Officer Training School. 13. Set a Public Hearing at 8: 10 P.M. on January 7, 1985 for the purpose of considering a proposed contract for fire protection in the East-West Greenport Fire Protection District. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD ' AGENDA - DECEMBER 17, 1985 PAGE 4 V. RESOLUTIONS : 14. The Southold Town Board accepts the Memorandum of Agreement with the CSEA, Southold Unit. 15. Trailer permit renewal of John C. Tuthill. 16 . Appoint Eileen Carey as part-time Clerk-typist in the Office of the Building Department. 17. Urge the NYS Legislature to adopt legislation limiting municipalities liabilities. 18. Authorize Sergeant Sidor and Detective Reiter to attend a Hostage Negotiations Course. 19. The Southold Town Board extend the public comment period to 4 : 00 P.M. , January 21 , 1985 on the Draft E. I. S . state- ment with respect to the Change of Zone petition of Southport Development. 20. Transfer of Funds : Fishers Island Ferry District. 21 . Transfer of Funds : Highway Department, Part Town. 22. Transfer of Funds : Highway Department, Whole Town. 23. Transfer of Funds: Whole Town. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD AGENDA - DECEMBER 17, 1985 WORK SESSION AGENDA 9: 00 A.M. Discussion of 3 parcels of land from Suffolk County Dept. of Real Estate 9: 30 A.M. M. Goodrich & J. Bear Exhibit discussion (VI-1) 11 : 00 A.M. Helen Proud - Orient Point Assoc. (Re: Samuels application) VI . FOR DISCUSSION: 1 . Suffolk County Historical Society Re: Exhibit display to participate in its 100th Anniversary 2. Draft E. I.S. Statment - Matt-A-Mar Marina 3. Town of Riverhead ' s Resolution Re : Disclosure by Appointed Members of Boards 4. Charles E. Graves Re: Hours spent on CSEA matters . 5�fraLIr vy A TELEPHONE (516) 765.1892 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 November 1, 1985 Mr. Thomas W. Cramer 63 Clifton Place Port Jefferson Station, New York 11776 Re: Wetland Application No. 312 Dear Mr. Cramer: The Southold Town Trustees by resolution adopted on October 30, 1985 determined that your application would be a Type 1 action and have a significant effect on the environment. The proposed project site is at the headwaters of the creek. Please address in the draft impact statement the impacts of the septic system, components and leachate. Please give an accurate measure of what is going into the ground and if there are impacts, the nature of same on the intertidal marsh. Alternatives to a standard conventional cesspool sanitary system should be addressed also. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate contacting this office at the telephone number listed above. Very truly yours, Henry P. Smith, President Board of Town Trustees Ilene Pfifferling ✓/ Secretary to Board HPS: ip cc: Trustees Conservation Advisory File 91FFO({���� V,` ', ' sa � A TELEPHONE (516) 765-1892 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 October 30 , 1985 S.E.Q.R.A. SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION NOTICE OF SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT APPLICATION NO. 312 NAME: Thomas W. Cramer This notice is issued pursuant to the provisions of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, Part 617 of Title 6 of the New York State Codes, Rules and Regulations, and Chapter 44 of the Southold Town Code, the Southold Town Trustees, as lead agency, does hereby determine that the action described below is a Type 1 action and is likely to have a significant effect on the environment and that a Draft Environmental Impace Statement is requested to be prepared. TYPE OF ACTION: Type 1 DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Construction of a 1545 sq. ft. two story frame single family residence with attached garage, deck, well and sanitary system. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more . particularly known as: Meadow Lane, Mattituck, Lot No. 42 of Mattituck Estates, County Tax Map No. 1000-115-5-7 REASONS SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: 1. The intertidal marsh is extremely close to this property. 2. Within the marsh there are a variety of species of nesting fowl. 3. Controversy over the development of this lot within the neighborhood itself. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Contact: Henry P. Smith, President, Board of. Town Trustees Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P. 0. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Copies to: Charles T. Hamilton, DEC, Stony Brook Commissioner Henry G. Williams Aram Terchunian, Coastal Management Program Stephen Mars, Corps of Engineers, N. Y. District Thomas W. Cramer Trustees Town Clerk' s Bulletin Board rnncarva+inn Zr3vianry Memorandum from . .� Southold Town Board of Appeals TOWN HALL, SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971 765-1809 Date : 9/30/85 To: MEMO FOR THE RECORD . From: Linda Kowalski Benjamin Herzweig , Esq . called today in response to our September 25th letter . He indicated the $75 .00 filing fee will be sent together with environmental information which the co-owner prepared for this property for the Town Trustees , who have taken lead agency status . He also indicated that in the event the board finds a survey done by a licensed surveyor is necessary , he will provide same , and would show the information requested in paragraph (c ) of our letter . I explained that it was noted that there might be a conflict since the owner and the site plan preparer are both the same . (Mr. Cramer is an architect but not a licensed surveyor . ) I told Mr . Herzweig I would advise him as soon as the board had advised me whether other information on a survey was necessary or not . 91i, Lac.C/ �Q2"� �Lwa c co e) i r r jaA ru-I �o Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD - STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWICKI September 25 , 1985 Benjamin L . Herzweig , Esq . Pelletreau and Pelletreau 20 Church Street , Box 110 Patchogue , NY 11772 Re : Variance Application - Herzweig and Cramer Dear Mr . Herzweig : We are in receipt of the documents submitted recently for a Variance to build within 75 feet of wetlands , Article XI , Section 100-119. 2 (B ) . In reviewing the documents , it has been noted that the application is incomplete for the following reasons : (a ) Lacks $75 . 00 filing fee ; (b) Lacks postmarked certified receipts for the affidavit ,A�of mailing on the reverse of the neighbor-notice form ; � bq_, ;-I (c ) Lacks four copies of an up-to-date survey certified K,. � by a licensed surveyor , which must depict all wetlands and banks , bogs , meadows , flats , subject to tides ( including wetland Qgrasses such as cattails , cordgrass , salt hay , etc . ) . Upon receipt of items (a ) and (b ) , supra , your application will be filed by the Town Clerk ' s Office . Please furnish item (c ) together with the Town Trustees ' action concerning Chapter 97 of the Town Code as early as pw1 possible in order that we may arrange appropriate processing a° 4 of this application . 1tl- Page 2 - September 25 , 1985 To : Benjamin L . Herzweig , Esq . Re : Variance Application If you have any questions , please don ' t hesitate to call our office . Yours very truly , 4����� /GERARD P . GOEHRIN R CHAIRMAN By Linda Kowalski • i 4 I � Lot 41 now or formerly County of Suffolk 5.66°0910E. 1 229.13 I fT1 n.N. D 1 �-- C) u III �\ Lot 42 > - 0 n 1 \ �\ Area=223575f m � o \ _ O Y1 3 0 r 200.94 d a D 5.66°Ofi 00 W. Z Barba Or fn B°r6aTO Cos anzo N.3°54'00W 32295 Lot 43 I P N O s. 83.6" NEW SUFFOLK AVENUE SURVEY FOR THOMAS W. CRAMER 9 BENJAMIN L. HERZWEIG .DTES+ LOT 42,"MATTITUCK ESTATES,INC I. M=MONUMENT 2. p=STAKE AT MATTITUCN DATE PUG.15,19&5 S. SUBDIVISION MAP FILED IN THE OFFICE OF TOWN OF SOUTHO LD SCALE I"=40 THE CLERK OF SUFFOLK CO. ON SEPT 8,1965 AS FILE N0.445D SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK NO. 65-eel 4.SUFFOLK CO.TAK MAP OIST.I000 SECT115 BLOCK05 LOTOT XURAUMlM4[0 ALTERATION ON LOmnON TO MIS GUARANTEED f VNV[T R L VI0.1fi011 AS L[CTIOM 110.01 TN[ OF y[1,. NEW MAX$ME EOOCAOOI INN BE III A♦SI GVx D TY CO. N Cwn DI TI NS LUI NOT SEA.. IN[LAxe (NO. -YV HIx V.NwS INNER MAL ONLNSOSF[D .LL LNALL THOM $R MEI�' I" 1T NOT M COxS10CRO TO S[A 11L10 TRUER 11 O .. TER.rOI.IES x[wON SIMILE oNT TO ME SOHEBZ9LE G LK.=IOx.. TN[eVM[T IS INNIAR[0 G C S.A O1 MS RI SO MIT TTL M M [rPINT.00VGX- / ''7 N SEOUL AKNCT AM LESIONS INSTITUTION L1ST[0 ICI REASON,ANO TO M[SOISNKS 01 M[LENOIM TO AOETIONAL SETtTUMMUES S ARE JUDUQU[MT SL[ S`j Oa SRe < 93 O STAIIC[S SNONX [KM IN. NMI UN[S p ('A A- \ TO[xISTW AMCTRUCNR[S AM SON IS1[CInC I ND WSUN ,UAwS[ ARE NOT TO K USED TO LSTASUSN Ip1[RTT UMS OR 10R iNL U![TIOX O ILNC[S YOUNG a YOUNG �RIEAT D,NEW AVENUE R E ALDER wYOUNG,PAOFESSIOMAL ENGINEER _ _ AND LAND SURVEYOR N.YS.UCENSE N0.12845 HOWARD W.YOUNG, LAND SURVEYOR N.YS,LICENSE NOAS694 .NNSM IS wxa INS.Ton a R i t -- I 0u • � v I.IL .AryYq.R Mx1eq..1Wa 1 fwitwnYO WrtN W+RFds�.l�Pt3 i.~. WO bIIVWCLl4. to �„ E_rCAVAiIO;,,'G'1 � 5i}'°r` qrs. �,••a��,_,M�w....� wr4R .w,vrrN.Y. 4.twv �Lr e. •M l,rttW-.E..:a�.s.lac.' c.��.rw r�ey i.�•.i.n:a.. W.III.;t 19FyFFt Fl4"a OR H}FF +OMf a` laT Aav:S 1i�337 s. TVacri- lar 1_oyoLic- TV�n�`�r�c Tw+K 6Y Ir � ".'�T 1 =�..Fx..� wnac w1�s: '�9� �i„�/�yyr�-/�F� . /`q♦�� b W. j� �"M7+ i TNe YMt �Mn aewra�W..L �ilv m.w•..a .w:...�ra w MEoi� �PNE-: �a.es✓.m�x�aowenm3..�+w �./ ifl-<sez .dt two ar: yx. r.. :UMunbuxm t+svq a '� >♦ b0 - '�cm.1 O�1awJ New Ydc.c IITI6 �.'__. ..cewv,�n.�.w... �+'��e` Di•i Ga hJ4ar z� 19e5 63 Clifton Place Port Jefferson Station, New York 11776 September 23 , 1985 Mr. Henry P. Smith President, Southold Town Trustees Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re : Wetlands Application for Thomas W. Cramer Project Location - Meadow Lane, 322. 95 ' north of New Suffolk Avenue, Mattituck Dear Mr. Smith: I presently have before the Town Trustees, Town of Southold, a wetlands application for the above referenced parcel. I have taken the liberty of completing a Part III to the Environmental Assessment Form to explain in detail the proposed project and the mitigation measures designed into same. I have also included revised copies of Parts I and II reflecting more specific information. I plan to be in attendance at your September 25, 1985 meeting to answer any additional questions which you may ave. Your attention to this matter is appreciated. Very tr� rY� Cramer, RLA TWC: lf Enclosure J - e N'G'ro^t 22f ii' I s.a«.. 1 \ I I 2 � / %/ � /�� III':.^.�.�-�R�.......•.. �\` — .y i :'e..r..w.:.., n 6 / / �D °. ............ .T ya I to uyia Li.1� rwarn�a paww N W� j ALL ggW1C.R N.KR l>Yl °et.M.ie MrtY 4.R.aa,ll�.L.nf ,o V : .ro s c.avimmwe sac W.o - 4111y1Y�j�4rll�n pin WI 74 pZ'n'kfS w,�. ...-22,ae� a. —�' a,aE� ,y1 am++ri�.Ivaeer,N�µ.1Ns: f9tJ Re+.\ port. =a ql! THOMAS W. CRAWF-F, }C ..�.?. ar......m+.a•t ww.cw.r.. MA'cc'mxx�Tcy,/t�cFSourNo,_P �r AMA. `w. �iaultr( oP S.>1Rx.Y( : �pH YoRI� TVRCPr- LeAc YW\ F'O M1.r,l 4!)-c a.s Fbvw.m 8Y: Y.a...... w TiK.•w� W.cr'anr� 1� 63 cua.W A.ca. RC 7 l l e.1 6fM1a� NE.t VCt'.0 IIT/6 Imp'\ ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PART I, II & III FOR MEADOW LANE HOUSE MATTITUCK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD NEW YORK Prepared for Town of Southold Trustees By: Thomas W. Cramer 63 Clifton Place Port Jefferson Station, N.Y. 11776 September 20, 1985 i EA F ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - PART I Project Infomation NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect on the environment. Please complete the entire Data Sheet. Answers to these questions will be considered as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any additional information you believe will be needed to complete PARTS 2 and 3. It is expected tnat completion of the EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve new studies, research or investiqation. If information requiring such additional work is unava!jable, so indicate and specify each instance. INAME OF PROJECT: NAME AND ADDRESS OF OWNER (If Different) Meadow Lane House !lame ADDRESS AND NAHE OF APPLICANT: Street Thomas W. Cramer, R.L.A. P.O. State Zip (Name) 63 Clifton Place BUSt!1;55 PHONE: (Street) Port Jefferson Stat N.Y. 11776 Cate. rp I 0ESCRIPTIO11 OF PROJECT: (Briefly describe type of project or action) Construction of 1545 sq. ft. residence, attached garage, 8' x 18' deck sanitary system and well above 10' contour (PLEASE COMPLETE EACH QUESTION - Indicate N.A. if not applicable) A. SITE DESCRIPTION (Physical setting of overall project, both develoned and undeveloped areas) 1. General character of the land: Generally uniform slope _ Generally uneven and rollino or irregular _I• 2. Present land use: Urban Industrial _ Commercial _, Suburban _ , Rural , Forest _, Agriculture _, Other Vacant —" 3. Total acreage of project area22,357acres. Approximate acreage: Presently After Completion Presently After Completion Meadow or Brushland _acres ,acres (later Surface Area _acres ___acres Forested 0_,2-3—acres Q,. Lacre<- Unvegetated (rock, Agricultural 0 acres _ cres earth or fill) __acres __acres _ a Roads, buildings 'ietland (Freshwater or and other Paved Tidal as ner Articles surfaces _acres 0_acres 0.04 2a, 25 or F.C.L.) O, ,acres 0,2g±acres �j,,a dscaD inQQ Other (in�icate CyneT 0 acres 0.OSacres 4. 