HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-6113 MAILING ADDRESS:
S PLANNING BOARD MEMBEhS P.O. Box 1179
JERILYN B.Chair
USE �O��OF S
Chairr U�jyol Southold, NY 11971
O
KENNETH L.EDWARDS � � OFFICE LOCATION:
Town Hall Annex
MARTIN H. SIDORIldc
GEORGE D.SOLOMON 54375 State Route 25
G Q
JOSEPH L.TOWNSEND � �� (cor. Main Rd. &Youngs Ave.)
Southold, NY
P4UMY,�
Telephone:_631.7.6.b-1938
Fax: 631 766-3136
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MAR 6 2006
To: Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals
From: Mark Terry, Senior Environmental Planner _
LWRP Coordinator MAR 6 2006
Date: March 3, 2006 (REVISED) -
Re: Proposed residence for.Nicholas Aliano
ZBA#5846
SCTM#1000-83-1-12
The proposal is to construct a single-family dwelling, two wood retaining walls with
concrete footings, a proposed driveway and septic system within 100' of the top of bluff
line. The following permits were issued for the proposed action:
1. December 28, 2004; New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Tidal Wetland Permit# 1-4738-03391/0001
2. April 20, 2005; Town of Southold Board of Trustees Permit# 6113.
The proposed action has been reviewed to Chapter 95, Waterfront Consistency Review of
the Town of Southold Town Code and the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program
(LWRP) Policy Standards. Based upon the information provided on the LWRP
Consistency Assessment Form submitted to this department, as well as the records
available to me, it is my recommendation that the proposed action is INCONSISTENT
with the denoted following Policy Standards and therefore is INCONSISTENT with the
LWRP.
Note that the surveys approved by the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC), last revised July 19, 2004, and those approved by the Board of
Trustees, last revised August 31, 2005 are different. The survey approved by the DEC
shows the northwest corner of the residence at 48' from the top of bluff line and the
retaining wall 27' from the top of bluff line.
Two surveys were submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Survey A (last revised
January 18, 2006) and Survey B (last revised February 14, 206). Survey A proposes to
locate the northwest corner of the residence at 42' from the top of bluff line and 7' of the
eastern concrete retaining wall footing seaward of the coastal erosion hazard line. The
survey correlates with the Board of Trustees approval.
Survey B (as built), shows the location of the existing footings for the residence at 42' from
the top of bluff line and the eastern concrete retaining wall footings 33' from the top of
bluff line and outside of the coastal erosion hazard area.
Policy Standard
4.1 Minimize losses of human life and structures from flooding and erosion hazards.
The following management measures to minimize losses of human life and structures
from flooding and erosion hazards are suggested:
A. Minimize potential loss and damage by locating development and structures away
from flooding and erosion hazards.
1. Avoid development other than water-dependent uses in coastal hazard
areas. Locate new development which is not water-dependent as far away
from coastal hazard areas as practical.
a. No development is permitted in natural protective feature areas,
except as specifically allowed under the relevant portions of 6
NYCRR 505.8.
b. Avoid hazards by siting structures to maximize the distance from
Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas.
Aerial photos (attached) indicate that the bluff/cliff on the property is unstable and erosive.
This observation is supported in a report authored by William L. Jaeger, P.E., L.S dated
January 24, 2006. However, it is unclear to what exact area the term "bluff' applies to in
the report. The report states:
"The bluff is currently unstable with no toe control and some vegetated
overburden."
The report further states that:
"The current bluff instability is unrelated to the construction of the foundation..."
Note that, no evaluation of the clearing of the moderate to severe slopes in relation to
bluff/cliff/slopes instability and erosion was made in the report. In addition, the report
does not address the potential instability of the area down slope of the eastern retaining
wall which consists of severe slopes cleared of vegetation.
Due to lot size and area of moderate to severe slopes, there is limited ability to site the
residential structure to avoid erosion hazards. However, to further Policy 4.1 A,1b it is
recommended that the Board evaluate the relocating of the residence foundation to the
west to avoid slopes greater than 15% to the greatest extent practical.
To further Policy 4.1 and stabilize the bluff areas it is further recommended that:
a. The applicant re-vegetate the face of all bluff in conjunction with providing toe
protection in the form of gabions or other stone control methods as
recommended in the engineering report prepared by William L. Jaeger, RE,
P ap
L.S.
In addition, it is also recommended that vegetative erosion control methods be employed on
all bluff/cliff areas with slopes greater than 15%.
Policy S. Protect and improve water quality and supply in the Town of Southold.
The property is not served by public water. Water supply is proposed via private well.
To further protect ground water quality and conserve water supply to the greatest extent
possible it is recommended that the reviewing Boards encourage the following best
management practices for landscaping, lawn establishment and maintenance post construction
to further the conservation of water and retain water quality:
1. Minimize irrigated/fertilized lawn areas; replace proposed turf areas with indigenous
trees and understory.
Policy 6. Protect and restore the quality and function of the Town of Southold ecosystem
Policy Standards
6.1 Protect and restore ecological quality throughout the Town of Southold.
A. Avoid adverse changes to the Long Island Sound and the Peconic Bay ecosystems that
would result from impairment of ecological quality as indicated by:
1. Physical loss of ecological components
Physical loss is often the most obvious natural resource impairment to
identify. It usually results from discrete actions, such as filling or
excavating a wetland or clearing an upland forest community prior to
development.
2. Degradation of ecological components
Degradation occurs as an adverse change in ecological quality, either as a
direct loss originating within the resource area or as an indirect loss
originating from nearby activities. Degradation usually occurs over a
more extended period of time than physical loss and may be indicated by
increased siltation, changes in community composition, or evidence of
pollution.
B. Protect and restore ecological quality by adhering to the following measures.
1. Maintain values associated with natural ecological communities.
Each natural ecological community has associated values which contribute
to the ecological quality of the Town of Southold. These values should be
assessed on a case-by-case basis.
2. Retain and add indigenous plants to maintain and restore values of natural
ecological communities.
a. Protect existing indigenous plants from loss or disturbance to the
extent practical.
P3� �
b. Include use of suitable indigenous plants in the landscaping plans
for new development and in redevelopment projects where loss or
disturbance of existing indigenous plants could not be prevented
during construction.