'that is predominant soil tvpe(s) on project site? Plymouth_Loamv Sand—____. 5. a. Are there bedrock outcropoines on rnject sit=? ___YPs No_ No t. What is depth to bedrock? ('n feet) 9/I/78 _..___ _1_ 2. How much natural matey (i.e. rock, earth, etc.) will be remove•om the site - tons 175 ± cubic yards. 3. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site -0.08 acres. 4. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project? _Yes X No 5. Are there. any plans for re-vegetation to replace that removed during construction? X Yes _r;o 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction 6 months, (including demolition). 7. If multi-phased project: a. Total number of phases anticipated NA No. b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 NA month NA year (including demolition) c. Approximate completion date final phase NA month N_A year. d. Is phase I financially dependent on subseauent phases? NA Yes NA No S. Will blasting occur during construction? _Yes X No 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction _; after project is complete 0 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project 0 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? Yes X No. If yes, explain: 12. a. Is surface orsubsurface liquid waste disposal involved? X Yes No. b. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) On site sanitary SCDRA 1185-50, 1( c. If surface disposal name of stream into which effluent will be discharged NA 13. Will surface area of existing lakes, ponds, streams, bays or other surface waterways be increased or decreased by proposal? _Yes _JLp_No. 14. Is project or any portion of project located in the 100 year flood plain? Yes X No 15. a.- Does project involve disposal of solid waste? X Yes No b. If yes, will an existing solid waste disposal facility be used? X Y_s _ No c. If yes, give name: Srn,rhnld Iandfill location North Road, Southold d. Hill any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? X Yes No 16. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? _Yes X No 17. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour Per day)? _Yes X No 18. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambience noise levels? Yes X No 19. 4ill project result in an increase in energy use? X Yes _No. If yes, indicate type(s) P—atin0 oil h PlPrtrjr 20. If water supply is from wells indicate oumoing capacity NA gals/minute. 21. Total anticipated water usage per day — _ 300 gals/day. 22. Zoning: a. What is dominant zoning classification of site? "A" Residence b. Current specific zoning classification of site "A" Residence c. Is ❑roposed use consisten_ •,ith Present zoning? Yes d. If no, indicate desired zoning NA —2— 6. Approximate ^e*aoe of proposed project site with s1D,es•0-10': 85 10-15": 15: or greater 19 7. Is project conticuous to, or contain a building or site ',fisted or. the National Register of Historic Places? Yes No No R. What is the deptg to the water table? 0-16 feet 9. Do hunting or fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? _Yes No No 10. Does project site contain any species of plant or ani-a, life that is identified as threatened or endanaered - _Yes X :1o, according to - Identi`_e each species 11. Are there any unicue or unusual land forms on t`.e pr._e site? ('.e. cliffs, dunes, other geological formations - _Yes X No. (Describe _ ) 12. Is the project site presently used by the community or ^eighborhood as an open space or recreation area - Yes __Z._No. 13. Does the present site offer or include scenic views or :`stas known to be important to the community? Yes X No l 14. Streams within or contiguous to project area: a. Name of stream and name of river to which it is tr",tary Tributary to Deep Hole Creek i 15. Lakes, Ponds, Yetland areas within or contiguous to ero'=-ct area: a. Name as above ; b. Size (ip acres) 2 acres ± 16. What is the dorinant land use and zoning classificatic within a 1/4 mile radius of the project (e.g. single family residential. R-2) and the scale of develp:ent (e.o. 2 story). " A " Residential B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ` 1. Physical dimersicns and scale of project (fill in di-ersions as appropriate) { i a. Total contiguous acreage owned b g y project sponsor 22,357 sq.ft. acres. b. Project acreage developed: 0 acres initially;0.04 acres ultimately. c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped 92% d. Length of project, in miles: NA (if appropriate) e. If project is an expansion of existing, indicate Dercent of expansion proposed: building square fcct- age NA ; developed acreage NA f. Number of off-street parking spaces existino 0 proposed 2 I g. Maximum vehicular trios generated per hour NA goon comDletion of project) h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: e Family Two Family Multi:le Family Condominium Initial 0 Ultimate 1 i. If: Orientation -e'ghbonccod-City-Regional Estimated Enoloyment Commercial Industrial j• Total height cf tallest proposed structure 35 e=t. -3- 26. Approvals: a. Is any ral permit required? _Yes X_No• b. Does project involve State or Federal funding or financing? __Yes -X—No c. Local and Regional approvals: AD roval Required Submittal Approval (Yes, No (Type) (Date) (Date) City, Town, Village Board City, Town, Village Planning Board _ City, ow Zoning Board YpG SLarianrn City, County Health Department Teas— Sanitary 97= =85 Other local agencies Trustees/Bldg._=s Wetlands =5 Other regional agencies 1d o" State Agencies NYS DEC (No permit nec.� Wetlands S Federal Agencies C. INFORMATIONAL DETAILS Attach any additional information as may be eded arify your project. If there are or may be any adverse impacts associated with the p I� ase discuss such impacts and the measures which can be taken to mitigate or avoid them. PREPARER'S SIGNATURE: -' j� _ Thomas W. Cramer, R.L.A. TITLE: � Owner REPRESENTING: Self DATE: 9/19/85 —4— • • EAF • , ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - PART II Project Impacts and Their Magnitude General Information (Read Carefully) - In completing the form the reviewer should be guided by the question: Have my decisions and determinations been reasonable? The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst. - Identifying that an effect will be potentially large (column 2) does not mean that it is also necessarily significant. Any large effect must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance. By identifying an e fect in column 2 simply asks that it be looked at further. - The Examples provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of effects and wherever possible the thresh of magnitude that would trigger a response in column 2. The examples are generally applicable throughout the State and for most situations. But, for any specific project or site other examples and/or lower thresholds may be more appropriate for a Potential Large Impact rating. - Each project, on each site, in each locality, will vary. Therefore, the examples have been offered as guidar They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each ouestion. - The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question. INSTRUCTIONS (Read Carefully) a. Answer each of the 18 questions in PART 2. Answer Yes if there will be aM effect. b. Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers. c. If answering Yes to a ouestion then check the appropriate box (column 1 or 2) to indicate the potential size of the imoact. If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided, check column 2. If impact will occur but threshold is lower than example, check column 1. d. If reviewer has doubt about the size of the impact t_Ilen consider the imoact as Potentially large and proceed to PART 3. e. If a potentially large impact or effect can be reduced by a change in the project to a less than large magnitude, place a Yes in column 3. A No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible. 1. 2. 3. SMALL '0 POTENTIAL CAN IMPACT BE MODERATE LARGE REDUCED BY IMPACT IMPACT PROJECT CHANGE IMPACT ON LAND NO YES 1, WILL THERE BE AN EFFECT AS A RESULT OF A PHYSICAL CHANGE TO O O PROJECT SITE? Examples that Would ADoly to Column 2 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. -- - ronstruction of oaved oarkinq area for 1 ,71 or more vehicles. _ _ Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally - within 3 feet of existing ground surface. Construction that will continue for more than I vear or involve more than one phase or stage. Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1 ,000 tons of natural material (i.e. rock or soil) per year. —' Construction of any new sanitary landfill. -5- 1 • 1. • 2. 3. S"ALL TO POTENTIAL CA-4 I'!?ACT BE 'nDERATE LARGE REDUCED BY IMPACT IMPACT PROJECT CHA�;rF Construction in a designated floodway. R Other impacts: Construction of house, above 10' con- tour, minimal-c is'tur ante a -o-7€-ice'-No-distarb_ 2. WILL THERE BE AN EFFECT TO ANY UNIQUE OR UNUSUAL LAN- FnRMS©NO O -X FOUND ON THE SITE? (i.e. cliffs, dunes, aeological fcra- tions, etc.) Specific land forms: IMPACT ON V1ATEq ------------ 3. WILL PROJECT AFFECT ANY WATER. BODY DESIGNATED AS NO YES PROTECTED? (Under Articles 15, 24, 25 of the Envir- OX O onmental Conservation Law, E.C.I.) Examoles that Would Apply to Column 2 No d sturban e alon waterw y Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a protected stream. _ Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland. _ Other impacts: -- 4. WILL PROJECT AFFECT ANY NON-PROTECTED E%IST1Nr, OR NF4 NO YES BODY OF WATER? ......... Examples that Would Apply to Column 2 A 10% Increase or decrease in the surface area Of are body of water or more than a 10 icre increase or decrease. Construction of a body of ,eater that exceeds 10 acres of surface area, Other impacts: 5. WILL PROJECT AFFECT SURFACE. OR SROUY7-ATER nPALITY? 1' YES Examoles that ould Apply 0 7 r, O Colunn 2 Project will require a discharge pe mit. Project requires use of a source of water that does rot have aporoval to serve Proposed project. _ Project requires water supply from wells with n_reate- than S5 gallons per minute numoing capacity. -- Construction or ooeration causing any contanination Of a public water supply system. _ Project will adversely affect groundwater. Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently do not exist or have inadequate capacity. Project re0uirin9 a facility that would use water I- excess of 2P,000 gallons per day. Project will likely cause siltation or Other discnar-e into an existing bcdy of water to the extent that _will he an obvious visual contrast t0 natural cordit,:-s. -6- 2. BALL Ti POTENTIAL CAN IMPACT BE i1DE PATE LARGE REDUCED DY I If4PACT 1,PACT PROJECT CHANGE Other Impacts: 6. ;DILL PROJECT ALTER DRAINAGE FLO11, PATTEDNS 0SURFACE �r � RUNOFF? Q SURFACE HATER NO YES . ........................................... Example that 'could Anply to Column 2 R j All runoff rpm ' pervio s ii _ Project would impede flood water flows. surfaces to be c tained on site Project is likely to cause substantial erosion. Project is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. _ Other impacts: — IMPACT ON AIR 7. VILL PROJECT AFFECT AIR QUALITY?........ NO YES ................ O Examples that Would Apply to Column 2 ...0 Project will induce 1000 or more vehicle trips in any given hour. Project will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton Of refuse per hour. — Project emission rate of all contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. Der hour or a heat source producing more than 19 -- million BTU's per hour. -- Other imoacts INt-a CT ON PANTS AND ANrNI S 8. WILL PROJECT I,FFECT ANY THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES? Y0 YES Examoles that Would Apply to Column 2 O O Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federal list, using the site, over or near site or -- found on the site. — Removal of any portion of a critical or sicpificant wild- life habi L]L. _ Applicatinn of Pesticide or herbicide over rare than 4,ice a year other than for zge!cJlturdl purposes. — Othir impacts: 8. WILL PROJECT SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECT NON-THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES? NO YES Example that Would Apply to Column 2 © O Project would substantially interfere with any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. _. Project reouires the removal of more than i0 acres of -- mature forest (over 100 years in ape) or otr.er locally important vegetation. _7_ 1. 2. 