The property has been mostly cleared of vegetation, including areas seaward of the Coastal
Erosion Hazard Line. Prior to construction, no clearing limits were established to mitigate
and/or stabilize moderate to severe slopes or preserve indigenous vegetation to "the extent
practical". Due to the fact that the lot has been mostly cleared of vegetation there is little
ability to further Policy 6.1 B, 2a.
To comply with a Board of Trustee permit condition and to assist in the stabilization of the
steep slopes, a planting plan, dated January 26, 2006 has been submitted by the Cramer
Consulting Group which includes indigenous plant species. Plants are grouped and located
within the retaining walls and below the eastern concrete retaining wall. Slopes will be
hydro-seeded with an unspecified grass species. The lawn area is proposed to be planted in
sod.
The effectiveness and success of the planting plan in furthering Policy 6.1 B, 2b cannot be
assessed without knowing the percent slope post construction grading and the erosion
control methods (if any) that will be employed at the toe of the bluff/cliff.
C. Reduce adverse impacts on ecological quality due to development.
1. Reduce adverse effects of existing development.
2. Mitigate impacts of new development.
The proposed action will result in a physical loss of a vegetated bluff ecosystem. The ability
to reduce adverse impact of development is limited due to the fact that clearing and
grading has already occurred on site. The applicant has mitigated some impacts of new
development through the placement of haybales and silt fencing during construction. To
further Policy 6.2 C.2, the following is recommended:
1. The submittal of a re-vegetation plan proposing high density plantings of
indigenous drought tolerant plant species on all slopes greater than 15% to provide
more effective slope stabilization and minimize fertilization and irrigation
requirements.
Policy Standard
6.3 Protect and restore tidal and freshwater wetlands.
A. Comply with statutory and regulatory requirements of the Southold Town Board of
Trustees laws and regulations for all Andros Patent and other lands under their
jurisdiction.
1. Comply with Trustee regulations and recommendations as set forth in
Trustee permit conditions.
B. Comply with statutory and regulatory requirements of the State's wetland
laws.
A
2. Comply with the regulatory requirements of the Freshwater Wetlands Act
for the protection of mapped freshwater wetlands.
3. Comply with the regulatory requirements of the Tidal Wetlands Act for
the protection of mapped tidal wetlands including coastal fresh marsh;
intertidal marsh; coastal shoals, bars and flats; high marsh or salt meadow;
littoral zones; and formerly connected tidal wetlands.
Chapter 37 defines a bluff as: "Any bank or cliff with a precipitous or steeply sloped face
adjoining a beach or a body of water. The waterward limit of a bluff is the landward limit
of its waterward natural protective feature. Where no beach is present, the waterward
limit of a bluff is mean low water. The landward limit is twenty-five (25) feet landward of
the receding edge or, in those cases where there is no discernible line of active erosion,
twenty-five (25) feet landward of the point of inflection on the top of the bluff. The "point
of inflection" is that point along the top of the bluff where the trend of the land slope
changes to begin its descent to the shoreline."
As discussed above, the landward limit of the bluff/cliff is unclear. Therefore, a
recommendation regarding the compliance of the proposed action to Chapter 37 cannot be
made at this time.
Chapter 97 of the Town of Southold Town Code also defines a bluff as: "Any bank or cliff
with a precipitous or steeply sloped face adjoining a beach or a body of water. The
waterward limit of a bluff is the landward limit of its waterward natural protective feature.
Where no beach is present, the waterward limit of a bluff is mean low water. The landward
limit is twenty-five (25) feet landward of the receding edge or, in those cases where there is
no discernible line of active erosion, twenty-five (25) feet landward of the point of inflection
on the top of the bluff. The ','point of inflection" is that point along the top of the bluff
where the trend of the land slope changes to begin its descent to the shoreline."
Chapter 97 regulates actions within 100 feet of a Bluff line; the action includes;
Bluff line.
(1) Residence: 100 feet.
(2) Driveway: 100 feet.
(3) Sanitary leaching pool (cesspool): 100 feet.
(4) Swimming pool and related structures: 100 feet.
Pursuant to Chapter 97 of the Town of Southold Town Code, residential structures,
sanitary leaching pools and driveways require a minimum 100' setback from the top of
bluff line. On the survey approved by the DEC (dated last revised July 19, 2004) and
Board of Trustees (dated last revised September 3, 2004, the applicant proposes a 48'
setback from the foundation wall (northwest corner) to the top of bluff line.
Therefore the proposed action is inconsistent with the Policy 6.3 B3. Due to lot
configuration and setback requirement there is limited to no ability to locate the residence
or retaining walls to meet the minimum 100' setback and further or meet the Policy 6.3 B3.
P, 5-16
Policy Standard
9.2. Protect and provide public visual access to coastal lands and waters from public sites
and transportation routes where physically practical.
A. Avoid loss of existing visual access.
1. Limit physical blockage of existing visual access by development or
activities due to thescale, design, location, or type structures.
2. Protect view corridors provided by streets and other public areas leading
to the coast.
3. Protect visual access to open space areas associated with natural resources.
B. Minimize adverse impact on visual access.
1. Provide for view corridors to the coast in those locations where new
structures would block views of the coast from inland public vantage
points.
2. Use structural design and building siting techniques to preserve or retain
visual access and minimize obstruction of views.
3. Visual access requirements may be reduced where site conditions,
including vegetative cover or natural protective features, block potential
views.
Visual access from Glen Road, a public road,will be impaired as a result of the
construction of a residence with an approximate ridge height elevation at 92'35"; based
upon a building height from the top of the foundation to the ridge of 37'9".
However, the extent of the impairment of visual access caused by the residential structure
cannot be accurately assessed without a view shed analysis. Correspondingly, due to lot
size, percent of protected natural features and slopes, there is limited ability to meet or
further this policy and subpolicies as it relates to this action.
Please contact me at(631) 765-1938 if you have any questions regarding the above.
l MAILING ADDRESS:
ti PLANNING BOARD MEMBER:. / P.O. Box 1179
` WERT,d..YN B WOODHOUSE �O_``�OF so Southold,
Southold, NY 11971
�' I V Chair V`� O
OFFICE LOCATION:
b°f /KENNETH L.EDWARDS Town Hall Annex
^ J MARTIN H.SIDOR cn ,r 54375 State Route 25
(`� P GEORGE D SOLOMON O
JOSEPH L.TOWNSEND � (cor Main Rd. &Youngs Ave.)
DSouthold, NY
VD-r- 4UNTY,`�
Telephone: 631 765-1938
Fax: 631 765-3136
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
To: Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals
From: Mark Terry, Senior Environmental Planner
LWRP Coordinator
Date: February 28, 2006
Re: Proposed residence for Nicholas Aliano
ZBA#5846
SCTM#1000-83-1-12
The proposal is to construct a single-family dwelling, two concrete retaining walls and
septic system within 100' of the top of bluff line. The following permits were issued for the
proposed action:
1. December 28, 2004; New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Tidal Wetland Permit# 1-4738-03391/0001
2. April 20, 2005; Town of Southold Board of Trustees Permit# 6113.
The proposed action has been reviewed to Chapter 95, Waterfront Consistency Review of
the Town of Southold Town Code and the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program
(LWRP) Policy Standards. Based upon the information provided on the LWRP
Consistency Assessment Form submitted to this department, as well as the records
available to me, it is my recommendation that the proposed action is INCONSISTENT
with the denoted following Policy Standards and therefore is INCONSISTENT with the
LWRP.
Note that the surveys approved by the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC), last revised July 19, 2004, and Board of Trustees (last revised
September 16, 2004) and those submitted to the Town of Southold Zoning Board of
Appeals are different. The survey submitted to the DEC and Board of Trustees shows the
northwest corner of the residence at 48' from the top of bluff line.
Two surveys were submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Survey A(last revised
January 18, 2006) proposes to locate the northwest corner of the residence at 42' from the
top of bluff line. Survey B (last revised February 14, 2006) proposes to relocate the
residence 50' from the top of bluff line and re-orient the residence.
A portion of the eastern concrete retaining wall (closest to Duck Pond Road) is located
within the Coastal Erosion Hazard Line. On the survey submitted and approved by the
DEC and the Board of Trustees, the concrete retaining wall is proposed at 27' from the top
of bluff line. On Survey A, submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals, the applicant
proposes to locate the concrete retaining wall 22' from the top of bluff line. Survey B
proposes a 33' setback from the top of bluff line and locates the concrete retaining wall
landward of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area.
Policy Standard
4.1 Minimize losses of human life and structures from flooding and erosion hazards.
The following management measures to minimize losses of human life and structures
from flooding and erosion hazards are suggested:
A. Minimize potential loss and damage by locating development and structures away
from flooding and erosion hazards.
1• Avoid development other than water-dependent uses in coastal hazard
areas. Locate new development which is not water-dependent as far awa
from coastal hazard areas as practical.
a. No development is permitted in natural protective feature areas,
except as specifically allowed under the relevant portions of 6
NYCRR 505.8.
b. Avoid hazards by siting structures to maximize the distance from
Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas.
The proposed residential structure is landward of the Costal Erosion Hazard Line. A
portion (approximately 7') of the eastern concrete retaining wall is located seaward of the
Coastal Erosion Hazard Line.
Aerial photos (attached) indicate that the bluff/cliff on the property is unstable and highly
erosive. This observation is supported in a report authored by William L. Jaeger, P.E., L.S
dated January 24, 2006. However, it is unclear to what exact area the term "bluff' applies
to in the report. The report states:
"The bluff is currently unstable with no toe control and some vegetated
overburden."
The report further states that:
"The current bluff instability is unrelated to the construction of the foundation..."
Note that, no evaluation of the clearing of the moderate to severe slopes in relation to
bluff/cliff instability and erosion was made in the report. In addition, the report does not
address the potential instability of the area down slope of the eastern concrete retaining
wall which consists of severe slopes cleared of vegetation.
Due to lot size and area of steep slopes, there is limited ability to site the residential
structure to avoid erosion hazards. To further Policy 4.1 A,1b it is recommended that the
Board evaluate the relocating of the residence foundation to the west to avoid slopes
greater than 15% to the greatest extent practical.
To further Policy 4.1 and stabilize the bluff areas it is recommended that:
a. The applicant re-vegetate the face of the bluff in conjunction with providing toe
protection in the form of gabions or other stone control methods as
recommended in the engineering report prepared by William L. Jaeger, P.E,
L.S.
In addition, it is also recommended that vegetative erosion control methods be employed on
all bluff/cliff areas with slopes greater than 15%.
Policy 6. Protect and restore the quality and function of the Town of Southold ecosystem
Policy Standards
6.1 Protect and restore ecological quality throughout the Town of Southold.
A. Avoid adverse changes to the Long Island Sound and the Peconic Bay ecosystems that
would result from impairment of ecological quality as indicated by:
1. Physical loss of ecological components
Physical loss is often the most obvious natural resource impairment to
identify. It usually results from discrete actions, such as filling or
excavating a wetland or clearing an upland forest community prior to
development.
2. Degradation of ecological components
Degradation occurs as an adverse change in ecological quality, either as a
direct loss originating within the resource area or as an indirect loss
originating from nearby activities. Degradation usually occurs over a
more extended period of time than physical loss and may be indicated by
increased siltation, changes in community composition, or evidence of
pollution.
B. Protect and restore ecological quality by adhering to the following measures.
1. Maintain values associated with natural ecological communities.
Each natural ecological community has associated values which contribute
to the ecological quality of the Town of Southold. These values should be
assessed on a case-by-case basis.
2. Retain and add indigenous plants to maintain and restore values of natural
ecological communities.
a. Protect existing indigenous plants from loss or disturbance to the
extent practical.
b. Include use of suitable indigenous plants in the landscaping plans
for new development and in redevelopment projects where loss or
disturbance of existing indigenous plants could not be prevented
during construction.
4 )
The property has been mostly cleared of vegetation, including areas seaward of the Coastal
Erosion Hazard Line. Prior to construction, no clearing limits were established to mitigate
and/or stabilize severe slopes or preserve indigenous vegetation to "the extent practical".
Due to the fact that the lot has been mostly cleared of vegetation there is little ability to
further Policy 6.1 B, 2a.
To comply with a Board of Trustee permit condition and to assist in the stabilization of the
steep slopes, a planting plan, dated January 26, 2006 has been submitted by the Cramer
Consulting Group which includes indigenous plant species. Plants are grouped and located
within the retaining walls and below the eastern concrete retaining wall. Slopes will be
hydro-seeded with a unspecified grass species. The lawn area is proposed to be planted in
sod.