3. !!ALL TO nCTENTIAL CAN I1IPACT BE 100ERATE LARGE REDUCED nY I""P M1CT I"rAC. PROJECT Ci'A',OE I"ACT 01 YISPnL prcm'pCE 10.. t!ILL THE PoOJFCT AFrgT YIEHS, VISTAS CR T9F ML'k NO c CHARACTER OF THE FIGHBOR OOD OR CO""" IT Y� XO Examples that 1'ould Apply to Column 2 Ma ntain as manyex sting tr es as _ An incompatible visual affect caused by the intro"'uctinn po sible—mi imal distu ance of new materials, colors and/or forrs in contrast to the surroundine landscape. __ A project easily visible, not easily screened,t!iat is obviously different from others around it. — a 1 _ Project will result in the elimination or major I screening of scenic views or vistas known to be — — important to the area. Other impacts: IMPACT ON HISTORIC RESOORr ES 11. WILL PROJECT It'PACT ANY SITE OR STRUCTURE OF HISTORIC, t10 YES PRE-HISTOPIC OP, PALEONTOAICAL It:POPTANCE. ' v Examples that Would Apply to Column 2 (DO Prc.iect occurino wholly or nartially within or continuous _ to any facility or site listed on the National Reoister of — historic Places. Any impact to an archeological site or fossil bed located within the project site. — iOther impacts: IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE A PFCREATiON 12. HILL THE PROJECT AFFECT THE QUANTITY OR QUALITY OF EXISTING NO YES OR FUTURE OPEN SPACES OR RECREATIONAL OPPORTU.'1ITIES7...... ® O _.__ Examples that Would Apply to Column 2 The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational 0000rtunity. _ — A major reduction of an open space important to the community. — Other impacts: IvonCT nH TPA NSPORTAT109 — 13. :ILL THERE BE AN EFFECT To EXISTING TRANSPORTATION NO YES SYSTEMS? 00 ExamoleS that Would Annly to Column 2 _ Alteration of present Patterns of movement of neople — and/or goods. Project will result in severe traffic iroblems. _ _ Other impacts: -8- SIALL i0 vTEiTIAI CA 1FAC dE• • ' T TE LAP.CE REDUCED ay IMPACT R'PACT PROJECT CY.ANr,E • IMPACT 0!! CROWTH AND CHARACTF.p OF CGMI'UNITY OP '!EICPRORHOOD 17. WILL PROJECT AFFECT THE CHAPACTER nF THE EY.ISTMC NO YES CO`MMU.'11TY? ............. 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 population. The municipal budgets for capital expenditures or opera- ting services will increase by more than 5' per vear as a — result of this project. Will involve any permanent facility of a non-agricultural use in an agricultural district or remove nrime agricultural — lands from cultivation. _ The project will replace or eliminate existing facilities, _ structures or areas of historic importance to the community. — _ Development will induce an influx of a particular age group with special needs. _ Project will set an important precedent for future projects. _ Project will relocate 15 Or more employees in One or more businesses. Other impacts: 18. IS THERE PUBLIC CONTROVERSY CONCERNING THE PROJECT? „ No YES Examples that would Apply to Column 2 GO Questi ns rais d by public on previo s appli ants submis ion Either government or citizens of adjacent corrunities have b en addr ased in thi applic have expressed ODPosition or rejected the Pro iec[ or have — not been contacted. tion Objections to the Project from within the community. IF ANY ACTION I`. PART 2 IS IDENTIFIED AS A POTENTIAL LARGE IMPACT OR IF YOU CANNOT DETERMINE THE MAGNITUDE OF IMPACT, PROCEED TO PART 3. PORTIONS OF EAF COMPLETED FOR THIS PROJECT: DETERMINATION PART I PART II _ PART 3 __ Upon review of the information retarded on this EAF (Parts 1 , 2 and 3) and considering both the magnitude and imnortance of each impact, it is reasonably determined that: PREPARE A !1EnAT I'JE DECLARATION A. The project will result in no major impacts and, therefore, O is one which may not cause significant damage to the environment. B• Although the project could have a significant effect on the envi ronnent, there will not be a significant effect in this case Lecause the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been PREPARE A NEf.-TINE DECLRP.ATICN included as part of the proposed project. O C• The project will result in one or more major adverse impacts PREPARE POSITIVE CECL ARATION PROCEED WITH EIS that cannot be reduced and ray cause significant damage to the environment. O ua ce 7i niture of R^spons1 Ole Official in Lead >>gna tore of Pre parer (if different frga responiible officer) Agency Print or tyre name of responsible official in Lead Agencv —70— ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM PART III for Meadow Lane House, Mattituck INTRODUCTION: Although no impacts were identified as large in Part II, it has been de- cided to prepare a Part III to adequately address the mitigation measures which have been incorporated into the design of the proposed action. The sensitivity of the site requires several land use techniques and development strategies in order to negate potential impacts to the community, slopes and i wetlands and the values associated with same. BACKGROUND: Map of Mattituck Estates, Inc. File #4453 Lot #42 Dated 5/2/65 Previous owners: Barbara & William Smith Previous applicant (contract vendee-Renate Riedel) New York State DEC - Permit #10-84-1420 Suffolk County DHS - Permit #13 50 197 Town of Southold: Variance - withdrawn Building - withdrawn Trustees - withdrawn Present Applicant (owner - Thomas W. Cramer) New York State DEC - No permit necessary Suffolk County DHS - Permit #85-50-164 Town of Southold: Variance - applied for Building applied for Trustees - applied for -� 1 THE ACTION: Construction of a single family residence of approximately 1,550 square feet. The architectural design has been chosen to fit into and compliment the existing character of the community. Clearing and site grading has been planned so as to compliment the existing conditions. This will result in minimal disturbance to soils and vegetation. Wet- lands, a buffer zone adjoining said wetlands, and areas of steep slopes, will not be disturbed. A covenant will be filed to assure continued pro- tection of these sensitive areas of the site, if it is deemed appropriate. The subject parcel is unique from most other lots along the east side of Meadow Lane. Elevations are higher and the uplands extend further to the east before sloping to the wetlands. The following is a detailed discussion of potential environmental im- pacts associated with development of this parcel. Also included are the mitigation measures proposed to be incorporated to avoid said impacts. 1 -12_. WETLANDS The wetlands found on site is part of a tributary of Deep Hole Creek and is connected to same by a culvert system under New Suffolk Avenue. The wetland system consists of open water, high marsh (Spartina P.) and a narrow fringe of fresh water species (those which can tolerate brackish conditions) . The boundary between the wetland and upland vegetation species is abrupt and well defined because of the rise in topography to the west. The boundary has been established by New York State Department of Environmental Conservation during field inspections. Wetlands constitute approximately 55% of the total parcel. The two major threats to a wetland system from development is: 1) siltation, and 2) biological loading. The latter is mainly associated with the discharge of sanitary effluent and is discussed within the groundwater section. Siltation is caused by the uncontrolled runoff of storm waters, particularly during the Jconstruction phase when soils are exposed. In order to avoid excessive site grading, and thus siltation, the residence will be situated to complement the existing topography. The structure will be "stepped" into the existing slope with a 8' foundation wall on the west and a 4' foundation wall toe east (see Figure 1) . This will reduce the amount of grading adjacent to the structure and further reduce the disturbance to exist- ing vegetation. Material excavated will be trucked off site to an approved up- land location. At the present time, it is proposed to use a crane to proform the excavation for the foundation to preserve trees and limit the amount of earth moving necessary. When the foundation is installed, rough grading will take place. To provide temporary cover during construction, rapidly germinating rye grass will be seeded on all exposed soils. A natural upland buffer, where no soils or vegetation will be disturbed, shall be established in a 20-50' band along the boundary of the wetlands (see Figure 2) . This area, below the 10' contour line, will be preserved in its natural state; to act as a filter of silts during construction and as visual and physical protection of the wetlands after construction. A snow fence or other acceptable method will be used along this line to preclude unintentional intrusion during construction. Hay bales and other erosion control methods -1J- I THE ACTION: Construction of a single family residence of approximately 1,550 square feet. The architectural design has been chosen to fit into and compliment the existing character of the community. Clearing and site grading has been planned so as to compliment the existing conditions. This will result in minimal disturbance to soils and vegetation. Wet- lands, a buffer zone adjoining said wetlands, and areas of steep slopes, will not be disturbed. A covenant will be filed to assure continued pro- tection of these sensitive areas of the site, if it is deemed appropriate. The subject parcel is unique from most other lots along the east side of Meadow Lane. Elevations are higher and the uplands extend further to the east before sloping to the wetlands. The following is a detailed discussion of potential environmental im- pacts associated with development of this parcel. Also included are the mitigation measures proposed to be incorporated to avoid said impacts. -12- will be used to prevent erosion until the area has been properly landscaped. Once construction is completed, all runoff from impervious surfaces (i.e. driveway and roof) will be contained in dry wells and recharged into the sub- soil. It should be noted that New York State Department of Environmental Con- servation has issued a letter stating no permit is necessary on September 4, 1985, with regard to this project, as proposed. GROUND14ATER Potential groundwater impacts resulting from development of the subject property includes; sanitary disposal, stormwater disposal, and fertilization of lawn areas. No significant impact to groundwater, or surface water in ground- water discharge zones, is anticipated as a result of this project, based upon the following discussion. The subject site is south of the regional groundwater divide for this area of the North Fork. The contour map of the Water Table (prepared by SCDHS) , in- dicates that groundwater flows toward the south, and discharges into Deep Hole Creek or the near-shore waters of Great Peconic Bay. The water table elevation is between 1 and 2 feet above sea level and, therefore, groundwater lies approxi- mately 8 to 16 feet beneath the proposed residence. The proposed sanitary system is to be located in the southwest corner of the property. CDntaminants common to septic systems include solids, nitrogen and bacteria. 3. C. Sanitary Code Article VB Section 2c requires that the bottom of the cesspool be located at least 2 feet above groundwater to allow for conversion of ammonia to nitrate. Nitrate is conservative in groundwater; however, dilution with groundwater and precipitation, as well as the relatively flow density of surrounding development, will keep total nitrogen load within acceptable levels. Nitrogen will be partially assimilated by bottom sediments when discharging into surface waters. Dilution and dispersion in surface waters will result in negligible nutrient concentrations. Bacteria from sanitary systems is trapped and removed from effluent in the interstices of soils in the unsaturated and saturated zone. S. C. Sanitary Code requires a separation distance of 100 feet between the disposal point and surface or a well, to allow adequate distance for filtration of bacteria in soils. On the subject, the on-site well is located upgradient of the cesspool and will be screened deep into the aquifer (85 feet) . Sanitary discharge will not affect the well. The nearest surface water is located 85 feet northeast of the well. Very low streamflow is experienced in surface waters north of New Suffolk Avenue; -14- therefore, overriding hydrologic conditions will cause groundwater to move south from the cesspools. To the south, the nearest surface water is nearly 400 feet; therefore, no bacteriological loading to surface waters will occur. It should be noted that approval for construction of a single family residence was ob- tained from SCDHS on 9-13-85. Stormwater runoff will be generated from impervious roofs, walks and the driveway on site. All runoff will be recharged to groundwater through dry wells. The Nationwide Urban Runoff Protection Study (NURPS) finds that recharge of storm- water to groundwater is the best management. Runoff contaminants expected in street runoff are expected to be negligible due to the short length and low in- tensity of use of the driveway. Fertilization of landscaped areas has potential to cause leaching of excess nitrogen to groundwater. The total property site is 22,357 square feet. Due to wetlands, a covenant, if required, shall be established whereby 16,600 square feet will remain natural (below the 10 foot contour) . of the developable area, only about 2200 square feet will be landscaped. This minimal area constitutes less than 10% of the total lot size. It is not intended to establish the entire area in fertilizer dependent species, but if it were, nitrogen leaching would not impact groundwater based upon acceptable dilution and coverage standards. (Non Point Handbook, LIRPB) Natural vegetation species will