The effectiveness and success of the planting plan in furthering Policy 6.1 B, 2b cannot be
assessed without knowing the percent slope post construction grading and the erosion
control methods (if any) that will be employed at the toe of the bluff/cliff.
C. Reduce adverse impacts on ecological quality due to development.
1. Reduce adverse effects of existing development.
2. Mitigate impacts of new development.
The proposed action will result in a physical loss of a vegetated bluff ecosystem. The ability
to reduce adverse impact of development is limited due to the fact that clearing and
grading has already occurred on site. The applicant has mitigated some impacts of new
development through the placement of haybales and silt fencing during construction. To
further Policy 6.2 C.2, the following is recommended:
1. The submittal of a re-vegetation plan proposing high density plantings of
indigenous drought tolerant plant species.
Policy Standard
6.3 Protect and restore tidal and freshwater wetlands.
A. Comply with statutory and regulatory requirements of the Southold Town Board of
Trustees laws and regulations for all Andros Patent and other lands under their
jurisdiction.
1. Comply with Trustee regulations and recommendations as set forth in
Trustee permit conditions.
B. Comply with statutory and regulatory requirements of the State's wetland
laws.
2. Comply with the regulatory requirements of the Freshwater Wetlands Act
for the protection of mapped freshwater wetlands.
3. Comply with the regulatory requirements of the Tidal Wetlands Act for
the protection of mapped tidal wetlands including coastal fresh marsh;
intertidal marsh; coastal shoals, bars and flats; high marsh or salt meadow;
littoral zones; and formerly connected tidal wetlands.
Chapter 37 defines a bluff as: "Any bank or cliff with a precipitous or steeply sloped face
adjoining a beach or a body of water. The waterward limit of a bluff is the landward limit
of its waterward natural protective feature. Where no beach is present, the waterward
limit of a bluff is mean low water. The landward limit is twenty-five (25) feet landward of
the receding edge or, in those cases where there is no discernible line of active erosion,
twenty-five (25) feet landward of the point of inflection on the top of the bluff. The "point
of inflection" is that point along the top of the bluff where the trend of the land slope
changes to begin its descent to the shoreline."
As discussed above, the landward limit of the bluff/cliff is unclear. Therefore, a
recommendation regarding the compliance of the proposed action to Chapter 37 cannot be
made at this time.
Chapter 97 of the Town of Southold Town Code also defines a bluff as: "Any bank or cliff
with a precipitous or steeply sloped face adjoining a beach or a body of water. The
waterward limit of a bluff is the landward limit of its waterward natural protective feature.
Where no beach is present, the waterward limit of a bluff is mean low water. The landward
limit is twenty-five (25) feet landward of the receding edge or, in those cases where there is
no discernible line of active erosion, twenty-five (25) feet landward of the point of inflection
on the top of the bluff. The "point of inflection" is that point along the top of the bluff
where the trend of the land slope changes to begin its descent to the shoreline."
Chapter 97 regulates actions within 100 feet of a Bluff line; the action includes;
Bluff line.
(1) Residence: 100 feet.
(2) Driveway: 100 feet.
(3) Sanitary leaching pool (cesspool): 100 feet.
(4) Swimming pool and related structures: 100 feet.
Pursuant to Chapter 97 of the Town of Southold Town Code, residential structures,
sanitary leaching pools and driveways require a minimum 100' setback from the top of
bluff line. On the survey approved by the DEC (dated last revised July 19, 2004) and
Board of Trustees (dated last revised September 3, 2004, the applicant proposes a 48'
setback from the foundation wall (northwest corner) to the top of bluff line.
Therefore the proposed action is inconsistent with the Policy 6.3 B3. Due to lot
configuration and setback requirement there is limited to no ability to locate the residence
or retaining walls to meet the minimum 100' setback and further or meet the Policy 6.3 B3.
Policy Standard
9.2. Protect and provide public visual access to coastal lands and waters from public sites and
transportation routes where physically practical.
A. Avoid loss of existing visual access.
1. Limit physical blockage of existing visual access by development or
activities due to the scale, design, location, or type structures.
r
2. Protect view corridors provided by streets and other public areas leading
to the coast.
3. Protect visual access to open space areas associated with natural resources.
B. Minimize adverse impact on visual access.
1. Provide for view corridors to the coast in those locations where new
structures would block views of the coast from inland public vantage
points.
2. Use structural design and building siting techniques to preserve or retain
visual access and minimize obstruction of views.
3. Visual access requirements may be reduced where site conditions,
including vegetative cover or natural protective features, block potential
views.
Visual access from Glen Road, a public road, will be impaired as a result of the
construction of a residence with an approximate ridge height elevation at 92135"; based
upon a building height from the top of the foundation to the ridge of 37'9".
However, the extent of the impairment of visual access caused by the residential structure
cannot be accurately assessed without a view shed analysis. Correspondingly, due to lot
size, percent of protected natural features and slopes, there is limited ability to meet or
further this policy and subpolicies as it relates to this action.
Please contact me at (631) 765-1938 if you have any questions regarding the above.
C-P
February 27, 2006
Chairwoman Ruth Oliva ,,
Board of Appeals �0 J
3I�
Town of Southold
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971-0959
RE: ZBA File REF. No 5846
Dear Chairwoman Oliva:
As requested, a site review was conducted for the construction of a house on the above-
mentioned site located at Glen Ct., Cutchogue. The following are the observations and
recommendations associated with the bluff and eastern slope of the property.
Observations:
This visit revealed that a "Stop Work Order" has been issued for the construction of the
house due to installation of the foundation within the coastal hazard line. As indicated
on the blue print, and confirmed during the site visit, the house is sited on a point of land
approximately 45 feet south of the bluff face and on the edge of the eastern slope. In
order to facilitate the installation of the foundation, cuts into the slope were made at least
10 feet deep and 45 feet wide. Additionally, the entire eastern slope face has been
denuded(Photos 1-5).
The investigation into the stability of the bluff revealed that severe erosion is occurring at
the toe, face, and the top of the bluff. The top of the bluff is partially vegetated with
brambles, herbaceous plants, and trees. A 10-foot vertical face, topped with an
overhanging lip of vegetation, is found on the upper portion of the bluff. The bluff face
is composed of sandy soils, mixed with gravel, cobblestones and a few large boulders.