be used extensively for landscaping. FISH AND WILDLIFE No threatened or endangered species were found on site during field inspections. However, various species of migratory birds do utilize the wetlands area during certain periods of the year. The project, as proposed, will not have a signifi- cant impact on the present uses. As discussed previously, no activity will take place on the wetlands. This, along with the natural buffer, will screen the proposed residence and preclude activities which may impact wildlife habits in this wetland area. It is relevant to note, however, that on the opposite shore from the pro- posed action a residence has been constructed which has removed the natural vege- tation and landscaped directly to the water's edge. While this type of landscap- ing is not being proposed for the project, it does illustrate that such activity does not have an obvious effect on wildlife useage of the wetland. The preservation of the buffer zone and the siting of the proposed structure within the existing trees will provide habitat for wildlife species on site. -15- No fish species were observed; however, it can be assumed that since no impacts are anticipated to aquatic habitats, no impacts will result to fish. MITIGATION MEASURES The following is a summary of the mitigation measures proposed for the project: * No disturbance of wetlands; * No disturbance of natural buffer, between 10' contour and wetland boundary; * "Step" proposal residence into existing topography; * No disturbance of steep slope areas; * Siting of residence into existing vegetation; * Preservation of as much vegetation as possible; * Minimal grading and site work; * Erosion control devices to be used during construction; fencing of buffer areas; * All stormwater to be recharged on site; no over land flow from im- pervious surfaces; Use of low fertilization requiring natural plant species for landscaping; * Minimization of turf areas; * Use of crane for excavactions; Transporting of excavated material of site to approved disposal area. -16- rt. APPENDIX Figure 1 - View from Meadow Lane - Elevation of south side Figure 2 - Sketch Plan Suffolk County Department of Health Services Approval N.Y.S. Dept. of Environmental Conservation - Letter of No Permit Necessary. I � ': 'e:=Jr� iy`y's ;.? r�i f ���-�ju,.✓'"�,,,,jy �i ?•�. r r�a(�+..1�i., ��.y'�� � • ., a•� Y,♦ 4 YV�3Y 'YI,.•In `��ZZ ••N•� T�`y' + � ''�. �' .�. � 'MJ;`i i. _ ��r'�Y"'..Yjfi i�. , Y „.�•T�•Ti�.:3 Y, 4 J_ h` 1�... '•' ry .. Y ,r J,rFf��.t�•"�•., r��- ,. �"g ,f��,�`'�CFR. . ."'�•c•,n ` 1� ��� `' �•� � r �S.",.��`•' �,��• yy ?2•±side �J ' n 'Fti _ �- e n Y`� I LF• r IYY /j �c - y. 1ppyy 1 I ' �... i.ii I IL. •� 6 View from Meadow Lane ly A rr�cly ;c� nn r n�rnl'T"1�,p.� nn n1. .p'll: fig• .� M hu. AW N At 6M itir(I, 1�4 ll( 8 FouN�1cN WALL �{ .�. �'rovNOAciON WA�.:� ':` ,;•,- . Elevation of South Side ' Ttto►MS W.LtCAM!£.1Z MeAx>aW Lsall� M.a.TCn�►S� NSW YottK �1�tv�Js,Q-tttwtNlW �7hht +�s,goN �o p u' II III r l°ll�lll IIJi I �� Jilllgl Jill ' ' Ili army r,.� 1 � loll I)IIIIIJiq II 7 mndvlll'141111IIIJi1 � raLdrs � j Ji �lll ))I I soNevaM —371'MRYtN.i1Q,or1 �ll]h � / )�) CFIH'ILaf� �)� )�IP IJiIljjtli hlll,k Ig11 III P I I)u glhllllpbl �����)��)) Il Jill II I)�f��I11�JiJi�iI��IhI III)�1 JiI�I I ll� Ill il�n ���' ,.. , � �• � Ill �yd` ullll))I p3fodnD'd � / . 11 Jill �' lll`IIIlllllll l lsarwu3pt 11)�� � )III N�eo � l 1 Avm3n,xa / lll Y�I�IIiIIIIIUr no I �7NI�1d3�7 ��?1J do atvl� ,�, = m m g�F Z Fni el� TELEPHONE (516)765.1892 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 119711 SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 24, 1987 7:30 P.M. PRESENT WERE: John M. Bredemeyer, III, Vice President Trustee Ellen M. Larsen Trustee Albert Krupski William Moore, Attorney Patricia Moore, Attorney Benjamin Herzweig, Attorney Thomas W. Cramer Chuck Voorhis Dr. Martin Garrell Ilene Pfifferling, Secretary Absent: Trustee Smith, Trustee Goubeaud Vice President John Bredemeyer called the meeting to order at 7:35 P.M. and advised that meeting notice was sent to the newspapers and also to the Town Attorney for his information. Trustee Bredemeyer advised that the Board is concerned with the fees for the review of the D.E.I.S. as this fee depleated the budget for shellfish research. Moved by Trustee Bredemeyer seconded by Trustee Krupski it was RESOLVED that the Secretary is to forward a letter to the Town Attorney asking for his written interpretation of the S.E.Q.R.A. Fees regarding the review of the D.E.I.S. on behalf of Mr. & Mrs. Moore and Mr. Benjamin Herzweig as submitted by Mr. Thomas W. Cramer. Vote of Board: Ayes: Trustee Bredemeyer, Trustee Larsen, Trustee Krupski This resolution was declared duly adopted. Lenghty discussion was held regarding this application. The Trustees raised questions regarding the survey that was submitted, additional monitoring of the Wildlife, as well as questions regarding the groundwater flow. The Trustees requested that the applicant submit a letter or some additional information regarding the groundwater flow. The Trustees will arrange to have someone monitor the site for additional Wildlife species. The meeting was recessed and the Trustees scheduled another meeting to be held on March 3, 1987 at 7:30 P.M. to be held at the Town Hall, Main Road, Southold to review the additional information requested by the Board. Meeting recessed t�9:41• P.M. Ilene rli�; SC�c eta�Trydstees ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PART I, II & III FOR MEADOW LANE HOUSE MATTITUCK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD NEW YORK Prepared for Town of Southold Trustees By: jhomas W. Cramer 63 Clifton Place Port Jefferson Station, N.Y. 11776 ,� September 20, 1985 • • EAF • • ENVIRO;IMENTAL ASSESSMENT - PART I Project Information NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect on the environment. Please complete the entire Data Sheet. Answers to these questions will be considered aI Dart of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide -— any additional information you believe will be needed to complete PARTS 2 and 3. it is expected that completion of the EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve new studies, research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavaiable, so indicate and specify each instance. - _ ;WIE OF PROJECT: NAME AND ADDRESS OF OWNER (If Different) Meadow Lane House Name ADDRESS AND NAME OF APPLICANT: Street Thomas W. Cramer R.L.A. Tp.T) State Zip ame 63 Clifton Place BUSt4ESS PHONE: _ treet Port Jefferson Stat. N.Y. 11776 to e p DESCRIPTIO4 OF PROJECT: (Briefly describe type of project or action) Construction of 1545 sq. ft. residence, attached garage, 8' x 18' deck, sanitary system and well, above 10' contour (PLEASE COMPLETE EACH QUESTION - Indicate N.A. if not applicable) A. SITE DESCRIPTION , (Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas) - 1. General character of the land: Generally uniform slope _ Generally uneven and rolling or irregular 1 -� 2. Present land use: Urban Industrial Commercial _, Suburban _ , Rural . Forest Agriculture tether Vacant •— 3. Total acreage of project area22,357acres. Aoproxlmate acreage: Presentiv After Completion . Presently After Completion Meadow or Brushland nacres 0 cres (later Surface Area _acres ———acres - Forested 0-,23__acres 0,11acres Unvegetated (rock, earth or fill) —_acres acres — Agricultural �acres —nacres earth _ Roads, buildings 4etland (Freshwater or and other paved Tidal as ner Articles surfaces O.-acres 0.04acres -- 2d. 25 or F.C.L.) 0,2$acres 0.28±acres a dscap in Other (imitate tyney 0 acres 0.05acres a. Vhat is predominant soil type(s) on project site? Plymouth Loamy Sand S. a. Are there. bedrock outcropoines on nrn.iect site? ____Yes No—,No t. Nhat is depth to bedrock? 500' + (!n feet) 2. How much natural masal (i.e*ock, earth, etc. ) will be reA from tosite - tons 175 t cubic yards. 3. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site -0.08 acres. 4. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project? _Yes X No S. Are there any plans for re-vegetation to replace that removed during construction? X Yes _No 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction 6 months, (including demolition). 7. If multi-phased project: a. Total number of phases anticipated NA No. b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 NA month NA year (including demolition) c. Approximate completion date final phase NA month N_A year. d. Is phase 1 financially dependent on subsepuent phases? NA Yes NA No .— 8. Will blasting occur during construction? _Yes X No 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction _; after project is complete 0 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project 0 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? Yes X No. If yes, explain: 12. a. Is surface or subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? X Yes _40. b. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) On site sanitary SCDHA #85-50. 164 a c. If surface disposal name of stream into which effluent will be discharged NA 13. Will surface area of existing lakes, ponds, streams, bays or other surface waterways be increased or decreased by proposal? _Yes �_40. 14. Is project or any portion of project located in the 100 year flood plain? Yes X No 1S. a. Does project involve disposal of solid waste? _ Yes No b. If yes, will an existing solid waste disoosal facility be used? X Yes __No C. If yes, give name: Snurhnl d T.andi°i 11 ; location North Road. Southold d. Hill any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? X Yes No _. 16. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? _Yes X No 17. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? _Yes X_No 18. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambience noise levels? _Yes X No 19. 4ill project result in an increase in energy use? X Yes No. If yes, indicate type(s) �w Aonti no nil 5 electric 20. If water supply is from wells indicate pumping capacity NA gals/minute. 21. Total anticipated water usage per day _ — 300 gals/day. 22. Zoning: a. What is dominant zoning classification of site? "A" Residence b. Current specific zoning classification of site "A" Residence c. Is proposed use consistent Hith Present zoning? Yes d. If no, indicate desired zoning NA —2— r . 6. Approxinate vertentaoe of esed or* site with s%:es: 0-10'. �*: In-1o_;; 157 or greater lt--i. 7. Is project cont'.cuou to, or contain a building or site 14.sted on the National Register of Historic Places? Yes o No g. What is the depth to the water table? 0-16 feet 9. Do hunting or fishing opportunities presently exist in t,e project area? Yes No No 10. Does project site contain any species of plant or anirtil life that is identified as threatened or endangered - _ves _X :lo, according to - Identi'� each species 11. Are there any unicue or unusual land forms on t`.e project site? !`.e. cliffs, dunes, other geological �— formations - _Yes R No. (Describe — ) 12. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation !' area - Yes _2_14o. i 13. Does the present site offer or include scenic views or :`star known to be important to the community? _Yes X No 1 14. Streams within or contiguous to project area: a. Name of strew- and name of river to which it is tr!:.tary Tributary to Deep Hole Creek 15. Lakes, Ponds, Metland areas within or contiguous to ero'=-ct area: a. Name as above ; b. Size (ie acres) 2 acres ± 16. What is the dorinant land use and zoning classificatioc within a 114 mile radius of the project (e.g. single family residential, R-2) and the scale of devel_rent (e.g. 2 story). '— A " Residential 8. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. Physical dimersicns and scale of project (fill in di-,ersions as appropriate) )' a. Total contiguous acreage owned b 22,357 s ft. -— g y project sponsor 9• acres. s b. Project acreage developed: 0 acres initially;0.04 acres ultimately. 1� C. Project acreage to remain undeveloped 92%_ d. Length of project. in miles: NA (if appropriate) re. If project is an expansion of existing, indicate Derce-.t of expansion proposed: building square fwe - L age NA ; developed acreage NA f: Number of off-street parking spaces existino 0 proposed _2 Cg. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour NA ':Don con.Dlet ion of project) h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: Cne Family Two Family M.ulti:',e Family Condominium Initial 0 r Ultimate 1 L i. If: Orientation p .e'ghborhood-City-Regional Estireted Eroloynent Commercial Industrial P' j. Total height cf tallest proposed structure 35 'eet. -3- 26. Approvals: a. Is an eral p�t required? Yes _�f� • b. Does p Ject Involve State or Federal funding or tnancing? __Yes _(_No c. Local and Regional approvals: Approval Required Submittal Approval (Yes, No (Type) (Date) (Date) City. Town, Village Board _ _ City, Town, Village Planning Board City, o�w� Zoning Board Sanitary City, County Health Department � 9�13 �5 Other local agencies Trustees/Bldg.