Sparse herbaceous vegetation and a few trees and shrubs exist on the bluff face. At least
one gully runs vertically down the bluff face, indicating a concentrated flow from either
hydrostatic pressure/ground water seeps or from runoff over the top of the bluff. (Photos
4, 5, 9-13)
The vegetated toe of the bluff and the asphalt access point at the end of Duck Pond Road,
just to the east of the bluff are continually being eroded with each high tide. Active
sloughing of sediment at the toe, as well as, movement of sediment down the bluff face
was witnessed numerous times while on site at low tide. It should be expected that the
erosion of the bluff will continue to increase with each tidal cycle and may be
exponentially severe with storm events. It is assumed that for this reason, bulkheading
has been installed both to the east and directly west of this property. (Photos 12 -14)
Recommendations:
Agency due to low oxygen levels. Thus, the potential impact of the nutrient loading on
Long Island Sound from this septic system should be considered.
Lawns and landscaping activities have severe limitations due to the droughty and sandy
soil characteristics. As discussed above, vegetation on this slope is imperative for slope
stability. However, due to the droughty nature of the soils it will be difficult to
successfully establish vegetation on this area without irrigation. It is recommended that
no sprinkler irrigation be used on this slope because irrigation acts as a catalyst for
erosion. Therefore native plants adapted to drought and saline conditions are
recommended for the landscaping and vegetative cover of this area. A listing of native
plants appropriate for this site is included with this letter and is further addressed in the
bluff revegation section found below.
Lastly, and of equal concern is maintaining structural stability of the house from the bluff
exposure. As noted above, the entire bluff is unstable due to active erosion of the top,
face, and toe. Currently, a distance of approximately 40 feet exists between the house
and the bluff. In order to stabilize the bluff, at least 15 feet of the top of the bluff will be
required to be cut back in order to obtain an natural angle of repose for bluff stability.
This will reduce the distance between the house structure and the bluff edge to 25 feet.
As you are aware, bluffs are dynamic environments that are easily compromised by both
natural forces (storms) and human impacts. Hence there is no guarantee that future bluff
erosion will not occur even if full stabilization of the bluff is achieved. Respectively, a
stop work order on this construction due to encroachment of the coastal hazard line is
extremely warranted at this location and continuation of construction is cautioned.
Regardless of the decision to issue or deny this variance, it is highly encouraged that
actions are taken to restore the bluff and the eastern slope to a stable environment.
Specific to the bluff, it is important to recognize that even with the best vegetative cover
on the bluff face, it will be compromised by erosion if the toe and top of the bluff are not
stabile. The first measure of protection is to stabilize the toe of the bluff. Unfortunately,
toe erosion at this site cannot be stabilized by vegetating the toe, due to the high degree of
tidal erosion. Therefore, a solid structure similar to a bulkhead or rock wall will probably
be required for full toe protection. Jay Tanski, NY Sea Grant (631) 632-8730 is a
professional in coastal erosion abatement structures and should be contacted regarding
the appropriate toe protection structure. Permits from the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation and possibly the Army Corps of Engineers must be secured
for such an installation. During this installation, the least amount of activity possible
should occur on the bluff face, they are very unstable environments and easily damaged.
Secondly, the overhanging lip of vegetation and vertical face, should be cut back to a
natural 45-degree angle in order stabilize this portion of the bluff. This may involve the
removal of the vegetation along the top of the bluff. Next, any additional tree or
shrubbery, within 3 feet of the bluff edge and on the bluff face should be cut to ground
level, leaving the roots intact. The cutting of trees prevents them from toppling due to
wind forces, while allowing the remaining roots to hold the soil, thereby preventing
erosion. Any debris, including the cut trees should be removed from the bluff face while
The first concern is that this site, and all the construction sites on Duck Pond Road are in
violation of the new Environmental Protection Agency's Phase II Stormwater Runoff
Regulations enforced under the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYS DEC) Law. This law states that any construction site disturbing
more than one acre of land, which has a hydraulic link, is required to submit and
implement a Sediment and Erosion Control Plan. Duck Pond Road serves as a direct
hydraulic link to Long Island Sound, has bare and actively eroding soils, and
inappropriately installed erosion control fencing (photo 6 & 7) and no vegetative
covering on exposed soils. Therefore, even with a certified NYS DEC Sediment and
Erosion Control plan, the entire disturbed area along Duck Pond Road is in violation
under NYS DEC law.
In order to be in compliance with the Phase II regulations, a certified Sediment and
Erosion Control plan must be developed, implemented, and maintained to avoid the
$25,000 per day violation fee. Preventing runoff and sediment pollution into water
bodies is the goal of these regulations. Therefore the correct installation of silt fencing
and establishment of temporary vegetation on any exposed soils should occur.
The enclosed literature provides diagrams on the correct methods for silt fence
installation. This is critical since vegetation will not be fully established until after the
spring rains. These rains have the potential to cause severe gullies on the slope,
sediment-laden runoff and in the worst-case scenario, landslides. Therefore, every effort
should be made to install and maintain the correctly installed silt fencing along the entire
extent of Duck Pond Road.
Vegetation should be established on this slope as soon as weather permits. A temporary
cover of cereal rye or oats is recommended or if a permanent cover is desired the
recommendations for the bluff revegetation (listed later in this letter) should be followed.
The vegetation will hold the soil to the hill, helping to prevent sloughing and potential
landslides.
The siting of the house on the eastern slope is the second concern due to the steep slope
and soil type. The Suffolk County Soil Survey identifies this location (and the entire
sloped area where construction is occurring on Duck Pond Rd) as having Carver and
Plymouth soils (CpE) with slopes between 15-35 %. The soil survey lists the limitations
of this soil as severe for the installation of home sites (due to slopes), septic systems
(slopes), lawns and landscaping (sandy surface area), pipeline locations (stability), and
paths and trails (sandy surface area). Due to the"severe" limitations of this site, it should
not be developed and opened to erosion.
A footnote of the soil survey lists an additional concern with the septic systems as a
pollution hazard for water bodies due to the sandy nature of the soils. This is important
to recognize, as the installation of the septic system on this property would be a
maximum of 150 feet from Long Island Sound. A Total Maximum Daily Load for
nitrogen has been established for Long Island Sound by the Environmental Protection
ensuring that minimal damage to the bluff occurs (i.e. trees not be dragged down the bluff
face). The debris should not be deposited on the beach. Once these actions are
completed then the revegetation of the bluff should occur.
`Cape' American beach grass is the most recommended species to be established on the
bluff, top of bluff face, behind of the toe stabilization structure and on the eastern slope.
This grass serves as an effective sediment trap and erosion control measure due to plant
density and its substantial root systems. Cape-American beach grass is a hardy native
perennial, that thrives on Long Island's harsh conditions found at this site: doughty sandy
soils, & salt exposure. It is these characteristics that have extensively promoted the use
of Cape-American beach grass to restore, create and protect bluffs and dunes from both
wind and water erosion.
Cape American beach grass is readily available from nurseries and for best results should
be transplanted when is it dormant; late fall, winter, or early spring months. This limits
you to planting it during the months of December through March. Thus, construction and
planting activities should be scheduled around this planting time to ensure successful
vegetative establishment. The beach grass should be planted as three culms (plantlets)
every 12 to 18 inches apart in a grid pattern (See enclosed planting guides for fertilization
and additional information). Planting should occur from the top of the bluff to the toe.
To increase diversity and reduce the threat of disease, a warm season grass seed mixture
should be broadcast on the slope just prior to planting the beach grass. Treading on the
soil during planting of the beach grass will effectively "plant" the seed and ensure good
soil to seed contact. The seed mixture and complete method for planting the Beach Grass
is listed within the USDA Stabilization of Eroding Bluffs document enclosed with this
letter. Additionally, other low growing species such as Black-Eyed Susan, Montauk
Daisy, Virginia creeper, Beach Rose (Rosa virginica) Eastern Prickly Pear Cactus,
Seaside Goldenrod, Golden Aster, Sweet Fern, and Beach Pea are strongly
recommended.
Once all of the above recommendations are implemented, preventative measures need to
be taken to ensure future erosion does not occur. As this is a residential area, humans,
pets, and wildlife (deer) must be prevented, as much as practical, from traveling down the
bluff face. Cactus and Cape American beach grass can be planted together up to the bluff
edge behind the toe protection structure. Behind this planting, roses and shrubs can be
established to further discourage access. Cape American beach grass is easily damaged
by foot traffic and is essential to holding soils in place. Therefore, any vegetation die-off
whether natural or human caused should be repaired as soon as possible.
Fostering an understanding of the importance of bluffs is critical to their protection. As
the community uses this bluff area extensively, the installation of signage would serve as
the perfect means to educate the public on the sensitive bluff environments and the efforts
they can employ to protect the bluff (i.e. no walking on the bluff). It is recommended
that such signs be placed at the access point. This is an inexpensive means to foster an
appreciation for the bluff while dually protecting the bluff and stairway by those who
utilize this area for its natural beauty.
Due to the close proximity to the saline waters, the methods for revegating the eastern
slope should be followed as recommended for the revegation of the bluff face. As
discussed, the use of native plantings is important on this site not only to try to restore the
environment in the most natural way but also because irrigation should not be employed
due to erosion concerns. Therefore the use of native plants which are drought and salt
tolerant will be much more successful in establishing vegetation on this slope.
Enclosed are the following various pieces of literature to assist in planting and restoring
the bluff and eastern slope to a stabile condition: photos of the site, a list of nurseries,
which supply the recommended plantings, plant information, and Phase II Stormwater
regulations and requirements. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or
concerns regarding these recommendations. I can be reached at my office at 727-2315 x3,
Monday through Friday 7:30 am to 4:00 pm.
Sincerely:
Polly L. Weigand
Soil District Technician
a �yy
x�
1
a
ca •* C
a � ,
6�A
L �
'IT
P"Lit
�„C�tk r 7. 1!. ��^' rs - �Rx tri���r '+::Jq� •N �.
;� "�S$`. „71�+�, �4 - `9'r l � w"" _ r '4. ES ,tr��' �'r`,�y'""Nl� �-utt j ✓e.
�s * '.f to ,.. '"` .a� .�,�r ""` .Sf �✓"' � s r,...'+ >.:..
. '�� yyEEit� c � �# ar �� �: �fk. Jr � .� `Y:.b' wp.ti.� a •>!7
� aat'awatCx�.f. "� .i'Y.. 3 tR• < ..+5a :��"a�� { t ci+ �a r. m��4+'.. �� s�'"',i?Tq 4 t{
' p .i Jk� ..r`8it11e:x� '� ::Yf'd, �� s� �4,{ k r,�le.w �r�iFSR�:r'�fi•/�#�-. :a� f'+µ
, '�* ,.k�_$ ,' i" �:, �+ r.J � ti... 'l +' 4 ,fin;✓•�'t"'t`( f
•.. NfR
Ni
ww—
WA
IM
IVA
42
}y F la
'S�fn���31s✓����r�k+l�. ,rt.y�.St,J S,�f�y .. �@ A'9r' �... �r ,� � 3.` ,. {
Y'V'=4 7 Yns"' '
0.N
x �**
♦ - 41,M
jil
� ILl
h
i no
rem
1
Vp
ed7"
t ,
a �4
Vertical Face
Photo 8 Photo 9 Photo 10
i
r
a.
East to West Across Beach
Photo 11 Photo 12 Photo 13 Photo 14
y,
I, r�
"�i'���i�'7�.x.��,���"�! fir,� ,��f �r:��i•il. �a
r+
Toe Erosion Bulkhead
Erosion of Public Access Point Duck Pond Rd.
Vertical Face
Photo 8 Photo 9 Photo 10
n j}+
East to West Across Beach
Photo 11 Photo 12 Photo 13
Photo 14
fl
s.
E�,z T f^ r� e �•
a se ,� x:
f��`-:sem, .� �:•. "a .$���.�.. � x �� ��'
a
yt
� �'..;Tay. ,..±�.. ,, .. ,.: .:f K>. wn" '..> y T�- j aa. .... :: k, r !:`.. � V � i, i x...✓.'fib.. <... w< �, n a,.r ._...
" s$�.. F ..,� � ,.:.. �.20:'.moi'.::',� ...`.. 4'. c "" .'ft,,...:•.&yi •:..y. .^., i. aC. ��� "*4^.s�I... '" .'fi. .. _�a'.;�v, •� °an`+<�. '.. a^,.£":Ls,, Els?%
.5-tea �¢ � s., •.stns.:'` a ;'� �, y�.�<�c�y4 *.- y�,k ;� t � s,. i s
Bulkhead
c
' Toe Erosion
�t
Erosion of Public Access Point Duck Pond Rd.