= WetWet a�s�— 5 Other regional agencies $--W — State Agencies NYS DEC (No permit nec.) e�J tlands Federal Agencies _ C. INFORMATIONAL DETAILS Attach any additional information as may be eded/ arify your project. If there are or may be any adverse impacts associated with the p ase'discusssuch impacts and the measures which can be taken to mitigate or avoid them. PREPARER'S SIGNATURE: // Thomas W. Cramer, R.L.A. TITLE: >hvner REPRESENTING: Self DATE: 9/19/85 n t i i _4_ I • • EAF • • ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - PART II Project Impacts and Their Magnitude General information (Read Carefully) - In completing the form the reviewer should be guided by the question: Have my decisions and determinations been reasonable? The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst. - Identifying that an effect will be potentially large (column 2) does not mean that it is also necessarily si nificant. Any large effect must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance. By identifying an e fect in column 2 simply asks that it be looked at further. - The Examples provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of effects and wherever possible the threshol of magnitRe that would trigger a response in column 2. The examples are generally applicable throughout the State and for most situations. But, for any specific project or site other examples and/or lower thresholds may be more appropriate for a Potential Large Impact rating. - Each project, on each site, in each locality, will vary. Therefore, the examples have been offered as guidance They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each question. - The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question. INSTRUCTIONS (Read Carefully) a. Answer each of the 18 questions in PART 2. Answer Yes if there will be am effect. b. Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers. C. If answering Yes to a ouestion then check the appropriate box (column 1 or 2) to indicate the potential size of the impact. If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided, check column 2. If impact will occur but threshold is lower than example, check column 1. d. If reviewer has doubt about the size of the impact then consider the impact as potentially large and proceed to PART 3. 1' e. If a potentially large impact or effect can be reduced by a change in the project to a less than large magnitude, place a Yes in column 3. A No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible. 3. SMALL TO POTENTIAL IAL CAN IMPPPACT BE MODERATE LARGE REDUCED BY r IMPACT IMPACT PROJECT CHANGE ' IMPACT ON LAND 1111 NO YES 1, WILL THERE BE AN EFFECT AS A RESULT OF A PHYSICAL CHANGE TO O O PROJECT SITE? Examples that Would Apply to Column 2 Any construction on lopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise per s �— 100 foot of length), or where the general slopes in the proj -- tit area exceed 10;. --- 1 �— _ Construction on Land where the depth to the water table is less than 3 feet. ronstruction of naved narkinq arer for 1 ,"1 or more vehicles. _ !T _ Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or qenerally I— within 3 feet of existing ground surface. _ Construction that will continue for more than 1 vear or involve .� more than one phase or stage. Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 tons of natural material (i.e. rock or soil) per year. Construction of any new sanitary landfill. -5- S"ALL TO POTENTIAL CAN IMPACT BE 'mDERATE LARGE REDUCED BY IMPACT IMPACT PaOJECT CHA1lGE Construction in a designated floodway. X Other impacts: Construction of house, above 10' con- '— tour, minima33's-Yur ance WLr-IV No tat _ X NO YES 2. WiLL THERE BE AN EFFECT TO ANY UNIOUE OR UNUSUAL LN": FORMS FOUND FOUND ON THE SiTE? (i.e. cliffs, dunes. Geological fcma- Lions, etc.) -— _ Specific land forms: IMPACT ON WATER 3. WILL PROJECT AFFECT ANY WATER. BODY DESIGNATED AS .. Nn YES PROTECTED? (Under Articles 15. 24, 25 of the Envir- O O onmental Conservation Law, E.C.L.) Examoles that Would Apply to Column 2 No d sturban e Glop Ovate y Dredgina more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a protected stream. — Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland. _ Other impacts: 4. WILL PROJECT AFFECT ANY NON-PROTECTED EXISTING OR NFt' NO YES BODY OF WATER? ............................................© O Examples that Would Apply to Column 2 A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of ary body of water or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. -- -- Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area. — Other impacts: 5. WILL PROJECT AFFECT SURFACE OR GROUND-'ATER DUALITY? N YES -- — Examples that Mould Apply to Columm 2 O 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 wens with nreate• — than 45 gallons per minute humping capacity. — Construction or operation causing any contanination of a public water Supply system. -- — Project will adversely affect groundwater. Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently do not exist Or have -'— inadequate capacity. — Project requiring a facility that would use water it excess of 2n,000 gallons per day. — _ Project will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an existing body of water to the extent that here '— ,� will be an Obvious visual contrast to natural Condit,^-s. -6- PWLL TO POTENTIAL CAN IMPACT BE _ 0DEPATE LARGE REDUCED DY IMPACT P'PACT PROJECT CHANGE Other Imoacts' ' 6. WILL PROJECT ALTER DRAINAGE FLO". PATTED-IS OR SIIRFACE HATER NO YES RUNOFF? ................................................... Examnle that ':ould Apply to Colunn 2 All runoff TromO pervio s Project wnuid impede flood water flows. surfaces to be ccntained on site Project is likely to cause substantial erosion. _ Project is incompatible with existing drainaoe patterns. Other impacts: IMPACT ON AIR 7. WILL PROJECT AFFECT AIR QUALITY?........................... O Examples that Would Apply to Column 2 0 Project will induce I.M. or more vehicle trips in any given hour. _ Project will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of refuse per hour. _ Project emission rate of all contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. per hour or a heat source nroducing more than 10 -- -- million BTU's per hour. Other impacts: IMPACT ON PLA14TS A40 ANIPalc WILL PROJECT AFFECT ANY THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES? NO YES Examples that Would Apply to Column 2 O O _ Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York _ or Federal list, using the site, over or near site or found on the site. Removal of any portion of a critical or siorificant wild- life habitat. Apnlicatinn of Pesticide or he�bicidu over rore than twice a yearother, than forcyr+cali:ural purposes. Other impacts: — 9. WILL PROJECT SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECT VON-THREATENED OR NO YES ENDANGERED SPECIES? ................ © ........... O.. Examnle that Would Apply to Column 2 Project would substantially interfere with any resident s or migratory fish or wildlife species. -- Project reouires the removal of more than 1'1 acres of mature forest lover lOn years in ane) or otrer locally -- important vegetation. —7— � - • • 3. L MALL•Tn OCTENTIAL CAR IIIPACT BE IODERATE LARGE REDUCED RY i - IwPACT virACT PROJECT CPA'„E I"nACT 07 VISUAL Rc S''pRCE 10. 111.L THE PROJECT 4FrECT YI NS, "ISTAS CR T!IF ViSpAL CHARACTER OF THE SFIGHBORHOOD OP. CO—,1 v? .1n YES IT. O1 Examnles that voutd Apply to Column 2 Ma stain as many ex sting tr es as An incompatible visual affect caused by the intro,4uction Po sible—mi imal distu ante -- of new materials, colors and/or forrs in contrast to the surrounding landscape. -- i __ A project easily visible, not easily screened,that is obviously different from nthers around it. ._ _ Project will result in the elimination or major screeninq of scenic views or vistas known to be Important to the area. Other impacts: IMPACT ON HISTORIC RESOURCES 11. WILL PROJECT IMPACT ANY SITE OR STRUCTURE OF HISTORIC, NO YES PPE-HISTORIC OR PALEn.•ITOOICAL lYPOPTANCE? .................0 O Examples that Would APply to Colurn 2 Project occurino wholly or nartially within or continuous to any facility or site listed on the National Renisier of -- historic places. -- — Any impact to an archeological site or fossil bed located within the project site. _ _ Other impacts: IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE d RECREATION -- 12. HILL THE PROJECT AFFECT THE OUANTITY OR DUALITY OF EXISTING NO YES OR FUTURE OPEN SPACES OR RECREATIONAL OPPORTU.'IITIES?...... ( O Examples that Would Apply to Column 2 _ The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational 0000rtunity. _ _ A major reduction of an open space important to the community. _ Other impacts: s i"pACT nN TRANSPORTA7f0Y " 13. !ILL THERE BE AN EFFECT TO EXISTING TRANSPORTATION NO YES - SYSTE45? (— Examples that Would Aooly to Column 2 Alteration of present Patterns of movement of neople and/or goods. Project will result in severe traffic problems. Other impacts: —8— 2 3. SMALL TO POTE4TIAL CAU IMPACT CE MODERATE LARGE REDUCED BY IMPACT PIPACT PROJECT CHA'IGE IMPACT ON ENERGY 14. WILL PROJECT AFFECT THE COMMUNITIES SOURCES OF FUEL OR NO YES E4ERr,Y SUPPLY? ...................................... . ....0 O Examples that Would Apply to Column 2 Project causing greater than 5% increase in any form of energy used in municipality. — Project requiring the creation or extension of an enerny _ transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 s;ngle or two family residences. Other impacts: IMPACT ON NOISE 15. WILL THERE BE OBJECTIONABLE ODORS, NOISE, GLARE, VIBRATION NO YES or ELECTRICAL DISTURBANCE AS A RESULT OF THIS PROJECT? ....0 O Examples that Mould ADoly to Column 2 Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other _ sensitive facility. — Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per dav). — Project will oroduce operating noise exceedinn the _ local ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures. — Project will remove natural barriers that would act as a noise screen. — Other impa,"s: IMPACT ON HEALTH A HAZARDS 16. HILL PROJECT AFFECT PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY? ... .. ... .... 40 YFS .© O Examples that Would Apply to Column 2 Project will cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous _ substances (i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc. ) in the event of accident or upset conditions, or there will be a chronic low level discharge or emission. Project that will result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" _ (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc. , including wastes that are solid, semi-solid, liquid or contain gases. ) Storaoe facilities for one million or more gallons of liouified _ natural gas or other liouids. - - _ Other impacts: I • • 1 TO 1TIAL C N IMP CT BE CT E 4CT PROJECTEDUCED By CHANGE IMPACT ON C.RO:fTH AND CHARACTER OF COHHUNITY OP 'IE IOHRORNO D 17. WILL PROJECT AFFECT THE CHARACTER nF THE EYISTI9G COMMUNITY? NO YES ......................................... O Example that Mould Apply to Column 2 0 — The population of the City. Town or Village in which the project is located is likely to grow by more than S: of -- resident human population. _ The municipal budgets for capital expenditures or opera- ting services will increase by more than 5% per year as a _ ' result of this project. Will involve any oermanent facility of a non-agricultural use in an agricultural district or remove nrime agricultural _ f lands from cultivation. ll e or strucurestoriareasnOfchistoricminate importancetto9theccommunity. Development will induce an influx of a particular age group with special needs. i _ Project will set an important precedent for future projects. _ Project will relocate 15 or more employees in one or more _businesses. Other impacts: IS. IS THERE PUBLIC CONTROVERSY CONCERNING THE PROJECT? NO YES Examples that would Apply to Column 2 ©O Questi ns rais d by public on ' previo s appli ants submis ion Either government or citizens of adjacent cor'unities have b en addr esed in thi applica<i have expressed opposition or rejected the proiect or have not been contacted. tion Objections to the nroject from within the community. IF ANY ACTION If: PART 2 IS IDENTIFIED AS A POTENTIAL LARGE IMPACT OR IF YOU CANNOT DETERMINE THE !'AGt1ITUDE OF IMPACT, PROCEED TO PART PORTIONS OF EAF COMPLETED FOR THIS PROJECT: DETER41NATION PART I __ PART Ii _ PART 3 Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts 1, 2 and 3) and considering both the magnitude and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined that: A. The project will result in no major impacts and, therefore, PREPARE A NEnATIVE DECLARATION is one which may not cause significant damage to the environment. O B. Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case tecause the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been PREPARE A YEf.ZTlVE DECLARATION included as part of the nroposed project. O C. The project will result in one or more major adverse impacts that cannot be reduced and may cause significant damage to PREFAB[ POSITIVE DECLARATIOR PROCEED WITH EIS the environment. O '= ate Signature of R=sponsible Official in Lead Signature of Pr Agency ' era rem (if different from responsible officer) Print or tyoe nave of responsib a official in Lead Agency —10— ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM PART III for Meadow Lane House, Mattituck INTRODUCTION: Although no impacts were identified as large in Part II, it has been de- cided to prepare a Part III to adequately address the mitigation measures r which have been incorporated into the design of the proposed action. The f - sensitivity of the site requires several land use techniques and development strategies in order to negate potential impacts to the community, slopes and wetlands and the values associated with same. �! BACKGROUND: Map of Mattituck Estates, Inc. ( File #4453 Lot #42 Dated 5/2/65 Previous owners: Barbara S William Smith Previous applicant pp (contract vendee-Renate Riedel) New York State DEC - Permit #10-84-1420 Suffolk County DHS - Permit #13-50-197 i Town of Southold: Variance - withdrawn t t Building - withdrawn I_ Trustees - withdrawn Present Applicant (owner - Thomas W. Cramer) !— New York State DEC - No permit necessary " 1 Suffolk County DHS - Permit #85-50-164 != Town of Southold: Variance - applied for Building - applied for Trustees - applied for ■ THE ACTION: Construction of a single family residence of approximately 1,550 square feet. The architectural design has been chosen to fit into and compliment the existing character of the community. Clearing and site grading has been planned so as to compliment the existing conditions. This will result in minimal disturbance to soils and vegetation. Wet- lands, a buffer zone adjoining said wetlands, and areas of steep slopes, will not be disturbed. A covenant will be filed to assure continued pro- tection of these sensitive areas of the site, if it is deemed appropriate. The subject parcel is unique from most other lots along the east side of Meadow Lane. Elevations are higher and the uplands extend further to the east before sloping to the wetlands. The following is a detailed discussion of potential environmental im- pacts associated with development of this parcel. Also included are the mitigation measures proposed to be incorporated to avoid said impacts. M -12- WETLANDS The wetlands found on site is part of a tributary of Deep Hole Creek and is connected to same by a culvert system under New Suffolk Avenue. The wetland system consists of open water, high marsh (Spartina P.) and a narrow fringe of fresh water species (those which can tolerate brackish conditions) . The boundary between the wetland and upland vegetation species is abrupt and well defined because of the rise in topography to the west. The boundary has been established by New York State Department of Environmental Conservation z during field inspections. Wetlands constitute approximately 55% of the total parcel. The two major threats to a wetland system from development is: 1) siltation, and 2) biological loading. The latter is mainly associated with the discharge of sanitary effluent and is discussed within the groundwater section. Siltation is caused by the uncontrolled runoff of storm waters, particularly during the I construction phase when soils are exposed. In order to avoid excessive site grading, and thus siltation, the residence will be situated to complement the existing topography. The structure will be "stepped" into the existing slope with a 8' foundation wall on the west and a -� 4' foundation wall toe east (see Figure 1) . This will reduce the amount of grading adjacent to the structure and further reduce the disturbance to exist- ing vegetation. Material excavated will be trucked off site to an approved up- land location. At the present time, it is priposed to use a crane to proform the excavation for the foundation to preserve trees and limit the amount of 1 earth moving necessary. f When the foundation is installed, rough grading will take place. To provide I— temporary cover during construction, rapidly germinating rye grass will be seeded — on all exposed soils. A natural upland buffer, where no soils or vegetation will be disturbed, shall be established in a 20-50' band along the boundary of the wetlands (see Figure 2) . This area, below the 10' contour line, will be preserved in its natural state; to act as a filter of silts during construction and as visual and physical protection of the wetlands after construction. A snow fence or other acceptable method will be used along this line to preclude unintentional intrusion during construction. Hay bales and other erosion control methods -1J- will be used to prevent erosion until the area has been properly landscaped. Once construction is completed, all runoff from impervious surfaces (i.e. ' driveway and roof) will be contained in dry wells and recharged into the sub- soil. 1_ It should be noted that New York State Department of Environmental Con- servation has issued a letter stating no permit is necessary on September 4, 1985, with regard to this project, as proposed. GROUNDWATER Potential groundwater impacts resulting from development of the subject property includes; sanitary disposal, stormwater disposal, and fertilization of lawn areas. No significant impact to groundwater, or surface water in ground- water discharge zones, is anticipated as a result of this project, based upon the following discussion. The subject site is south of the regional groundwater divide for this area of the North Fork. The contour map of the Water Table (prepared by SCDHS) , in- dicates that groundwater flows toward the south, and discharges into Deep Hole Creek or the near-shore waters of Great Peconic Bay. The water table elevation is between 1 and 2 feet above sea level and, therefore, groundwater lies approxi- mately 8 to 16 feet beneath the proposed residence. The proposed sanitary system is to be located in the southwest corner of the property. Contaminants common to septic systems include solids, nitrogen ai.d bacteria. S. C. Sanitary Code Article VB Section 2c requires that the bottom of the cesspool be located at least 2 feet above groundwater to allow for conversion of ammonia to nitrate. Nitrate is conservative in groundwater; however, dilution with groundwater and precipitation, .as well as the relatively low density of surrounding development, will keep total nitrogen load within acceptable levels. Nitrogen will be partially assimilated by bottom sediments when discharging into surface waters. Dilution and dispersion in surface waters will result in negligible nutrient concentrations. Bacteria from sanitary systems is trapped and removed from effluent in the interstices of soils in the unsaturated and saturated zone. S. C. Sanitary Code requires a separation distance of 100 feet between the disposal point and surface or a well, to allow adequate distance for filtration of bacteria in soils. On the subject, the on-site well is located upgradient of the cesspool and will be screened deep into the aquifer (85 feet) . Sanitary discharge will not affect the well. The nearest surface water is located 85 feet northeast of the well. Very low streamflow is experienced in surface waters north of New Suffolk Avenue; -14- _ - r L T • • therefore, overriding hydrologic conditions will cause groundwater to move south from the cesspools. To the south, the nearest surface water is nearly 400 feet; therefore, no bacteriological loading to surface waters will occur. It should be noted that approval for construction of a single family residence was ob- tained from SCDHS on 9-13-85. TW Stormwater runoff will be generated from impervious roofs, walks and the driveway on site. All runoff will be recharged to groundwater through dry wells. The Nationwide Urban Runoff Protection Study (NURPS) finds that recharge of storm- water to groundwater is the best management. Runoff contaminants expected in street runoff are expected to be negligible due to the short length and low in- tensity of use of the driveway. Fertilization of landscaped areas has potential to cause leaching of excess nitrogen to groundwater. The total property site is 22,357 square feet. Due to wetlands, a covenant, if required, shall be established whereby 16,600 square feet will remain natural (below the 10 foot contour) . Of the developable area, 111 only about 2200 square feet will be landscaped. This minimal area constitutes less than 10% of the total lot size. It is not intended to establish the entire farea in fertilizer dependent species, but if it were, nitrogen leaching would not impact groundwater based upon acceptable dilution and coverage standards. (Non Point Handbook, LIRPB) Natural vegetation species will be used extensively for landscaping. — cISH AND WILDLIFE No threatened or endangered species were found on site during field inspections. [_ However, various species of migratory birds do utilize the wetlands area during certain periods of the year. The project, as proposed, will not have a signifi- cant impact on the present uses. As discussed previously, no activity will take place on the wetlands. This, r along with the natural buffer, will screen the proposed residence and preclude (— activities which may impact wildlife habits in this wetland area. It is relevant to note, however, that on the opposite shore from the pro- posed action a residence has been constructed which has removed the natural vege- tation and landscaped directly to the water's edge. While this type of landscap- ing is not being proposed for the project, it does illustrate that such activity does not have an obvious effect on wildlife useage of the wetland. _ The preservation of the buffer zone and the siting of the proposed structure within the existing trees will provide habitat for wildlife species on site. - -15- L L • • No fish species were observed; however, it can be assumed that since no T impacts are anticipated to aquatic habitats, no impacts will result to fish. MITIGATION MEASURES rThe following is a summary of the mitigation measures proposed for the project: r * No disturbance of wetlands; * No disturbance of natural buffer, between 10' contour and wetland boundary; r * "Step" proposal residence into existing topography; * No disturbance of steep slope areas; * Siting of residence into existing vegetation; * Preservation of as much vegetation as possible; * Minimal grading and site work; * Erosion control devices to be used during construction; fencing of buffer areas; l * All stormwater to be recharged on site; no over land flow from im- pervious surfaces; Use of low fertilization requiring natural plant species for landscaping; * Minimization of turf areas; _ * Use of crane for excavactions; * Transporting of excavated material of site to approved disposal area. I_ I_ -16- I� T • • T T T APPENDIX Figure 1 - View from Meadow Lane Elevation of south side Figure 2 - Sketch Plan Suffolk County Department of Health Services Approval N.Y.S. Dept. of Environmental Conservation - Letter of No Permit Necessary. .rr '♦M1 V4 /yyT •"L Y' � V r„_ -�♦�♦�.-� � �. /�"Iwo♦1- ���ww�w� r Ms, w`Nw �'-��t ,r MM 1{� �w a�-�`�+.��-'�-' •• .�'1 wow� ���� � �r�-�'+�3`�.w..-.w�ti-�..'N. � �`� � l'F �wmINAIGIpNalnnr,. { ..,:.•. .. � �� o � _� ��.� � r . I I j( - c � I I I1 �'1 Mew :� ��4i92Z1 f►11YiV3 �1h►v1s • �' �nn�il;� �N n�s,c1-WON n IIII1) III 11 ul/111�14 ariU !Iq so>•roz�aM 'a)1+rrf►y�usi4.oN Mllh , .: I ISM Iliglll)jV�ill)I� I/,l�)Iv'� III�J P I �) II un , plol II 11 Il n • a1i14Uq ��) �� fll "I� I ulI , II� I1IIIII IDI 114i11y,fh I II ��'hln oIIl I IIl llllllill`9�1�11II�--1 / 111�11111111j 1i''� �IIII 111)I j✓,yo \ 1 �.bM3A�Ya / II SQiw"3�' III \ 'l�I�lU�lf!Ilh n_Il�l i 'l)11 �71v�I �Wt>til►,l V. \ ri•bzz ';l. Y I do inn AW M ! -AM --M1—W—M--MF— -�...�--�.-� �.�►- , -�,�-- �� -� it it � � � � �� �-=-� 1 � I L -I1 V/C.NT , c ...w.l iw�nsJ- _� Oa.R.INiD wrtN 4NRbt.�Lf�ASf l6 ..GAL +.°, we oevwe.is. E_CG_1CA1f0��USp[�1�".�1 Am. 9.v o�s.�r. '�MeY•i fiWtlGt��G6�TINEb 1 �111I��U ARl KLG YL.IIS lsss.nui../.�p7 h Mae •rn.a....:p,c..a.aa.lw-. rot, , r Oy�Jlf,Aa .+�a...Nea Ll 4e,w Yab Wp.m�I)-b-ill ��.� p'y�•,+��,ry�..,� ti�1�Ny 9.sta.cr: p'ula s %i asrs..aa lrr IvRu: b 2i•e!7 ew Tyt�ca� Lor �nvo« TrxnL S�ttcT .•••a •••� pla.,ta�Nua.er+An>RNMyS: �9J >3rWJ/yF���ac:W /` c ^..�.._ R�rt �� •.�. L,r` x J Mille 1 ilOKAS . l.r�K l H�rWr-iy ewr.ln as a.«ea.ra w�.. r _ fatvaay.Ze zvl aWblpe e.v. '`�'�-�W I-ON�, i I xe.`�v va...a. MAR1IixK IToNR�or•Sc�srµo�o E� ivwY I 16`_'_ '"�^� � n.,l �t-cs,�c -6 sia.ro aY: �. —•—�•� Q� Tlbwa W.4wlnalt Ww.a P�snne.� MO ua.r,1..m.w-I 4a.�P Via: �,�� a Uy�lwave ..�a.pkV w.