Photo . Photo 2 Photo 3 Bluff
F dation edge
E
5`S
r
d
� a
� x
N'
Photo 4 Photo 5
�0 .
F
� z
£ y.
Sd E
� 3 e-
�«
,E
w
E
M
V:
s
'u
rF +�
t�Y3v � � '""�d..d.S fi.�.•'�-- +.}*liya'�a.,y.. 'd" •...4 .�*.
Irv.`g
Gully
/rrE§ HAWKINS WEBB JAEGER PLLC
ENGINEERS ■ ARCHITECTS ■ SURVEYORS ■ PLANNERS
ESTAB 1872
WILLIAM L.JAEGER II, P.E., L.S
MATTHEW D. CRANE L.S
EDWARD R. MILLER,AIA
FRANCIS A.HAWKINS 1913
HERMAN P HAWKINS 1962
CHARLES S.WEBB JR.L.S 2004
January 18, 2006
Nicholas Aliano
970 Route# 25A
Miller Place,New York 11764
Re: (05-190)—Foundation inspection for new construction on tax parcel # 1000-83-1-11 & 12
Dear Mr. Aliano:
On January 9, 2006 I inspected the foundation on the above referenced tax parcel located in
Cutchogue,New York for the purpose of determining its' structural soundness.
The foundation was constructed on a relatively flat portion of the subject parcel which has a
slope with a maximum pitch of 1 on 2 commencing just off the rear wall of the foundation. The
lot has an upper soil stratum of silty sand and a lower stratum of fine to coarse sand (based upon
a test hole by Mc Donald Geoscience). The topographic and foundation location surveys reveal
that the rear wall of the foundation was constructed where the lowest natural grade was at
elevation 52.0. The foundation footing along the rear and right rear walls is 12"thick steel
reinforced on a 2' spread footing that steps from 2' to 6' and could be seen to be well into virgin
soil. The foundation location survey reveals that the top of footing (top of foundation stem wall)
for this foundation is at elevatiorl 54.6, which places the bottom of the footing 4'-6' into virgin
soil.
" The left side of the foundation is about 42' from the top of a 45' high bluff which has a slope of
approximately 1 on 1.2. The base of this bluff is approximately at elevation 9 and the bottom of
the footing adjacent to (and 42' from)the bluff is at elevation 54 making the footing 45' above
and 96' from the base of the bluff, which makes the theoretical slope from the foundation footing
to the toe of bluff a 1 on 2.1 slope.
Based upon the topography,the foundation elevation, and the reported nature of construction, I
find that the bottom of the footing was constructed on virgin soil uphill from a slope of 1 on 2 to
the rear and above a theoretical slope of 1 on 2.1 from the toe of the bluff. The soil bearing
capacity for the material on this site is about 2 ton per square foot and its' natural slope of repose
is approximately 1 on 1.5. Therefore, based upon the information provided,the foundation is
resting on structurally adequate material and the radiation of the loading is fully within the
surrounding material.
Should you have any questions, or wish something additional please feel free to 11.
of NEW r0
Sincerely, ��� il�VdtQ '��
William L. J er P.E.,L.S.
P
3239 Route 112—Bldg. 8-Suite 1, Medford, NY 11763 log
PHONE (631)732-7777 FAX(631) 732-7760 b�
Visit our web site at www.hwiaeger.com �SS���AL EHG��Ef-P
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
(Please include with Z.B.A. Application)
Applicant(s) ArC541011je2 M t"o
I. If building is existing and alterations/additions/renovations are proposed.
A Please give the dimensions and overall square footage of extensions beyond existing building.
Dimensions/size
Square footage
B Please give the dimensions and square footage of new proposed foundation areas which do not
extend beyond the existing building,
Dimensions/size
Square footage
II If land is vacant.
Please give dimensions and Qverasl squar otage of new construction
Dimension/size X
Square footage
Height
III Purpose and use of new construction requested in this application
Aliy � aJu
IV Additional information about the surrounding contours or nearby buildings that relate to the difficulty
in meeting the code requirement(s)
/�rDlcd.0 Cdrt/S-�c/rca/ D� mat G7�r+Pa � of — �S/o�PS
Ado
Seo /1PlLr� diric� S ccLi
7'V 1a �Zfaou
Tease �, o�r � of pr�joL
V Please subs pit vii (7) hotos/set§ after staki g corners of the proposed new construction.
7/02 \
Please note Further changes, after submitting the.above information, must be placed in writing and may
require a nei,i, Notice of Disapproval to shoot, changes to the initial plans If additional tune is needed,
please contact our QUiice, or please check with Building Department (765-1802) or Appeals Department
(765-1809) if you are not sure Thank you.
7
1 PATRICU C.MOORE
Attorney at Law
51020 Main Road
Southold,New York 11971
Tel. (631)765-4330
Fax.(631)765-4643
Margaret Rutkowski
Betsy Perkins
Secretary
January 26, 2006
Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals
Ruth Oliva, Chairwoman
Southold Town Hall
53095 Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
Re: Aliano Variance
(1) Variance from Bluff
(2 ) Variance from front yard (alternative relief)
Dear Chairwoman and Board members :
Enclosed please find planting plan required as a condition of
the Trustees permit prior to issuance of the certificate of
occupancy. In anticipation of the Zoning Board hearing Cramer
Consulting Group completed the planting plan immediately.
If you need anything else please do not hesitate to contact '
me.
Very t ly yours,
Patricia C. Moore
cc : Southold Town Trustees
Mr. Aliano
���, 'r r�w(� NII `�`� r:.;",•:�--'i
`o E LI C �4, ill t
t tt I
I ; t JAN 2 7 2006 `.-`_�!
s
Tov-ni f
OVERALL SITE - r' PLANTING NOTES:
NQ +1 - Appropriate erosion control measures to be taken to precent erosion of
SIJtry slope and silting of adjoining property and roads. Measures to Include,
A_\Q 1+-' but not limited to,stacked straw bales,silt screen fencing,mulching,etc.
Erosion control measures to be constantly monitored and appropriate
steps taken to Immediately correct and/or repair to provide proper protection.
Erosion control measures to remain ineffect until slope Is stabilized with
--_-_-- vegetation.