+a * • IF L9 GunW A.ea Ncw Vo.e.c IITf6 l LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE § 7322 Art. 148 § 7321. Definition of practice of landscape architecture ;APE ARCHITECTURE The practice of the profession of landscape architecture is defined as performing services in connection with the development of land areas where, and to the extent that the dominant purpose of such ape architecture. services is the preservation, enhancement or determination of prop- ure and use of title "landscape archi- er land uses, natural land features, ground cover and planting, -itecture. naturalistic and aesthetic values, the settings, approaches or envi- al license. ronment for structures or other improvements, natural drainage and the consideration and determination of inherent problems of the land relating to the erosion, wear and tear, blight or other hazards. This practice shall include the location and arrangement of such -1 Note tangible objects and features as are incidental and necessary to the Separability and Transitional Provi- purposes outlined herein but shall not include the design of struc- sions. See section 4 of L.1971, c. 987, tures or facilities with separate and self-contained purposes such as set out as a note preceding section 6500. are ordinarily included in the practice of engineering or architec- ture; and shall not include the making of land surveys or final land erences plats for official approval or recording. t seq. (Added L.1971, c. 987, § 2.) ,tonal societies or associations for, see ,504. j Historical Note ±ection 6506 et seq. Effective Date. Section effective Former Section 7321. Section, added ns, see section 6512 et seq. Sept. 1, 1971, pursuant to L.1971, c.987, L.1960, c. 1082, § 1, which related to § 10; formerly § 9; renumbered 10, qualifications for practice and seal, was L.1971, c. 994, § 36. repealed by L.1971,c.987,§ 1. See now es and Regulations Derivation. Former section 7320, sections 6501, 7324 and 7327. added L.1960, c. 1082; and repealed by CRR 59.10. L.1971, c. 987, § 1. Library References ssion of landscape architecture. Licenses =essions contained in article one C.J.S. Licenses § 26 et seq. this article. Notes of Decisions 1. Landscaping or nursery serviee1 article 148 [now this article) went into Services as the preparation of planting effect could be continued to be regarded plans and advice on matters of grading, as normal activity of the above men- planting and construction as offered to tioned persons and not the practice of Note customers by nurserymen, landscape landscape architecture so as to require a 'board", "landscape architect" and the nurserymen and landscape gardeners or license. Op.Educ.Dept., 1965, 5 Educ. practice of landscape architecture, was landscape contractors at the time former Dept.Rep. 223. epealed by L.1971,c.987,§ 1. See now :ection 7321. § 7322. Practice of landscape architecture and use of title "landscape architect" Only a person.licensed or otherwise authorized to practice under erences , this articles shall practice landscape architecture or use the title i "landscape architect". (Added L.1971, c. 987, § 2.) 589 i M —l"Pia rna"I. W d. mu m whL G,vr. r..ri .4"nm luanuWrl w ('.m p,uw,n luuKla,Coal) CONSULLTOUS LAWV*11FORS SIONINO.THIS INSTRUMENT•THIS It 04 SHOULD//USED/T NWT//S ONLY THIS INDENTURE, made the /rh day of August nineteen hundred and eighty six BETWEEN THOMAS W. CRAMER and BENJAMIN L. IIER7WEIG, tenants in common, c/o Pelletreau 6 Pelletreau, 20 Church Street, Patchogue, New York party of the first part,and BENJAMIN L. HERZWEIG and WILLIAM D. MOORE, tenants in common, resdinq at 18 Mapleshade I.'ane, Stony Brook, ,.New York and 370 Ter�y Lane, Southold, New York, respective It 9� pgTRICT SECTION ('�8__I66�(� n 9 f'�'' party of the second part, B 12 17 21 ze )ISTRICT: WITNESSETH, that the party of the first part, in consideration of ten dollars and other valuable cunsidcration 000 paid by the party of the second part, does hereby grant and release unto the party of the second pall, the heirs or successors and assigns of the party of the second part forever, IECTION. ALL that certain plot, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon erected, situate, 15 . 00 lying and beingjpw,441c at Mattituck, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, known and described as Lol. NO. 42 on a certain map entitled, LOCK: "Mattituck Estates, Inc. , " filed in the Office of the Clerk of �5. 00 the County of Suffolk on September 8 , 1965, as Map No. 4453 . ,OT: )07 . 000 3 BEING AND INTENDED TO BE the same premises conveyed to the party of the first part by deed from William G . Smith anct Barbara A . Smith, his wife, dated July 14 , 1.985 and recorded in the Suffolk County Clerk ' s Office on July 23, 1985 , in Liner 9836 , Page 204 . li'z Not subject to a credit line mortgage. R 'A *E , E 1 i I oc1 1 t9ss ' � "TRANSFERTAX t JU}:pp y TOGETHER with all right,title and interest, if any, of flit- party pf file first(y I;MI�I:and to all Ott ecis and roads abutting the above described premises to file center lines thcre•ril; TOGE'l IIF.R with the appurtenances and all the estate and rights of the party of the first part in and to said premise,; TO IIAVE AND TO HOLD the premises herein granted unto the party of the second part, the heirs or successors and assigns of the party of the second part forever. AND the party of the first part covenants that the party of the first part has not done or suffered anything whereby the said premises have been encumbered in any way whatever, except as aforesaid. AND the party of the first part, in compliance with Section 13 of the Lien Law, covenants that the parry of \,•.,� the first part, will receive the consideration for this conveyance and will hold the right to receive such consid- +-• • cration as a trust fund to be applied first fur the purpose of paying the cost of the improvement and will apply the same first to the payment of the cost of the improvement before using any part of the total of the sore for any other purpose, The word "party" shall be construed as if it read "parties" whenever the sense of this indentpre so it-quires. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the party of the first parr has duly executed this dgtd.tke(l(laay above written, y- IN FREJENCE Of �f ' /AS W. CA f ' h) AS W. RAMI3R oo P � h q +--- ( RECOPF) t �4JLI[TTE A KtNSLLL _� 4CT 1 " t 8(, r Ckwtt of SuNk Count r pl ae `Sundard N,Y.R. U. IF.,. M —Bargain anA Salc Ueed,wiW Cmaun"againrz Gnuu ,—Indio lJml ur Cm yuurmn. „logic nccG 1 �.. CONSJIL YOUR LAW BEFORE SIGNING THIS INSTRUMENT•TNIS INSTRUMENT SHOULD RE USED RT LAWYERS ONLY �b ",FP`171��t>Af � l THIS I m e the l i i l day of it , nineteen hundred and eighty flVe BETWEEN WILLIAM G. SMITH and BARBARA A. SMITH, his wife, residing at 11 Treworthy Road, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20878 liISTRICT: 1000 party of the first part,and SECTION: THOMAS W. CRAMER and BENJAMIN L. HERZWEIG, tenants in common, 115 . 00 c/o Pelletreau & Pelletreau, 20 Church Street , Patchogue, New York BLOCK: 11772 (NSTRICT SECT'^*I BLOCK LOT l II 11 i O ; [� LOT: party of the secondpart, iZ fj 2T-T at 007 .000 WITNESSETH, that the party of the first part, in consideration of ten dollars and other vaivable consideration paid by the party of the second part, does hereby grant and release unto the party of the second part, the heirs _ s or successors and assigns of the party of the second part forever, ALL that certain plot, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon erected, situate, lying and being irKthe at Mattituek, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New YoL known and described as Lot No. 42 on a certain Map entitled, "Mattituck Estates, Inc. , " filed in the Office of the Clerk of the 3- County of Suffolk on September 8 , 1965, ans- Map No. 4453 . N'C IVED 7 i REAL ESTATE { JUL 23 1985 TRANSr ER TAX SUFFOLIK COUNTY TOGETHER with all right, title and interest, if any, of the party of the first part in and to any streets and roads abutting the above described premises to the center lines thereof; TOGETHER with the appurtenances and all the estate and rights of the party of the first part in and to said premises; TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the premises herein granted unto the party of the second part, the heirs or successors and assigns of the party of the second part forever. AND the party of the first part covenants that the party of the first part has not done or suffered anything whereby the said premises have been encumbered in any way whatever, except as aforesaid. AND the party of the first part, in compliance with Section 13 of the Lien law, covenants that the parry of the first part will receive the consideration for this conveyance and will hold the right to receive such consid- eration as a trust fund to be applied first for the purpose of paying the cost of the improvement and will apply the same first to the payment of the cost of the improvement before using any part of the total of the same for any other purpose. The word "party" shall be construed as if it read "parties" whenever the sense of this indenture 5o requires. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the party of the first part has duly executed this deed the day and year first above written. C IN PRESENCE OF: W�ILLIA�M G. SMITH of fy )UUFTTF A. I`Ifl° fF{ BARBARA A. SMITH, his wife tJ �' � 23 1985 Clurk of ljtntulh Cuuot; D��5�FF0(�{-�o� z • Town Hall, 53095 Main Road <- P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 JUDITH T.TERRY TELEPHONE TOWNCLLRK (516)765-1801 REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD October 2 , 1985 TO: Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals FROM: Elizabeth A. Neville, Deputy Town Clerk Transmitted herewith is Zoning Appeal No. 3412 application of Thomas W. Cramer for a variance. Also included is notification to adjacent property owners; short environmental assessment form; letter relative to N.Y. S. Tidal Wetlands Land-Use; Notice of Disapproval from the Building Department ; survey and plans. ��e�� Eli abeth A. Ne lle Deputy Town Cler PELLETREAU & PELLETREAU PETER V. SNYDER ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW ROBERT S. PELLETREAU JOHN J. HART 20 CHURCH STREET - BOX IIG (I591-1943) JOHN J.ROE,III RICHARD A.SCHOENFELD FREDERIC L.ATWOOD PATCHOGUE, NEW YORK 11772 (1950-1950) J.TIMOTHY SHEA BRUCE T.WALLACE TEL. 516 475-5656 ROBERT H. PELLETREAU I(EVIN A.SEAMAN OF COUNSEL VANESSA M. SHEEHAN- BENJAMIN L.HERZWEIG •ALSO ADMITTED IN FLORIDA October 1, 1985 _ Town of Southold Building Department Town Clerk' s Office Southold, NY 11971 Attention: Linda Kowalski Re: Herzweig and Cramer Mattituck Estates, Mattituck, New York Dear Linda: Please find enclosed the following documents which should complete the above application: 1 . Four photocopies of the survey; 2 . One photocopy of an Environmental Assessment prepared by Thomas W. Cramer for the Town of Southold Trustees; 3 . One photocopy of Section 7321 of McKinney' s Consolidated Laws of New York regarding landscape architecture; and 4 . Pelletreau & Pelletreau check in the sum of $75 . If you have any questions, please advise. Sincerely, PEL ETREAU & ELLETREAU enjam n He Zweig BLH:gm enc . 0 PELLETREAU & PELLETREAU PETER V. SNYDER ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW ROBERT S. PELLETREAU JOHN J. HART 20 CHURCH STREET - BOX 110 (1891-1943) JOHN J-ROE,III RICHARD A.SCHOENFELD FREDERIC L.ATWOOD PATCHOGUE, NEW YORK 11772 (1950-196O) J.TIMOTHY SHEA BRUCE T. WALLACE TEL. 516 475-5656 ROBERT H. PELLETREAU N EVIN A.SEAMAN OF COUNSEL VANESSA M. SHEEHAN- BENJAMIN L. HERZWEIG September 19, 1985 -ALSO ADMITTED IN FLORIDA Town of Southold Building Department Town Clerk' s Office Southold, NY 11971 Attention: Linda Kowalski Re: Herzweig and Cramer Mattituck Estates, Mattituck, New York Dear Ms. Kowalski: Enclosed please find documents for submission to the Zoning Board of Appeals as well as a copy of the notice for adjacent property owners. If you have any questions, please advise. Sincerely, P ETR4erzweig LLETREAU enjami BLH:gm enc. i BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD In the Matter or the Petition of Thomas W. Cramer & Benjamin L. Herzweiq NOTICE TO to the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold A&'JAG&ENT TO: PROPERTY OWNER 9 YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN NOTICE: 1. That it is the intention of the undersigned to petition the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold to request a ariance ( iYcRgCiHCQS�bIk3[3[ 1QX7�$i)Cp{�$ [circle choice] 1. 2. That the property which is the subject of the Petition is located adjacent to your property and is des- cribed as follows: Section 115, Block 5, Lot 7 3. That the property which is the subject of such Petition is located in the following zoning district: "A" residence 4. That by such Petition, the undersigned will request the followin"k-relief: proposed location of dwelling is less than 75' from wetlands r 5. That the provisions of the Southold Town Zoning Code applicable to the relief sought by the under- signed are Article XI Section 100-119-2B [ ] Section 280-A, New York Town Law for approval of access over right(s)-of-way. 6. That within five days from the date hereof, a written Petition requesting the relief specified above will be filed in the Southold Town Clerk's Office at Main Road Southold, New York and you may then and there examine the same during regular office hours. (516) 7�5-1809. 