Where possible,existing trees,shrubs,stumps and roots to remain on
n slope to provide stability,provide opportunity for additional plant growth
and restablishment of previous vegetation.
O Slope to be hydro-seeded Immediately after final grading. Hydro-seeding
appllcatiuon and mixture to be according to manufacturer's specifications.
♦I \ \ 'f� Suitable plant material can be substituted for plant material specified on
\\.\ `\ this planting plan only with the approval of the landscape architect.
Jk
i' -�-i/ ii , -_ '� 1111- ( rY♦♦ \ \ \ \
i i/i �i i �� �_ � � 1 1 ♦ \ \
Year Plant material to be monitored for a two period to assure a minimum
��i /� iiii/ i -,i, ,_- ♦ 1 1 1 1 jr \
^'1\ \\\ survival rate of 60%during that period.
w\RAIS �� Proposed lawn area to be sod.
`^ .—._...-.--r mss--- /i/ - i — i i i-i.• \ 1 11 1 l \ \
{'r I -bs-- /i i i i ice/ �\ ♦rI 1 1 1 R 1 ` 1 `ISP\ ti 1 1 1 `\
- r %moi i i i i:l ��♦♦,��♦ 1 ` � 1F o6ss11 1 1 1 1'tN \ ,(
z5�� �-'/ -/i-i i�� � ♦♦♦♦ � \ 1 1 l 11L",g'v"�11 G`� r N
y"CA
$; 5l I\ 1 1244dl
X2.11
f_R 1rp i N s 1q-PM •-1�%:i:�v
Q7 , 9' •�_ \ �O`t,�tp� 1 19.RY I 1 1 1
11-MP`,
1,J \\\, I"•p i7' ` 1 ` ` 1 1 I 1 I i 1.11..ry ,`
Proposed Retaining Walls
r '�„ �� 1/ I 1 Each Approx.4'High
� 11
01
11
1
to, p 3V P'. PLANTING PLAN
5 EYOR ` ` � ALIANO AT CUTCHOGUE
P.O.BOX SURVEYORS.P.C.
P.O.TRA a0s ; ; 5 ;;;; Cr ler C nsLll 'I$Group
SOUTH 0,
11971 1 1 t"
SOUTHOLD,N.V.11971 1 1 K / // Lwfion:
"'""Y 13.100' ! / I/ I' e/o Glenn Court,w/o Duck Pond Road,Cutchogue,Town of Southold
LOT NUMBERS REFER TO'MAP OF VISTA BLUFF`FILED G� \ / CwplYM feN waT,,:.R-/r2flN�y�K AolpWp�wery Praj eci AAUN01 Ta LatA 1000A3-1-11$12
MARCH 15,1968 AS FILE NO.5989. \ G 7 1 / P.O.ItoX 8535,Mille fldte,NC W Yell'11764
��,\ 1'\9 ,•
(631)476m=4 nava 01/26/06 y;.,b: As Scaled
G
ELEVATIONS REFERENCED TO N.G.V.D.
Daip-I ay. TWC D—ay: TWC 0_1.d8y:
1000-83-01 11 ArE.A=6,4'4 Sit.FT TO TIE LINE Ro`ism[
'1000-8-3-01 t_AREA=34.324 SO.FT TO TIE LINE
amt 1 or 3
PLANT LAYOUT PLAN ` `` \ ` �F E o
OK
1 11 \ \ o
1 11 1 1 11 1 1P�♦1 y / / 3\\JVA
l li 1 l l
40\ R4 \\
1 1 1 • 1 , - 1 1 \ \ oc \
1 �
Proposed Retaining Walls 1 1 l •1 l \ 1 I I\ i ` \ \'
Each Approx. 4' High l 1 1 �l P l \ \ \ 5-M� 0020
20 kA \ �o
I d Rq I I \ 8-MP \ \ \ \ \ \ \
101 \
pdse�j \\ \ \ \\ \ 3 1\JV \
Lowp re�i
-RfFf-TO
\ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\
0 o
0. I I I 12-M PI I I I f \
19-fIZR 10l- PM
1 I 000
rn \ \ \
6-'R 1 11 I \ \ \17-M P
_JV Cramer Consulting Group 01/26/06
0' 10' 20' 30' 40' 1 , l \ l ` I,
PLANTING PLAN
ALIANO AT CUTCHOGUE
/ } Sheet 2 of 3
•, 1
PLANT SCHEDULE -
Symbol Scientific Name Common Name i Size Quantity
iv Juniperus vis iniana Eastern Redcedar 6-7' 17
MP Myrica pensylvanica Northern Bayberry 18-24" 35
RR Rosa Ru osa _ Rugosa Rose 18-24" 78
RRS Rosa Ru osa Ru osa Rose 6-12" 40
RA Rhus Aromatica _ Fran rant Sumac 112-18" j 20
PM Prunus maritime Beach Plum 18-24—j— 47
Existing
'---- — -� - Grade 3"Mulch
A
PLANTING DETAILS - - ;�;,,
L { ProposedGrade
n
J
Ic «. ��'J� 6.,
8„Min.
L,i v Planting on _
I 1v
6"Min. 1 11 1
Slope Detail /\
Note:Sec other Planting Details for more infornwtion.Not to=dc.
I
�•Tree trpriksup`poi19 S/N'=
irubberthtue or'equal c W �
Slope to roan muxr `"�--^-1.1•�augCguy wire~� - �� �!�J /p,y�
3"wood mule •C` q�
J"wwal 4�h
a•'mound arvwd eche of pN Stake or equal 6"mound around edge of pit
Ltancn t/)of hnrlap ball Finished i de >'
Backidl mktsu Finished T�per secs
DrpchWarks whb ball s&c Depth s•arlc with OWI size j`Roos ball� Loosen 1/3 of burlap ball UQ 1 !p
Backfill mixture 00 bb
Undisturbed sells as per spec r ^r9C�6
Uadhturtatl rulh Cedar stakes minimum
g Evergreen Planting 16 (11�
Shrub Planting l foot into undisturbed soils.
Note:Trecs to be staked with Cramer Consultin Grou 01/26/06
Detail Vol to scale Detail Not to scale. short stakes OR long cedar stakes 9 P
as shown.
PLANTING PLAN
ALIANO AT CUTCHOGUE
Sheet 2 of 3