7. That before the relief sought may be granted, a public hearing must be held on the matter by the Board of Appeals; that a notice of such hearing must be published at least five days,prior to the date of such hearing in the Suffolk Times and in the Long Island Traveler-Mattituck Watchman,newspapers published in the Town of Southold and designated for the publication of such notices;that you or your representative have the right to appear and be heard at such hearing. Dated: September 23 , 1985 Thomas W. Cramer, Benjamin L. Herzweig Petitioner Owners ' Names : _ Post Office Address c/o Pelletreau & Pelletreau 20 Church Street - Box 110 i • Ai r SI PROOF OF MAILING OF NOTICE ATTACH CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPTS NAME ADDRESS P 442 016 703 P 442 016 704 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL = NO INSURA ElCOVERAGE PROVIDED— NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PRGVIOED— NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL ' (See Reverse) Sent to (See Reverse) 4 T rSenttoStreet and IN IC / o. L /P.O Ststa ��_ I AV+ LDor f em^ZPCO`fa nd ZIP Cod—sLr/441---u....E .LUt I�t Z ' A6Postage -$ $ Certified Fee _._ P 442 016 706 RECEIPT FOR CER-ffFIED MAIL P 442 016 705 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED— NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL See Reverse/ NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED— sent to NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL L CDS+ — g5t�reat a9tj No. —7(See Reverse/ 1 �f. •/6 K �S / _ Sent to /��=�-- I( P.O.,St Pea dZIP Code St at a ttl No LAN IIaS1 Postage e e y( P ,w%and Zip tldo u i --- -- irlt — Certlfiad Fee Postage Special Delivery Fea ,Certified Fee Restricted Delivery Fee Rew rn Reca i pt Showing to whom and Data Deliveretl Rel.rtn Recelp!Showrng io whom, _ Date, and Address of Delivery STATE OF NEW YORK ) a COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) 55.: — TOTAL Postage and Fags g I Postmark or Data + 0 0 9/6/'14' OMc��c residing at being duly sworn, depose o Of Se�fcnd� 19 SL , deponent mailed a true copy y verse side hereof, directed to each of the above-named persons at the addresse _r��4H = `t123 names; that the addresses set opposite the names of said persons are the addresses of said persons as shown on the current assessment roll of the Town of Southold; that said Notices were mailed at the United States Post Of- fice at a4c�'4uc fit/y that said Notices were mailed to each of said persons by (certified) (miqlIlmminp mad. Sworn to before me this Z3rd da of_ �r11„ 19 Notary Pu g (This side does not have to be completed on form transmitted to adjoining property owners . ) �7 a_. V71 YOru. STATE DP.PAIT:L'T OF FI'VP_:OUIZATTAL CONSERVATIO? r.eZulatory Lffairs Unit MO. 40. S=--r.00n 219 Stony Prook, DY 11794 (516) 751-7900 hcw.g5 W. C 4-QmrC!2 Poiar -��t-�srx 1 , a �. tC776 RE: SClrv, r�>o� �I �, . OS�• n7 Dear A review has been made of your proposal to: 61-Lq 18s Location: nk 3-a3l N c�:tL�� fYQ..: �w �-{, CLwe . New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has found the parcel _ project to be: Greater than 300' from inventoried tidal wetlands. _ Landward of a substantial man-made structure• greater than 100' in length constructed prior to September 20, 1977. Landward of 10' contour elevation above mean sea level on a gradual, ., n al slope. Lan ward of topographical crest of bluff, cliff or dune in excess of 10' in elevation above mean sea level. Therefore, no permit under Article 25 (Tidal ?-'etlands of the Environmental Conservation Law) is required at this time since the current proposal is beyond State mandated jurisdiction pursuant to this act. 'tor+ever, any additional work or modifications to the project may require a permit. It is your responsibility to notify this office, in writing, if such additional work or modifications are contemplated. Very truly yours,' l Alternate Permit Administrator CTII:MR:co's t` I - � 1 • n r �a��M+��ir'r `••`!�r•r ����+w�����i+a��"wCyaw��r7.`dlrp rr;1 `F I �ww� �..♦� �are _�_+i++�` ��r..T+".� ..+.. � � r• I ��Var.♦w�\w.�ww♦♦.�w �s.r��+mow ♦ ���p�+.♦"M:..w:+•� r .Y.� � �' � �IUIUUIaUIUIIiIIIIIIUI � `•' 1 vIM VIMNIIlIIIINrl � } IJW ;F ' y w°, .i I��� IIHI�IUI�INRIII�IIIII�II —��\' —_. ..+� — - ---- �, •rr r _ 2:. n' • -• • - • • of _. . .60o� 1� fe .= 6: • • • •. � r _ • � 15 - 5- 7 �`�� loe " a Z Z ( I a( Z _ w to �- 21eAlq 6 ) RD G 4 Ft E E N P ORT •^ wzan Io.Jafl '• - 1 _ T MAt TIT1�GK 'a k.i 11. .Ix 5 6 15 � 1• y T la � - - � • Y � •3. 10 •.'Ll qq• ..�a 9„ T!Af[I InAOPIC SI w ly `. Q' ` � 6 xb 361[I • _ 40 Y is Ye: O��G )a 1. : 30 134(C V15TW Y] ^ ^26 6 ,,.,�e COUNTY OF[ , JUI(OLK I! 16� :. 19 21 5 ze e, a a P 36AI[I o' •W /� 6 V, 15— SO 31 9�/ na AV ..:-_ —'� l a .�'�� •1 a 1 �� Y� 1 p9 Y5 i 1' 3] Y6 .. I^ d 31 J J 24 •I _ 3 IS- Cr Is OA(d1 • " ].JAlel 5' v A YI a = n,22' a20 . . er— no,- 9 _• IS VOA Ull t 1• 11 le' 1 ^ ly SS J a 51q,1{, y1:: . . a I6 �r1-�. r•11 s N �� '' z z• ti�fl "Y T5 IITw la" a IS a 'F U I6 W IY a 1 J A' lfl ✓s.mn xE O - 13 \ 1� 36 Jt�19/. 4.� �• I] .. Dee,ee, NSIE Creet 21 9 la' 0 foN nagf(( No J(C )F< No 13J 4 ^ 0 YAtCM -W-O2e M1� ZINC �� •.50 Oe y • �w.e u.....,, KEY eAP t.... I)LJi Lot 41 now or formerly (VACANT 1 County Of Suffolk I I 17:8 I ' K ITS S.6d°091 E. 1 1.0 /ELL 05.411' t' 229.13' V D �43'\ T I/ O cn ' °1M —�/ I i 1I P 0 N D Lot 42 Area=22357s.f. �' 0_ a rRoroSim I. I III 4I LOCATION 1 I �t `s A I // or RESIDENCE , Lr too' . / Tm /p p 0 co k—pE7LAND3 WOUMDARY LIME Z RESIDENCE O.r O / /� / / PIPE 100 • 8.1 I66.60 e.r. / 200.94 0_ r 12.0 ° ' , S. Z I now fT1 Borba or former/ o Cos►on o } I N.3°54'OO�\N• I 32295 Lot 43 (VACANT 1 0 36 e3 64 p� 4AIS NEW SUFFOLK AVENUE Board Of�p�ea 1 Town of SOnI11010 SURVEY FOR WILLIAM MOORE 9 BENJAMIN L. NERZWEIO NOTES LOT 42, "MATTITUCK ESTATES,INC." I. �=MONOMENT JUNE 5, 1987 2. 6=STAKE AT MATTITUCK DATE JUNE 4, 1987 3. SUBDIVISION MAP FILED IN THE OFFICE OF TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCALE: I"=40' THE CLERK OF SUFFOLK CO. ON SEPT. 8,1965 AS FILE NO.4453 SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YOM NO. 87 - 939 4. SUFFOLK CO. TAX MAP DIST.1000 SECT.113 BLOCK05 LOT07 III UNAUTHORIZED ALTERATION Oft ADDITION TO THIS SURVEY M A VIOLATION OF SECTION 7209 OF THE 5. ---14--- = EXISTING CONTOURS NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION LA �PtE OF NFW N CO►I ES OF THIS SURVEY NOT LRING THE LAND S 6. ELEVATIONS ARE REFERENCED 70 SURVEYON'S INKED SEAL ON EMBOSSED Scµ SMALL F,pO w• O� N.G.V.D. 1929 (MSL) MOT BE COMSIOERtD TO K A VALID TRUE COPY MWARANTEES INDICATED HEREON SHALL RUN ONLY 70 THE RE M FOR WHOM THE SURVEY IS PREPARED AND ON HIS KMALF TO THE TITLE COMPANY,GOVMN- MENTAL AGENCY AMC LENDMIS INSTITUTION LISTED M KON,AND TO THE ASSIGMUS OF THE LENDING ♦t INSTITUTION. SUARAMT99S ARE MOT TRANSFERABLE TO ADDITIONAL INSTITUTIONS OR SUBSEQUENT ry OWNERS SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES ♦DISTANCES SHOWN HEREON FROM PROPERTY LIMES ° TO EXISTING STRUCTURES ME FOR A SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND ARE NOT TO BE USED TO ESTABLISH GA9 PROPERTY LINES OR FOR THE ERECTION OF FENCES FOR APPROVAL OF CONSTRUCTION ONLY DATE HS REF. NO. YOUNG a YOUNG RRIVE° RHE°s A� D,,°NEW Y RE"`K'E APPROVED ALDEN W.YOUNG,PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER AND LAND SURVEYOR N.Y.S.LICENSE NO.12845 HOWARD W.YOUNG, LAND SURVEYOR N.Y.S.LICENSE NO.45893 BRANDIS E SONS INC. 10" 1 k ARFEA TV • NATVPLAL. • � , / V./ATP-TZ h O, far fSsrEn ARC xa.- 22/35 7 �t `� z wort J ! � �.dE, e I •• • - HMff FL. . rl'Q� � � � � � 4 ' 9LI fm%p� ..4 1 �w/�R Fx rMeuy ,%I / 00 vr , ••. ZOO.9� 1 Y EL.n.S' r N �A IL vs - Of NEW F o� LET 4Z M,&TTITUCl,-, FS'jRTj—=S iHc. oL� AVE MAC 1 TZJCJ/� Towny of So �Ho`�j Nora: SuRyEy Nr�rwnoH ar�o sFci r��v�To �s. �� �00968� tvG� cfc rL Ty o� SuFFc� o3TA,N6O 3Y NEW �I�1ZlC Y114c ANo Y«Ny SCAPE ARC��� e4p,p O�T>�+dbE tavE. may: TeS W.CTzt�L•1E'p< � tZ.LA. sz,..E.ux�An, Kcw�1�c� /'/l•1 3 c�k�vatJ Lro.Tv-- : F6VI t � Lot 41 now or formerly (VACANT) County of Suffolk I I m�n.e / S.8d-Oq'II E 1 Ep 229.13 WELL O �, I'Dexl ) i I I P O N D Lot 42 -� 111 Area=22357s.f. -�L--/s_ �+ N r'puoros ID 'e LOCATION I OP HOUSE , ; ) RESIDENCE � � / / 100' • 11 JL ID/ P o S.T. SO, ' ; / / CID N p / 1 // / // // ISETLAMDS BOUNDARY LIMO Z RESIDENCE aP / O . ; // / / / PIPE 1CO . O- 8J , ( 188.80, O r 11.0 aP. i 200.94 CL Z I no- or form fT1 ° W / eorbo a Cos onl o N.3 54 00 I 322.95 Lot 43 (VACANT) II 6T O CI. Ca 83 64 NEW SUFFOLK AVENUE Board Qfi Appeals To►1ii of Soui hold SURVEY FOR WILLIAM MOORE 9 BENJAMIN L. HERZWEIG NOTES:_MONUMENT LOT 42, "MATTITUCK ESTATES,INC." 2. p=STAKE AT MATTITUCK DATE JUNE 4, 1987 3. SUBDIVISION MAP FILED IN THE OFFICE OF TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCALE I =40 THE CLERK OF SUFFOLK CO. ON SEPT. 8,1965 AS FILE NO.4453 SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK NO. 87 - 939 4, SUFFOLK CO. TAX MAP DIST. 1000 SECTAIS BLOCK05 LOT07 "UNAUTHORIZED ALTERATION OR ADDITION TO THIS tP�E OF NBh, SURVEY M A VIOLATION OF SECTION 7209 OF THE g r 5. ---)4--- = EXISTING CONTOURS HEW YORK STATE EDUCATION LAW O D 6. ELEVATIONS ARE REFERENCED TO "COPIES OF THIS SURVEY NOT KAROO THE LAND SURVEYOR'S RRQO SEAL OR EMBOSSED SEAL SHALL O O N.G.V.D. 1929 (MSL) NOT K CONSIDERED TO SE A VALID TRUE COPY d G NSUARAMTEES INDICATED KKON SMALL RUN(PLY TO THE PERSON FOR WHOM THE SUIIVEY IS PREPARED AND ON HIS KNALF TO THE TITLE COMPANY,SOVERM- MENTAL AGENCY AND LENDING INSTITUTION LISTED HERON,AND TO THE ASSIGN E& OF THE LENDING INSTITUTION. GUARANTEES ARE NOT TWNSF[RABLE 46 TO ADDITIONAL INSTITUTIONS OR SUBKWENT 45893 OWNERS *DISTANCES SHOWN HEREON FROM PROPERTY LINES TO EXIST*$ STRUCTURES AK FOR A SPECIFIC ' SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICEa PURPOSE AND ARE NOT TO K USED TO ESTABLISH PROPERTY LIMES ON FOR THE ERECTION OF FENCES / FOR APPROVAL OF CONSTRUCTION ONLY YOUNG & YOUNG RIIVVERNE� ATRAWR DDs NEW AVOW DATE HS REF. NO. ALDEN W.YOUNG,PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER APPROVED AND LAND SURVEYOR N.Y.S.LICENSE NO.12845 HOWARD W.YOUNG, LAND SURVEYOR N.Y.S.LICENSE NO.45893 BRARDIS A SON$ INC. IOAS • � - ^ ' '^ o�Is�Wi • 00 06 .bb 'Cll }" 0000/ 0p'001 3 °S 1£u9•N �on�do 2 .00.00, lb'C16 69 04 N - o>!s!W a 9>y y N . ✓ tM 8>y O . , F O g 60 o 09 0Ct /5 0 3.000/9//'�r 99.09 au. 9vw v O0 N, fl£'b01 ,I£'9£1 ,00'001 i ---- 2 M b4o£'N Ao•ool UPo 00'001 00 O ". •M b4o£•N O NV, °. 001 62'1£ 6.2 00 01'ozl po_Gli ,£8'bll Q MOQ�y ,G6'LL 00'9zl n. 00.0 3 00,1£o9•N V 3W Be.� Wool f � '09 fl� auq ao pl-Ion 6u.P/.r^9 �s6 "'`� .00.00, m 95bCD Z to go 01 p N _ O 6F O ' .010£ - /F• 0• Ct 01 *06 G91 b o0� S ' .04 •IS190 el/ - jo�UMl� a ,"�✓ M»o/ ez ap$6 01'861 'MwOC,l£o9 g001 00001 ; 00'Op z6oy : oo ► y 002 COI 4 ' 0 0 W O N N �1 .. q� °o..,4, 0 o q rn Cb CV � � 00 �qq 9 �J.• 6'£a 00'001 00 'OOl 3, 09,£b 04 }o�d 11 ' Y££ rou f lE'9e11 N ocG°� Ol'606 '_ . �JB� Lp /. p n 1L u a N ,tip A N `a�lb � �O 61 to ti o r L4Z 6c 00.001 i vaov_�mc A .0 H p .00.001 OF Oo 61'201 Q'Yi�B o 001 00.06 A—%qL ` 24Z �Oi AN bVS '00 .001 ,00' 8 7s 00 w9 Od 001 . O AO 3 OZ £b 0J.,N WQSS O q'• a voo'� 001 00.00, n P f0 /Z "Pi„'q lrse .0£'19 0 � d O£ y u Of a ^" a s v [f N O I m 6Z 8Z A ' N i ,6 , N m .. .. m e LZ a• + 9Z °s '° I e 9Z `� 4O fL 0.S M.7..G /6\ 6 £sB' Oy r/D"u FoRMERL`/ v •\•�:�}�••�••� ■ \ \ a OF 22%./3/ I laiNiy SVFFOIK EL. 17.✓ • _ L � 7 �- I IVEWA ® E..Iq.q' 1 1 W'TLANpS .5 sl 4� FAMILY i ESIpFJYES • I • vRow=� • • � � rZ gCoRY � � � � ,.I'�^� C4REatEK THAN Iro' / _-1 - F121yAT1= D '`�/�1i1 `I �'D • � y/JJ�I/ 1 -- � {�{� � /// / // / /� n�G NI'MNYoRg`-�ffE9L 7CP.VifMPM- 1��� •p "Q`Y �R �-.'+W.1ERLy -- I11 ` / / of 6VVI¢pNMENiq` Cp,15 YPTe�{. � ` ,J`� �N �^1W'J.M CcSTPAIZO �- • / � / / / / WETLANbs ice` � / •• / W YAcPN't- 1p 4�,I 0 �1�8AN2E. 81=JpN� ,p 1 71 Ar-- Id conlTc ay LINE- - � y AxEA -,a -r:�vaN Nn�zme.� ALL Ro4opF alaE y CoNTAINEb WITIH (,�uTCEtx51L-EADE45 L SCALD,: lu=20r Or! ! AVE. SUFFOL1.r� Cam. TAB: MAP fyuMFE2+ SutzYe`� It�E€Kt+ (ioU pip �aT EL�Yt[CIaIS �A1NE� plsT IOCo scc.: I15 Sl.x�c:o MARS EN10 �- YEYS 'FTC aaR Sy= 07 . Nt. ` %N4"4Wb 5.�e_VEY�Iis SU'2:a,YlSloN MAP: �`TF-ANO(=1t AVENiaE,A,VEti}\E��,tA v- IG.N oFT/lacal_. Uri L�xwtic„ ` MAP of " MATrtrue.}. >=s�a .s , INc. n S�.xpo��✓ C�a�oiNsr � PEi sFrsFc\u.T1wa of ry �+Cc-rtEryT= �.LT1 S�vlcEs. ,1 LoT a TZ �ZEYIouS ScaHs pl'RJAIr SC I'3-50-197 ZoNIN[.� 'plSTyiICT= '�EV1celet�wly�e�rtcwres W IK.�S 7�c�e.Y A, tzEslne.Ne� ZZ1357 sae�Aaa= K.er-r THCAL- Lost LE�Yo� Tvp�aL tt�Tf�NI� C31� Ile Scp.LE`_ Igo S'p}L 'fb PoidNNG,NIELLS KW1511Lb 4.u`La - W4 Wq , IMry,z'1 l y� WELL "z"n b16fANC.E--C6 t�EPREST WASEI� MtWNS R�,I �e LKxwi- - JF IwLcr • • • \ W. � MILES G � ,� ,,� WN.��II -� B�NS'AMIK L • NERTW� `"" 14Pms � \r/ pi�oE p,aN � 'ffi luvwvw "'24 -� wk rl2x Ti(� �ll>=9� SUPR-`/� Nlb 5E41AGE bIE,¢X.AI '� NIN.;�+�I� SY6TEF/�S Fa'fZ 'Cl Z RE61D8NCE WIII e M LAND ' SFPn�TnaR ��' sc>v�cocX.lty -t�r pn� aF �4��lTUC- dIN(v �s�N d e aa U CeaME\z W F G FFOL1` L\I V� Y 63 cLl�rj P�4cE TYPICALHIN(tOL Nires�av\oN, ��Atl OFF NEW �RESID�jI l[L- xALE, �5/4) ''73-4301 C'� D SY' J .k * l Hot�tP.S v.l. �izAM ESZ 1� `Y'ZE% All DIS�'pNGES "� �'AN ApE- ARc.H crc-�r M5 LICENSE l\ID. co 66-1 +3tE MINIMUM1I,S. UA�AVTNCP IZFb PLTCJxp.Tiol,� ci� n):pmd� A �03 CLI FT�N �IPCE i 'Ia TCUs T-�nH \s A vroLrmoN op 'nt� NSA V' 1 [' �SE[=FE1c � PATIO[.\i. m NEW <^ des ��+\5 pwN nl�r �x>zIN�.-TEt� PE AVtCh�� �lEw Yo2lc, 1177Co �RFacE WkTEtZ L�NLFIA!'E_ PY�'hl�c-'cs INKEt E�sa�-rn� .. Extern SEAI-syp,LL N� EE_coN_ CI•a✓NDWAT P, �iU�sr Z�, 1985